Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
Neither is a single mother claiming benefits created by elected governments of either persuasion.
Click to expand...

Of course.

And the laws should be changed.

You also mentioned Howard/Costello.

Did Rudd/Gillard do anything in the past 6 years? (I'm sure Syd will have a cunning answer to that one...)
 
DB008 said:
Of course.

And the laws should be changed.

You also mentioned Howard/Costello.

Did Rudd/Gillard do anything in the past 6 years? (I'm sure Syd will have a cunning answer to that one...)
Click to expand...

Only that both parties have pandered to the magic pudding scenario of goodies to all and lower taxes.

Tony has been caught out with the lie. I still wonder if he believed he could cut taxes and increase spending like he said :confused:

I will say that the few times Labor tried to attack tax expenditures in the recent past, that Abbott rode to the rescue of rentier class. He's also removing the carbton tax but not the compensation - so I'd argue is pro welfare in that sense as well.

The budget "crisis" is just as much about the lack of revenue as it is about over spending. Both parties need to take blame for foisting on us all their pet projects that end up wasting billions. Far better to have an efficient and fair level of taxation that doesn't discourage hard work. The Australian tax system taxes hard work far too high and encourages far too much speculation in asset price growth. To me that is not a path to long term prosperity.

Now let me see how I can join the rentier class and get me some sacred cow tax expenditures :D
 
DB008 said:
Of course.


Did Rudd/Gillard do anything in the past 6 years? (I'm sure Syd will have a cunning answer to that one...)
Click to expand...

I believe they tried to cut benefits to some single parents, and got the appropriate roasting from the welfare lobbies.

Gillard's popularity got a beating over that, but at least they recognised there was an issue.
 
I think its pretty funny how the Noalition can put forward a Doctor tax (co payment) to fund a medical research fund, and yet want to remove the Carbon Tax (co payment) that basically funds renewables research and development...is the message, renewable energy is bad and Medical research is good?
 
So_Cynical said:
I think its pretty funny how the Noalition can put forward a Doctor tax (co payment) to fund a medical research fund, and yet want to remove the Carbon Tax (co payment) that basically funds renewables research and development...is the message, renewable energy is bad and Medical research is good?
Click to expand...

Don't forget that 10% of the Carbon Tax goes to the U.N.....for what exactly? (5 star hotels and F Class travel world wide...)
 
DB008 said:
Don't forget that 10% of the Carbon Tax goes to the U.N.....for what exactly? (5 star hotels and F Class travel world wide...)
Click to expand...

+ the $599.000,000 Combet gave to the UN after the Cam Cum conference in Mexico a couple of years ago.

What was that for?
 
So_Cynical said:
is the message, renewable energy is bad and Medical research is good?
Click to expand...

I think that the message is simpler than that. It's largely business which pays the carbon tax whereas it's individuals who will be paying the doctors. So it's a shift in who pays.

A Labor government taxed business (mostly) and a Coalition government is shifting the tax to individuals. No surprises there, it's a very predictable outcome in a "big picture" sense. :2twocents
 
Smurf1976 said:
I think that the message is simpler than that. It's largely business which pays the carbon tax whereas it's individuals who will be paying the doctors. So it's a shift in who pays.

A Labor government taxed business (mostly) and a Coalition government is shifting the tax to individuals. No surprises there, it's a very predictable outcome in a "big picture" sense. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Fits in nicely with the way tax expenditures have been left untouched.
 
There is a proposal to drug test the unemployed.

Why not I say, should the taxpayer subsidise an individual's a drug habit ?

As long as it applies to politicians and public servants as well.
 
SirRumpole said:
There is a proposal to drug test the unemployed.

Why not I say, should the taxpayer subsidise an individual's a drug habit ?

As long as it applies to politicians and public servants as well.
Click to expand...

:xyxthumbs

Though I'd question the cost benefit of it.

Should it apply to pensioners, family tax benefits recipients, families receiving child care fees rebates? Maybe anyone receiving any form of Govt payment or benefit should be tested? Afterall, any money received from the Government could be used to support their drug habit.

Should we test a persons hair so that we get a long term view of their drug use (or lack thereof)? Gets around issues of going clean just before a test.

Hopefully they will also test for prescription drugs as well. Oxycodone is the favoured drug of choice these days. Hill Billy heroine is it's nickname in the states. Deaths from abuse are heading towards 1000 a year, prescription rates are on a hockey stick like trajectory.

Doubt that would fly though, because it would catch too many of the "middle class." probably catch the odd politician as well.
 
sydboy007 said:
:xyxthumbs

Though I'd question the cost benefit of it.

Should it apply to pensioners, family tax benefits recipients, families receiving child care fees rebates? Maybe anyone receiving any form of Govt payment or benefit should be tested? Afterall, any money received from the Government could be used to support their drug habit.

Should we test a persons hair so that we get a long term view of their drug use (or lack thereof)? Gets around issues of going clean just before a test.

