The Abbott Government

[chiff]

Anyone know how the wealth distribution rates in Australia compare to that in the US?For instance twenty percent hold 80 percent of the wealth-something like that that relates to relative equality in the different populations.

 

[Julia]

Anyone know how the wealth distribution rates in Australia compare to that in the US?For instance twenty percent hold 80 percent of the wealth-something like that that relates to relative equality in the different populations.

In the wake of an answer to your above question, the next question you could ask might be "why is it so?"

 

[SirRumpole]

Anyone know how the wealth distribution rates in Australia compare to that in the US?For instance twenty percent hold 80 percent of the wealth-something like that that relates to relative equality in the different populations.

I'm sure a google for something like "Australia wealth distribution" may reveal something, like perhaps

http://theconversation.com/income-and-wealth-inequality-how-is-australia-faring-23483

 

[Julia]

The point Jessica is making is that the Abbott Government has completely failed to sell the reforms. In my view (and many others) it is due to the fact that the budget is a highly ideological and unfair collection of budget measures.

Your preferred alternative would appear to be the Labor way of just keeping on spending, increasing debt, so that perhaps you won't have to service that debt, but your children probably will.
Of course people don't like it when governments cut spending. But as I've suggested before, for the taxpayer dollars to be made available for your children to have subsidised tertiary education, someone else is going to have to do without, such as the carer of someone with severe disability, dementia, or someone who has a mental illness who cannot get a much needed psychiatric bed in a psychotic crisis.
We all want what we want, Knobby.

There has always been something to be negative about. Up to the individual whether that's the only way they see it, or whether instead they'll say "this situation is what it is, so I have to figure out a way to make the best of it". Kids doing it tough will need to combine resources and share accommodation. We've all done that, or most of us. And that first home doesn't have to be a family home in a good suburb. Start small after you've done the sums for what return your investment will deliver. Or live with your parents, or share with friends, in order to buy the first place as an investment. Lots of choices. But if you don't believe they exist, then you'll never see them. Too focused on what you hate.

 

[SirRumpole]

someone else is going to have to do without, such as the carer of someone with severe disability, dementia, or someone who has a mental illness who cannot get a much needed psychiatric bed in a psychotic crisis.

Have you ever given any thought to the possibility that a reason that there are too few psychiatric beds is that there are too few qualified staff to service them ?

If the taxpayers want services then they should be prepared to contribute something towards the availability of those services.

 

[Knobby22]

I disagree.

I want the Liberal government to make cuts. There are many ways this can be achieved. I believe in Liberal values as espoused by their founder.

I don't mind if they make tougher rules and cut out a lot of the middle class welfare that Howard and then Gillard put in.

I have said I agree with some of the policies such as having a small price to pay to visit the doctor (though maybe there should be a smaller limit for pensioners). I am even for the fuel tax rise though I don't see why diesel should miss out.

It is true that as part of the unemployment rules the Coalition will be giving some money to the Salvation Army etc. to help people living on the Street but I think this is a bit harsh. Surely they can achieve their aims in other ways.

Why change the rules to allow banks to sell investment products with commissions rather than giving proper advice (I mean Joe Hockeys's Mum got ripped off). (There is a good article on that in yesterday's Age. An international advisory firm followed a large number of investors and found a large percentage of investors got ripped off without ever realising it and very few got good advice.)

That the age pension isn't reduced, people have super forced on them now so surely the demands on the age pension will drop over time. It is pretty low as it is.

Why are we cutting State budgets forcing public hospitals to be downgraded over time with the view of forcing a GST rise.

Why not give a carrot to encourage people to work to 70 rather than just forcing them to? Some people will not be capable.

I have a view that it is best for all Australia that the kids that go to Uni are the smartest ones, not the richest ones.
Even before Whitlam there was a way for smart kids to go to Uni, there were called scholarships. Why not narrow the number of university courses instead?

