Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
Ok... I'll play along with the 'blue tie brigade'... the rose coloured glasses blue tie brigade that is, for a moment, some of whom must be in contact with party officials.

So it seems the notion of a Labor comeback or a Rudd comeback, is what really irritates you... or is it that Abbott can do no wrong (in your eyes)?

Is it worse to find the thought irritating or worst to actually be the victim of a said comeback because you refused to consider the possibility?

Ok, then what's the best way to see that doesn't happen? A: For Abbott to not take the public popularity for granted or give them reason to withdraw their support... it only needs to be about 2% and he's in big trouble.

So if you are really desirous of more stable government, the first thing Abbott HAS TO DO is win greater public support in the senate... the house of review... the house where the public was not so generous last time.

What I can guarantee is that no matter how much spin you put on a sales pitch... the customer or voter will remember a broken promise or a lie with vengeance.

That's why Howard got wiped out of politics in the flash of an eye, how Gillard was forced to leave the political scene... but ironically why Rudd still maintains some degree of integrity with a substantial part of the electorate. He (rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter) was and likely will further deflect a lot of the blame he wore as a result of the leadership disputes and fight with Shortens right faction via Bruce Hawkers book release next month.

TS: I think it needs an apostrophe. I think that's what they call a lame duck defensive argument! ;)

But I know what you mean and look forward to more discussion to explore your soul. :D

So what message do you have to take back to party headquarters to ensure Tony is around for long enough to at least rid us the carbon tax? :p:
 
trainspotter said:
Nope ... not a plural. Do your homework. :cool: No apostrophe required or "ies" needed. But I could be wrong :confused:
Click to expand...
I am fairly sure that you need an apostrophe if you are using a noun (ie. country) in it's possessive form.

Alternatively you could have said "...they have the future of this great country at heart..." instead.
 
Ves said:
I am fairly sure that you need an apostrophe if you are using a noun (ie. country) in it's possessive form.

Alternatively you could have said "...they have the future of this great country at heart..." instead.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ves, you are absolutely correct. I will have myself taken outside and given a right royal rogering. :p:
 
Whiskers said:
Like him or loathe him, Rudd has been one of the most popular politicians for a long time.
[/INDENT]
Click to expand...
And also one of the most unpopular. Detested by most of his own party, so despised by Australian voters that three years ago he would have lost the election in one of the biggest landslides of all time if his own mob hadn’t booted him out and replaced him with Gillard.
And got soundly defeated in the September election despite getting a fairly substantial sympathy vote from the mugs who decided to give the mongrel another go because they felt sorry for him after his knifing by Gillard three years previously.
 
Lay off the personal attacks everyone is welcome for their opinion Whiskers included.

These threads are becoming more like a school yard, you are all adults, for gods sake act like it.
 
Class war at its best


The end of entitlements doesn't apply to the rich

Treasurer Joe Hockey wants to cut tax concessions for 3.6 million workers on lower incomes, but not those for around 16,000 of Australia's highest earners, writes Leith van Onselen.

If anyone wants an example of why politics is mostly form over substance, look no further than Joe Hockey's actions on entitlement spending.
Click to expand...


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-06/llewellyn-smith-entitlement-spending/5073642
 
IFocus said:
Lay off the personal attacks everyone is welcome for their opinion Whiskers included.

These threads are becoming more like a school yard, you are all adults, for gods sake act like it.
Click to expand...

"You are arguing with a galah" ... says it all for me. Opined or not the Labor stench will permeate the voting public psyche for few more elections to come.

How Taxes Work . . .

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on ”” it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men ”” the poorest ”” would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man ”” the richest ”” would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement ”” until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six ”” the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

T. Davies
Professor of Accounting & Chair,
Division of Accounting and Business Law
The University of South Dakota
School of Business
414 E. Clark Street
Vermillion, SD 57069
Phone: 605-677-5230
Fax: 605-677-5427
 
IFocus said:
Lay off the personal attacks everyone is welcome for their opinion Whiskers included.