Hopefully they will also test for prescription drugs as well. Oxycodone is the favoured drug of choice these days. Hill Billy heroine is it's nickname in the states. Deaths from abuse are heading towards 1000 a year, prescription rates are on a hockey stick like trajectory.

Doubt that would fly though, because it would catch too many of the "middle class." probably catch the odd politician as well.
Click to expand...


I think it would be random testing, so the costs could be kept down. While I accept the point that all receivers of government benefits could be "targets", people on USB where a drug habit could inhibit their ability to hold down a job should be the first cabs off the rank, as others qualify for benefits by reason of old age or children.
 
SirRumpole said:
I think it would be random testing, so the costs could be kept down. While I accept the point that all receivers of government benefits could be "targets", people on USB where a drug habit could inhibit their ability to hold down a job should be the first cabs off the rank, as others qualify for benefits by reason of old age or children.
Click to expand...

Well, shouldn't we be out to catch drug addicted parents as much as welfare bludgers? Come on Rumpole, think of the children /sarc

I can just see a random drug test as being a massive cost. It will be geographically spread all around Australia. There's over 700,000 unemployed. What % should be tested each year? Do you use profiling to try and maximise positive tests? The administrative cost, let alone the actual test costs would be massive. Does the Govt pay for their travel expenses? What drugs are tested for? What happens if you test positive? How do you cope with the issues of a person not turning up / being able to turn up. How much notice would someone get - less notice harder to avoid, but also more likely to conflict with say going for a job interview or a doctors appointment.

Then you ask the question do you test the same person multiple times in a year? IF not then once you do your test you know it's safe to go and use? I just see it being as useful as the war on drugs have been. It might make people feel safer, but it's just lots of money for little community benefit.
 
sydboy007 said:
Well, shouldn't we be out to catch drug addicted parents as much as welfare bludgers? Come on Rumpole, think of the children /sarc

I can just see a random drug test as being a massive cost. It will be geographically spread all around Australia. There's over 700,000 unemployed. What % should be tested each year? Do you use profiling to try and maximise positive tests? The administrative cost, let alone the actual test costs would be massive. Does the Govt pay for their travel expenses? What drugs are tested for? What happens if you test positive? How do you cope with the issues of a person not turning up / being able to turn up. How much notice would someone get - less notice harder to avoid, but also more likely to conflict with say going for a job interview or a doctors appointment.

Then you ask the question do you test the same person multiple times in a year? IF not then once you do your test you know it's safe to go and use? I just see it being as useful as the war on drugs have been. It might make people feel safer, but it's just lots of money for little community benefit.
Click to expand...

Yes, all fair points. Apparently they did it in NZ, but it's tougher here because of the State responsibilities.

Obviously you can't test for every prescription drug, but if you start with cannibis, heroin, meths, cocaine you would get the most destructive drugs.

As to notice, if it's their turn they get told when they turn up to Centrelink on their monthly visit. I don't know the specifics of testing for every drug, but if you can do it with a mouth swab then that can be taken by current staff.

If they test positive they get referred to a drug treatment program. Their continuing benefits rely on a satisfactory result, and once tested positive they will be subject to further routine tests.

At the least, the prospect of being tested could persuade people to give up their habit.
 
Malcolm Turnbull just gave a press conference

from his own lips

"Andrew Bolt says he is a friend of the government

with friends like him, we don't need enemies"


You said it Malcolm
 
Last week Mr Abbott told a room full of mining executives that the coal industry should not be demonised and that it was Australia's destiny to bring affordable energy to the world.

"If there was one fundamental problem, above all else, with the carbon tax it was that it said . . . that a commodity which in many years is our biggest single export somehow should be left in the ground and not sold," he said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...eling-happy-20140602-39f13.html#ixzz33Wl0RIFx

Tony needs to have a quick chat with his resource minister to understand iron ore is the top export by a margin close to 50%. The fact he's ignoring the social and economic costs of mining coal and continuing to burn is not good for the long term economic health of the country.
 
SirRumpole said:
Malcolm Turnbull just gave a press conference
from his own lips
"Andrew Bolt says he is a friend of the government
with friends like him, we don't need enemies"
You said it Malcolm
Click to expand...
The budget is a dog and Malcolm knows it. Political over-reach.

Bolt is following the wrong path here.

If the 'Doctor Tax' $ isn't even going towards paying off the deficit, what's the bl--dy point of it!

Palmer and PUP will lap it up, and likely make themselves heroes in the Senate.
 
Pic sums it up.
Governments have to sell a Budget.

This one hasn't sold in any palatable form. Clive Palmer knows it, and so does Malcolm Turnbull. Medicare $7 co-payment, right up there with '..there will be no carbon tax..'. It's an older population in this country.

Abandon co-payment PM Abbott, or I vote ALP next time.
Hockey_screwed.jpg
 
Top