I have gripes that the coalition could deal with to lower taxes and meet the budget:

Why are the taxes lower for mining as compared to oil drillers?
Why are we hearing there will be tax cuts coming at the next election from these savings, isn't this a direct take from the poor and give to the rich approach?
Why has the company tax fallen? Why are foreign companies allowed to make millions and pay no tax? The fourth largest mining company in the world XStrata has many mines in Australia yet never pays any taxes. (They do donate heavily to both major parties though).
Why have we let investors drive up house prices with tax advantages that ordinary first home buyers cannot compete with and also drain the government coffers? Also why do we let foreign buyers also drive up houses (I thank PM Kev for that!).

Why are we letting people come in with working visas yet not following them up to see they are not being abused?
Why are we bringing in firemen with working visas (for gods sake!) rather than training our own children?

When Howard bought in his tough budget, everyone took bigger and tougher cuts than these and it was seen as fair.
He also flagged some of the changes and never lied. Why can't we have a government that does that?

 

[Knobby22]

Of course people don't like it when governments cut spending. But as I've suggested before, for the taxpayer dollars to be made available for your children to have subsidised tertiary education, someone else is going to have to do without, such as the carer of someone with severe disability, dementia, or someone who has a mental illness who cannot get a much needed psychiatric bed in a psychotic crisis.
.

As stated above, there will be less money due to the cuts to the States, yet we can expect tax cuts in time for the elections! It doesn't follow that if you cut one public service that it will automatically flow to other services that are needed.

 

[sydboy007]

Anyone know how the wealth distribution rates in Australia compare to that in the US?For instance twenty percent hold 80 percent of the wealth-something like that that relates to relative equality in the different populations.

We've moved back into a time where capital wins over labour. Australia has a tax system that rewards converting income into capital gain combined with rewards for speculation.

John oliver shows it pretty well how it is i n the USA, and we're not far behind in Australia

[video=youtube_share;LfgSEwjAeno]http://youtu.be/LfgSEwjAeno?t=12m7s[/video]

 

[artist]

1) What is Buffet's understanding of Australian socioeconomic situation?

2) Do you think Buffet might just have been commenting on American socioeconomics, rather than Australian?

3) Do you think America's SE situation could possibly different to Australia's?

Astonishingly absurd irony leads straight to astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy!

Sheesh, and the left fancies themselves as intellectuals. The evidence strongly points to the opposite.

Basilio offered the opinion that “This government's budget has decided that the whole problem with the out of whack budget lies with the poor, the old, the unemployed and those with disabilities. So they have coped quite extreme measures in an attempt to "balance the books" ”, and quoted Gittins’ article in support of this view.

Knobby22 and SirRumpole said they agree with Gittins. SirRumpole added that he saw this budget’s priorities and policies as those of “the elitist class warriors we currently have.” and Orr thinks that “The majority of Australians agree with with Ross Gittens on this issue.”

Your response was “Class warriors? Well that takes the biscuit Horace, the most absurdly ironic post on ASF.... ever.“

I thought of at least 3 ways in which you might have interpreted SirRumpole’s comment to be “absurdly ironic”, but you didn’t elaborate. So, at its simplest and in the context established above, the issue seems to be one of class warriors and therefore (necessarily) class warfare, a state of affairs that Warren Buffett recognises.

You know, I am sure, that class warfare is not limited to just one country, economy or socioeconomic order in the world, so for someone to hold the opinion that it is present in Australia is not an opinion to be derided or dismissed out of hand.

As to your questions to me:

1) I have no idea what Buffet's understanding of Australia’s socioeconomic situation is, and I suspect you don’t either. I do know however that he understands that, to the extent that socioeconomic policies in Australia mirror those in USA, then class warfare is being waged here too.

2) I don’t “think Buffet might just have been commenting on American socioeconomics, rather than Australian . ” I know for a fact he was referring specifically to his proposed “Buffett Rule” in USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...class-has-won/2011/03/03/gIQApaFbAL_blog.html where, in the video at the bottom of the page, he elaborates a little, and note especially his point at about 2 minutes).

