This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Senate Obstructionism

Jump to new

So you don't think +10% import tariff, + 10% GST + 25% LCT is ENOUGH tax already???? What if we decided to increase your income taxes by "only" another 5 or 10%?

You don't think with a $20B+ surplus and billions more sitting in government funds that there isn't enough money already to pay for better education etc etc??

There are 2 arguments - 1) where should the money they collect in tax be spent? (Priorities), and 2) Do they ALREADY collect enough money from tax??

1) Argue away....
2) They ALREADY COLLECT MORE THAN ENOUGH!

Aussie senate - please don't cave on this one - it's a stupid tax increases that will achieve nothing!

Beej
 

Yes, beej. Correct. More arguments to put a nail in the coffin of this stupid tax of envy and resentfullness. It's a revenue grab, and any argument about getting those rich barstards, or saving the nation from ruin is just pure claptrap. They are just hitting the average Jill & Joe, where they get maximum bang for their buck.
 
2020,I've given up drinking alcopops and put my luxury car on hold what else can this government do to shaft me
 
justjohn said:
2020,I've given up drinking alcopops and put my luxury car on hold what else can this government do to shaft me
Click to expand...

JJ, you forgot to add that you are no longer going to save the world by installing solar cells on your roof.
 
2020hindsight said:
so lol - who started this LCT then - currently at 25% for cars over 57K - all existing numbers ?

ihey Buddy
maybe you're showing your colours more like it
Click to expand...
By which I meant
1. Johnny intoduced this tax
2. Buddy, - I was referring to the fact that you're criticising without checking the quantum of what we are talking about - seriously trivial for a car $50K to $60K.
in fact no change for a car of $57K
 
Beej said:
So you don't think +10% import tariff, + 10% GST + 25% LCT is ENOUGH tax already???? What if we decided to increase your income taxes by "only" another 5 or 10%.
Beej
Click to expand...

I don't think it would worry 2020hindsight, I doubt very much that he pays taxes.
 
Calliope said:
I don't think it would worry 2020hindsight, I doubt very much that he pays taxes.
Click to expand...

Hey calliope, if you've never bought a car for $50, nursing it lovingly so that all parts share an equal strain - reading Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance at nights - you're letting one of the joys of life slip past.

My son changes oil on his car when his mate turfs out his oil. - call it recycling

PS I probably pay more tax than James Packer
 
PS My point here is that I have no problem with the Senate being a house of review. (I thought the Democrats did a great job in making the GST fairer for retirees and people doing it hard for instance - bread and butter issues as they say - suicidal for the Dems as it turned out - but we move on) ..

just that this one is getting ridiculous , (and the quantum of the proposal is being ignored with all the hype about "NEW TAXES !!") when we need some money in the coffers to correct the woeful decline in scientists and professionals and trades and teachers and nurses and etc etc (compared to requirements) that has occurred on Johnny's watch.

Gents, You'll recall I'm sure that there has been income tax relief (in the same budget that is being frustrated) as a tradeoff . - Or do you conveniently ignore that one.

PS for the quantum of what we are talking about - see post #10

Sure a car that currently costs $110K will now cost $113K. -
But a car that costs $57K won't change one iota ( as I understand it).
(And you can pretty much pro-rata between those two prices I believe)
 


Considering how both fed and state govts of the past have squandered massive windfalls, and to no benefit of any of the problems mentioned. Then no I don’t think we need to fill the government’s pockets with new taxes considering how much we are taxed already. I have not seen this labor govt do anything that makes me think they are any different from the last bunch that was in.

Better spending of what taxes they get would be prefered to having more taxes ripped out of gen pop.
 
Cunning Kev may have taken out insurance that the pesky Senate can't do to him what they did to Gough. The new governor general installed today is a close friend of his wife.
 
This thread seems to have drifted away from what I see as a very disturbing issue, that is that one Senator elected by a small number of voters in one state has the power to control what an elected Government can and can't do. Is that how we want our democracy to operate?
 
Details aside my father told me last night that if 3 bills in a row are rejected in the senate then a double dissillusion comes into play.

does anyone know anything about this or was my dad just scaremongaring me during the 7.30 report?
 
Calliope said:
Cunning Kev may have taken out insurance that the pesky Senate can't do to him what they did to Gough. The new governor general installed today is a close friend of his wife.
Click to expand...

Your (inferred) connection between the senate and the GG dosn't make a lot of sense . What the senate does and what the GG does are entirely independant, according to the constitution anyway. To act otherwise would be illegal. Are you suggesting there was some sort of collusion between the senate and the GG in 1975 (I assume that what you are alluding to)? Equally if the GG is a friend of krudd's missus, are you suggesting some sort of influence might take place? If you are to any of the above, then I suggest you are drawing a long bow whilst standing on thin ice.

In any case, what does it matter if the senate is obstructionist to the lower house? In this particular case the government of the day has no mandate to introduce this legislation (especially so shortly after an election). The senate is quite within their right to obstruct this legislation. That's what they are there for. IMO, the system is working as it was designed to. To say otherwise is just pandering to the elitist, democracy hating, whinging, I wanna rule the world type, left wing loonies.
 
Hendrik said:
Details aside my father told me last night that if 3 bills in a row are rejected in the senate then a double dissillusion comes into play.

does anyone know anything about this or was my dad just scaremongaring me during the 7.30 report?
Click to expand...

A double dissoultion does not automatically come into play. The government can call for a double dissolution if a bill is rejected 3 times.
 