These threads are becoming more like a school yard, you are all adults, for gods sake act like it.
Click to expand...
You've found the high perch but the sound is much the same.
 
bunyip said:
And also one of the most unpopular. Detested by most of his own party, so despised by Australian voters that three years ago he would have lost the election in one of the biggest landslides of all time if his own mob hadn’t booted him out and replaced him with Gillard.
And got soundly defeated in the September election despite getting a fairly substantial sympathy vote from the mugs who decided to give the mongrel another go because they felt sorry for him after his knifing by Gillard three years previously.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with you there bunyip... but the question is, is he capable of another comeback and is he in fact working on a comeback strategy? Is it wise to ignore him, until it's maybe too late? That's what I fear from the complacency of some.

Looking forward, what if he garners more support, even more sympathy vote, if Hawkers (Rudds personal strategist) book throws some new light on the inner workings of the Labor party to discredit some of his worst critics in Shortens right wing and disgruntled Gillard supporters... as I expect is the whole purpose of him releasing the book.

It does seem to me that his strongest critics were Gillard supporters and or Shortens right wing. It could be that the last of them might be shamed into quitting as more is revealed, allowing for more fresh blood to enhance voter appeal for Labor. Since it seems Hawker was behind the leadership poll, it stands to reason he has some ideas to clean out faction branch and candidate stacking. That would give Labor deserters from last election a lift and cause to consider voting for them again.

It struck me as significant that Hawker is claiming credit (as I understand from the press report I saw) for putting Rudd up to making the Labor leadership changes. Another snipet indicated the central party strategy committee was aware of policies that Rudd broadcast, despite what some said they knew nothing about. That would be a bit of bad egg wiped off Rudds public perception to soothe a bit more sympathy support.

The only reason I pop up Rudds name occasionally is because he didn't fall on his sword as badly as Howard or Gillard and seems to have endless tenacity to want to come back. Similarly with Palmer. He was barely on my radar until after the election. He's nothing if not tenacious also.

Palmer and Rudd have tenacity to burn and both want Abbotts job. They may not succeed in getting the top job, but they have the tenacity to cause Abbott some serious damage trying... and leave us burdened with the carbon tax.

I'll elaborate more later, but with the unemployment rate numbers out today up again, on a rising trend and the full time employed falling to lower levels, it's looking a bit dicey for good retail sales over the main season and also for the sustainability of recent modest gains in some realestate.

The carbon tax will be a drag on the economy until it's removed. Abbott needs to come up with something to offset that in the short term or lean on his Big L Liberal mates in the RBA to cut rates further. They are procrastinating for too long in the guise that the US FED will taper QE to save them cutting again. Employment and Interest rate chart on the XAO Banter thread.


IFocus "The end of entitlements doesn't apply to the rich" is something we need to watch in the context of their whole end product of tax changes, but the appearance of pandering to the top end of town certainly causes concern.

btw, it's pleasing that the one liner critics acknowledge they are on a lower 'perch'. ;)

TS... if you expect the average Joe Blow, not 'that' Joe Blow... well maybe him too... to understand the philosophy of taxes, you probably just confused them more! :p:
 
IFocus said:
Lay off the personal attacks everyone is welcome for their opinion Whiskers included.

These threads are becoming more like a school yard, you are all adults, for gods sake act like it.
Click to expand...


LOL....Are you referring to me, and if so, what personal attacks would they be, and against whom?

And yes, Whiskers is entitled to his opinion – I’ve never suggested otherwise – just as I’m entitled to add my opinion to his.
If you don’t like people expressing opinions that disagree with your own, then push off and find yourself a forum where everyone agrees with you.
 
trainspotter said:
"You are arguing with a galah" ... says it all for me. Opined or not the Labor stench will permeate the voting public psyche for few more elections to come.

How Taxes Work . . .

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on ”” it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men ”” the poorest ”” would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man ”” the richest ”” would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement ”” until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six ”” the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!".

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

T. Davies
Professor of Accounting & Chair,
Division of Accounting and Business Law
The University of South Dakota
School of Business
414 E. Clark Street
Vermillion, SD 57069
Phone: 605-677-5230
Fax: 605-677-5427
Click to expand...