3) I “think America's SE situation could possibly [be] different to Australia's “, but the differences are small and diminishing, and hence do not invalidate prima facie the use of the term class-warfare in Australia.

“Astonishingly absurd irony leads straight to astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy!”

Because you accused SirRumpole of the absurd irony, I take it the “astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy” gibe is directed to me. That s an offensive comment to make, and an erroneous assertion.

“Sheesh, and the left fancies themselves as intellectuals. The evidence strongly points to the opposite.”

An intended insult that deserves only the response that, if you are of the opinion that there are no intellectuals on the left with regard to socioeconomics, you have not read enough.

 

[sydboy007]

So it seems the Abbott Government isn't happy with the ever diminishing $$$ in households pockets after the carbon tax was revoked.

Now they want to whack every internet user, and if you don't actually use it I'm sure some of the companies you buy goods and services from do, with a metadata storage tax. iiNet are already forecasting it might cost in the $5-10 per month range for each internet subscriber. Why so expensive you might ask?

Imagine keeping a log of every webpage you visit, every connection you computer makes for say skype or VOIP, file transfers. You name it, every IP your home and mobile internet connects to will be recorded. Businesses alone will generate petabytes of fairly sensitive information to be stored at pretty much their own expense so the Government or agencies can access whenever they want to without a warrant.

These stores of metadata will turn into giant honey pots for the hacker world. Insurance companies will be rubbing their hands over increased policy revenue to insure against data breaches or fines by the Govt.

Factor in that ISPs will now have to come up with some way to automate the stripping out of all private data so that only the metadata is stored. I'm not sure how likely it is to be a totally manual process.

Don't be fooled by the term metadata either. The Govt likes to make out it's not particularly revealing, but just a few days worth of it can show a lot about your personal life. Studies have already shown using metadata it was possible to determine if someone had an illness, who their friends were, where they worked and lived. With enough sample points you can have a very intimate understanding of a an individual's life.

Some interesting questions pop up with the policy like:

* If a data breach occurs can the data be relied on in court? Is it possible to guarantee the data has not been altered after a breach?

* What kind of fines will ISPs face if they incorrectly store private data along with metadata? It makes the information potentially even more valuable to hackers.

* Roughly $40 a year makes this surveillance tech pointless, and I'd argue anyone doing something illegal would be using VPNs and apps that provide encrypted messaging and voice calls. SGP technologies has released the android based blackphone that provides near NSA levels of security out of the box for a relatively low price.

So while the $150-200 a month NBN internet plans didn't happen, the Abbott Government does seem to be set on making a significant contribution to the cost of internet access in the near future. Add this to their draconian plans for protection of geo blocking and the Australia tax on media content, while making ISPs into enforcement agencies, and we're slowly moving the way towards a covert police state.

 

[SirRumpole]

while making ISPs into enforcement agencies, and we're slowly moving the way towards a covert police state.

I think you covered the issue well.

Police just can't be trusted with this sort of data, it has been known for some to maliciously access or alter data to secure convictions.

Also the possible covert selling of data to other parties, like insurance companies, finance companies and potential employers is of concern.

 

[Julia]

Have you ever given any thought to the possibility that a reason that there are too few psychiatric beds is that there are too few qualified staff to service them ?

If you think that's the case, then perhaps you could put up some evidence to that effect.
Most people with psychosis, at times of crisis, simply need a safe place where they feel supported.

If the taxpayers want services then they should be prepared to contribute something towards the availability of those services.

Indeed. Which is essentially my point. In contrast, you and others who criticise the government's attempts to redress Labor's ticking up of the credit card, seem to believe no remedial measures need to be taken.

As stated above, there will be less money due to the cuts to the States, yet we can expect tax cuts in time for the elections! It doesn't follow that if you cut one public service that it will automatically flow to other services that are needed.

Agree about the tax cuts, Knobby. I'm sure, however, that you absolutely understand the point I was making in terms of the total 'pool of taxpayer funded dollars'. Unless you are prepared to sanction an increase in taxes in various areas, and/or an increase in the GST, there is simply only so far the government can make the pool stretch.