Actually brain, Yes.
As I explained in my previous post, the system is working as it was designed. Either you are very young or you don't have a good memory. There is nothing new in what the senate is doing. You have 2 solutions available to you:-
1) Get rid of the senate and put something else in its place. I don't have any idea what that might be but if you go down the path of only having a single house, then watch out mate. If you think things are bad with this system just contemplate how bad it would be with only one house.
2) You, "the voters" can control this by not voting for such dumb assed dingle (oops, single) issue parties. Perhaps the system could be improved by weeding out some of these parties - maybe a 2 tiered voting system for the senate. Just a thought.

The problem with wanting to dismantle the senate over this issue is that it is a case of gross over reaction to such a minor issue (even though I strongly oppose the imposition of this TAX). Quite frankly it is NOT "a disturbing issue". The senate consists of 76 seats comprising:-
Greens - 5
ALP - 32
Country Liberal - 1
Family First - 1
Independent - 1
Liberal 32
National 4

To say that 1 senator "elected by a small number of voters in one state has the power to control what an elected Government can and can't do" is a very naive statement. Which one? What about the other 75? Were they all asleep? This is politics we're talking about here.

And by the way this post is entirely on topic. After all, 2020, whilst he did place the title of "Senate Obstructionism" on the thread, targeted the car tax legislation. What exactly is wrong with discussing that issue?
 
nioka said:
A double dissoultion does not automatically come into play. The government can call for a double dissolution if a bill is rejected 3 times.
Click to expand...

Actually as implied by the term "double" dissolution, the (same) bill only has to have been rejected twice by the senate to provide the trigger. What's more the double dissolution election is "special", as it involves the FULL re-election of the both houses - Ie the entire lower house PLUS the netire senate goes up for election. Normally, only half the senate is re-election each term (that's why senators are elected for 6 years not 3).

As for this crap that one senator is controlling the government, well, it takes 76 to tango as previously pointed out. The fact a bill may be rejected by only a one vote MARGIN does make that one vote the decider! It's all the votes cast against the bill collectively that caused it to be voted down. That's called DEMOCRACY.

Cheers,

Beej
 
Very nice of you to suggest I may be very young Buddy. But in truth I am old enough for there to be some doubt about the accuracy of my memory. And I am aware that the Senate has been obstructionist for political reasons on numerous occasions with all sides of politics being guilty. What concerns me is that the Opposition can be relied upon to oppose for no other reason than that they are opposition which leaves these single platform independents who don't have the resources to research all the issues adequately with power to interfere with the ability of an elected Government to govern. Or to place undue pressure and gain concessions that are not available to others (remember Brian Harradine). And your solution of not voting for such "dumb-assed dingle" parties doesn't work. I'm from NSW and we didn't it was a couple of other states.

PS: I just had a quick look back over my post and can't see where I suggested "dismantling the Senate".
 

Aaah, so you're an old barstard. Just like me. Sorry, I was not saying that you personally were suggesting to dismantle the senate. It was "others" not necessarily on this forum. There are plenty of folks suggesting that. I'm not sure I go along with your argument about being from NSW, and it was a "couple of other states". Does that mean that they don't matter? A bit elitist. So what do you suggest, if you dont like the senate? The only (slightly meaningful) suggestion I can come up with is some sort of 2 tiered system that weeds out the crap. Butanyway, I guess, as beej says, that's DEMOCRACY. You put up with the good and the bad. And yes I do remember Harradine, and I'm glad he's gone. Is he dead yet?

Personally, on this issue I don't have any problem with what the senate is doing. And I don't believe the liberals are doing it just to be obstructionist, rather they just don't like the policy. There is no mandate for labor to increase taxes, especially so soon after the election. Fair enough in my book.

It's a pity the opposition couldn't do the same with the alchopop tax (No I don't drink the stuff) and the solar rebate (Yes, I would but only if the government chipped in - and I have sound reasoning behind that statement but that's for another thread).
 
brianwh said:
... (remember Brian Harradine). ..
Click to expand...
just what I was thinking.
I wonder what it would take to get Family First's Fielding to vote yes? (many hints and references to same in articles - Rudd saying it was out of the question etc )
Bound to be something pretty 19th century - like tax deductions for petrol used when you go to church or something (just a guess - I'll apologise if it's "progressive" and/or the slightest bit constructive.

Taxfree sherry for the bishop maybe? hic.
 
Yes, OK, Harradine was a pain in the everywhere. And this new boy is no different. But at least the legislation is defeated. For now anyway. Good riddance to bad policy.

Let's just get one thng straight here. Probably around 50% (my guess is probably significantly more) of the population would vote this legislation out. It is NOT one man holding up the government as some of you suggest. No where near the same as the crimes that Harradine was responsible for. This is democracy working for the opposition, as opposed to working for the government. Or are (some of you) saying that it is only democracy when the government gets it's way, and obstructionist when the opposition gets it's way? I seem to recall (some of) you were not saying that when Howard held the ball. Remember, this is a 2 way street.

I've got another solution. Maybe we should have like a "Roman Senate" where there were no "political parties", just a free for all with everyone getting their say. Then after the debate if you don't like what the other Roman voted for, you kill him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
Where will all the money come from to fund the stimulus?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
tech/a
R
The 7 Moats of Quality Companies
Replies
7
Views
7K
divs4ever
N
The Australian Human Rights Commission: A national disgrace
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
15K
Tisme
D
Policy implications of a Clinton/Trump presidency
Replies
0
Views
4K
DeepLearning
D
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...