You probably don't need to worry anyway. Given Labor's breathtaking hypocrisy of now not even agreeing with their own measures for savings when they were in government, plus PUP's grandstanding (and ignorance), most of the government's proposed budget will not get through the Senate.

So Australia can go on borrowing to pay the interest and the debt will continue to grow, and everyone will sail on, happy that they are not required to personally make any adjustment to their demands.

 

[noco]

If you think that's the case, then perhaps you could put up some evidence to that effect.
Most people with psychosis, at times of crisis, simply need a safe place where they feel supported.


Indeed. Which is essentially my point. In contrast, you and others who criticise the government's attempts to redress Labor's ticking up of the credit card, seem to believe no remedial measures need to be taken.


Agree about the tax cuts, Knobby. I'm sure, however, that you absolutely understand the point I was making in terms of the total 'pool of taxpayer funded dollars'. Unless you are prepared to sanction an increase in taxes in various areas, and/or an increase in the GST, there is simply only so far the government can make the pool stretch.

You probably don't need to worry anyway. Given Labor's breathtaking hypocrisy of now not even agreeing with their own measures for savings when they were in government, plus PUP's grandstanding (and ignorance), most of the government's proposed budget will not get through the Senate.

So Australia can go on borrowing to pay the interest and the debt will continue to grow, and everyone will sail on, happy that they are not required to personally make any adjustment to their demands.

Everybody is happy so long as money is flowing into their pockets from the Government but do not try to take it back because you will make yourself unpopular and that is what is happening now with the current Government.....nobody wants to pay for the previous Governments extravaganza.

You cannot make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.

 

[sydboy007]

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/co...ons/papers/Final_Report_Part_1/chapter_12.htm

Labor were foolish to ignore it. Abbott is foolish to ignore it and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce a report that will quite likely have a lot of similar recommendations. At the very least Hockey could have used some of the recommendations to make the budget a lot fairer.

I would argue a fairer way to balance the budget would be to target some of the 363 tax expenditures available.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam..._Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/TaxExpenditures

Tax expenditures are reported in an annual statement by Treasury. In 2012–13, there were 363 tax expenditures provided under the Australian tax system, the total value of which was estimated at approximately $115 billion, or 7.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For comparison, total government direct spending in 2012–13 was about 23.5% of GDP.

Some of the larger tax expenditures - see page 12 of the below report

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam..._Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/TaxExpenditures

• Capital gains tax main residence exemption ”” discount component $16,500M
• Capital gains tax main residence exemption $13,500M
• Capital gains tax discount for individuals and trusts $4,300M
• Exemption of the private health insurance rebate, including expense equivalent $1,450M
• Application of statutory formula to value car benefits $810M

Bring back RBLs with super to stop massive tax leakage from those using super for tax minimisation instead of retirement income.

Bring in some form of CGT on the primary residence over a certain value - ~ $800K is the current nation wide median so possibly using that figure and a progressive scale is one way forward. It provides a massive tax shelter and incentive to have over capitalised property in the country and does little to actually help make a more productive economy.

Work with the states to bring in a broadly based land tax for all commercial and residential properties. Make some form of concession for farms and resource based industries. This would be a very efficient tax and allow income and corporate taxes to be reduced.

Last year Treasurer Joe Hockey walked away from a Labor commitment to begin taxing superannuants’ earnings over $100,000 per annum, foregoing over $3 billion in revenue. As Treasury revealed in the budget, the annual cost of superannuation tax concessions is set to surge in coming years, making the current cost ”” nearly $32 billion ”” look paltry as it rises to a remarkable $50 billion in 2017-18. At that point the cost of superannuation will exceed the cost of the age pension ”” despite one of the core goals of Australia’s superannuation system being to reduce the call on the budget from retirement.

The Government has foregone $7.6B in carbon tax revenue but left all the associated tax breaks and benefits increases in place.

 

[SirRumpole]

If you think that's the case, then perhaps you could put up some evidence to that effect.
Most people with psychosis, at times of crisis, simply need a safe place where they feel supported.

Mental Health Workforce Challenges
A major issue to be addressed underpinning the implementation of the policy is the current and projected
nationwide skills shortage in the mental health sector. This skills shortage relates to both a fundamental
undersupply of mental health professionals
4
in all key disciplines and a pressing need to update knowledge,
culture and practice in the mental health workforce
5
.
The immediate challenge will be adding up to 1,700 EFT (three quarters of which are from clinical disciplines)
to the youth mental health workforce over the next four years. The potential EFT required in the key clinical
disciplines to implement current youth mental health policy is illustrated in Graph 1

http://oyh.org.au/sites/oyh.org.au/files/ymh_reform_workforce_report_0.pdf

The report is for youth mental health, but indicates a nationwide shortage of professionals, which would apply to all areas of mental health services.

 

[SirRumpole]

Indeed. Which is essentially my point. In contrast, you and others who criticise the government's attempts to redress Labor's ticking up of the credit card, seem to believe no remedial measures need to be taken.

That is a gross misrepresentation which is unworthy of you. Many of us have discussed remedial measures which we believe are necessary and are much fairer to all than the current budget.

If people choose to ignore the alternatives and continue to back a grossly unfair budget in the face of a wider and justified condemnation of it, then one has to wonder about the objectivity of those people.

 

[wayneL]

Basilio offered the opinion that “This government's budget has decided that the whole problem with the out of whack budget lies with the poor, the old, the unemployed and those with disabilities. So they have coped quite extreme measures in an attempt to "balance the books" ”, and quoted Gittins’ article in support of this view.

Knobby22 and SirRumpole said they agree with Gittins. SirRumpole added that he saw this budget’s priorities and policies as those of “the elitist class warriors we currently have.” and Orr thinks that “The majority of Australians agree with with Ross Gittens on this issue.”

“

Notwithstanding that criticisms of the budget may be valid, the fallacy here is confirmation bias. That all of the posters mentioned are clearly of the left or center left, agreeing with a leftist commentators is not surprising.

Your response was “Class warriors? Well that takes the biscuit Horace, the most absurdly ironic post on ASF.... ever. I thought of at least 3 ways in which you might have interpreted SirRumpole’s comment to be “absurdly ironic”, but you didn’t elaborate. So, at its simplest and in the context established above, the issue seems to be one of class warriors and therefore (necessarily) class warfare,

The extreme irony is that Horace's inference was that this government is uniquely motivated by class warfare. Whether or not this government is motivated by class distinction or not is irrelevant, however the inference it is uniquely so is ludicrous, as the the leftist parties are so clearly and openly motivated by class warfare.

a state of affairs that Warren Buffett recognises.

You know, I am sure, that class warfare is not limited to just one country, economy or socioeconomic order in the world, so for someone to hold the opinion that it is present in Australia is not an opinion to be derided or dismissed out of hand.

Buffett recognises the state of affairs in his own country and commented on his perception of what the state of play is there. In no way is that necessarily a reflection on the state of play in Australia, as depending on one's point of view, the ledger is probably weighted more to the other side, in this country and elsewhere.

As to your questions to me:

1) I have no idea what Buffet's understanding of Australia’s socioeconomic situation is, and I suspect you don’t either. I do know however that he understands that, to the extent that socioeconomic policies in Australia mirror those in USA, then class warfare is being waged here too.

2) I don’t “think Buffet might just have been commenting on American socioeconomics, rather than Australian . ” I know for a fact he was referring specifically to his proposed “Buffett Rule” in USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule and http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...class-has-won/2011/03/03/gIQApaFbAL_blog.html where, in the video at the bottom of the page, he elaborates a little, and note especially his point at about 2 minutes).

3) I “think America's SE situation could possibly [be] different to Australia's “, but the differences are small and diminishing, and hence do not invalidate prima facie the use of the term class-warfare in Australia.

“Astonishingly absurd irony leads straight to astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy!”

Because you accused SirRumpole of the absurd irony, I take it the “astonishingly unintelligent argumentative fallacy” gibe is directed to me. That s an offensive comment to make, and an erroneous assertion.

As both Rumpole's and your point are clearly and demonstrably fallacious, it is not offensive, merely observational and in no way erroneous.

“Sheesh, and the left fancies themselves as intellectuals. The evidence strongly points to the opposite.”

An intended insult that deserves only the response that, if you are of the opinion that there are no intellectuals on the left with regard to socioeconomics, you have not read enough.

Yeah you caught me with my own fallacy there, bygones. There certainly are some intellectuals on the left, even if I find their premise often disingenuous, misrepresentation and class motivated. I just find it irksome to be hypocritically bombarded with fatuous and asinine slogans from both here and on my FB feed.

And just for the record, I am not of the right.

 

[SirRumpole]

The extreme irony is that Horace's inference was that this government is uniquely motivated by class warfare. Whether or not this government is motivated by class distinction or not is irrelevant, however the inference it is uniquely so is ludicrous, as the the leftist parties are so clearly and openly motivated by class warfare.

I don't believe I ever indicated that I believe that the Coalition is unique in undertaking "class warfare".

However, considering the income and wealth distributions, the class that the Coalition goes into bat for represents a much lower number of people than those that Labor bat for. I believe I used the word "elitist" describing the Coalition, ie indicating that it represents a small number of high income earning people and businesses.

 

[basilio]

How to treat your citizens with contempt and disrespect.

Insist that those out of work and applying for unemployment benefits make 40 job applications a month in order to perhaps receive the benefit. This totally disregards the reality of 10 times more people out of work than any jobs available.

Then, when employers are concerned about having to even view (let alone process) the anticipated deuge of job applications for non existent jobs, point out a particular Catch 22 in the system.

People on UB can be cut off if they actually send 40 job applications a month. You see each and every job application has to be hand crafted, individually addressed to particular jobs that meet the skills and capacities of the applicant.

Great work guys. You will be well remembered at the next election.


Jobseekers' payments will be cut if they spam employers, ministers warn

Abbott government responds to business concerns over 40-job-a-month target with vow to penalise ‘unsatisfactory’ applications


Daniel Hurst, political correspondent
theguardian.com, Wednesday 30 July 2014 18.59 AEST
Jump to comments (324)

Hands on a keyboard Jobseekers who use online services to indiscriminately apply for jobs to meet targets will lose payments, the government says. Photograph: Alamy

Unemployed people face the loss of payments as a punishment for spamming employers with unsatisfactory applications to meet tough job search rules, the Abbott government has warned.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-be-cut-if-they-spam-employers-ministers-warn

 

[sydboy007]

How to treat your citizens with contempt and disrespect.

Insist that those out of work and applying for unemployment benefits make 40 job applications a month in order to perhaps receive the benefit. This totally disregards the reality of 10 times more people out of work than any jobs available.

made all the worse when the Government is:

• Removing restrictions on 457 visas so increasing foreign access to the local jobs market
• The overall unemployment rate is now 6%, and 13.5% for 15-24 year olds. In May there were 146,000 job vacancies with 720,000 people unemployed. Another 920,000 were underemployed and wanting more hours of work. Underemployment is a very important labour market indicator as, under the terms of internationally agreed labour statistics collection, an individual is counted as employed if working one hour a week for pay or profit.
• Altogether, these figures mean 1.64 million people who have no work or not enough work are potentially competing for available job vacancies.
• While the labour force underutilisation rate of 13.5% suggests that there are around 10 potential job applicants for each vacancy…
• Forecasting jobs growth at less than population growth for the next 5 years so the above 10 candidates per job issue will continue to escalate.

So when there's not enough jobs to go around NOW, and you're forecasting there will be even less jobs to around over the next 5 years, why is the Government allowing the potential for a large increase in 457 visas on top of still above average population growth due to immigration? The only conclusion I can come to is to put continual pressure on wages.