Thanks TS. That is a good one ......it has been around for quite awhile......But nevertheless ....so good to read it again.
 
Such a shame to see the new government continuing with the trend of ripping the guts out of science. If only the muppets in Canberra could see beyond their nose.

The debate about the future, as I've said before, focuses too much on how the revenue pie will be split instead of how to bake a bigger pie. We really risk outsourcing our economic growth to an authoritarian dictatorship, which will soon be so big that we will be like a fly on an elephant's behind. This is a worrying chart, and we should be doing something now to diversify our export base. The idea that we can't manufacture anything in Australia is BS. They still manufacture Faber-Castell pencils, yes PENCILS, in Germany. Personally, I think we are a small enough country, with a name for safety and quality in Asia that we can devote ourselves to developing higher quality manufactured goods and food. A mate of mine has recently started selling Australian beef in Asia, it's all slaughtered and pre-packed in Australia and sold as a premium product. He has no trouble moving it.

ScreenHunter_187-Nov.-08-09.44.jpg
 
Just cannot believe that the Abbott government is cutting the CSIRO budget by 25%.

Sheer social and economic madness. If we are going to go anywhere as a country it will be because we develop clever technology and processes. That will not be done by the private sector in any way. Just no money in it.

CSIRO on the other hand has the capacity to do the pure and applied research that then gets turned into innovative technology by the private sector.

I think it will/should be the business sector that stands up for the scientific work of the CSIRO. - in their own interest.
 
Can't believe the previous Labor government did not fund the ACCC adequately !!

Australia's competition watchdog is on track to run out of money within months and Treasurer Joe Hockey is pointing the blame at the previous Labor government.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is charged with regulating national consumer law and is funded by the federal government.

"I've not only been told that the ACCC has been running operational losses for the last four years, I've been advised that this financial year – because the previous government didn't give it any money – the ACCC will run out of money in April," Mr Hockey told ABC radio.

"In a meeting with the ACCC they tell me ... they are under-funded for the next four years by over $100 million."

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/11/7/national-affairs/accc-run-out-money-april-hockey

Hey basilio ... got a link to support your claims?
 
McLovin said:
Such a shame to see the new government continuing with the trend of ripping the guts out of science.
Click to expand...

More than a shame... it's economic vandalism for the quiet achievers, the backbone of all the rural enterprises, a large part of the resource industry and even what's left of our manufacturing industry.

If only the muppets in Canberra could see beyond their nose.
Click to expand...

I'm becoming more cynical of their intentions the more we learn, that I'm concerned they know exactly what they are doing.

The debate about the future, as I've said before, focuses too much on how the revenue pie will be split instead of how to bake a bigger pie. We really risk outsourcing our economic growth to an authoritarian dictatorship, which will soon be so big that we will be like a fly on an elephant's behind.
Click to expand...

That's the insightful point that people need to get!

Big L Liberal philosophy would be ok with that, but the average Aussie would literally end up being as vulnerable as a marooned sailor on a desert island.

Logique said:
The CSIRO were doing a strong line on politics.

Now the PM has insisted they go back to doing science, and it's about time.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...zor-taken-to-csiro-20131107-2x4fu.html?skin=m
Click to expand...

Actually, it is argued that politics from both sides has been doing a strong line on science for too long. The global warming issue really brought it to a head.

It appears Liberal MP Dr Dennis Jensen also has concerns with these cuts.

The CSIRO has two main divisions, the government and a commercial services division.

The problems with the CSIRO began back in the 1980's with the McKinsey report which essentially restructured it to be driven from the top down rather than from the bottom up. Separate smaller divisions where the division head controlled and knew much about the research going on has morphed to more of what Abbott is doing now, amalgamating divisions controlling them with more corporate influence on the board and directions to seek more commercial funding, at least 30% to probably as much as they can get under these changes.

The heads of the divisions are now and will increasingly be more about managing the half pregnant corporate identity than a scientific organisation.

If the cuts were to the top end bureaucracy rather than the scientists, I would not have a problem. The problem with the half pregnant cooperate structure, ie the opening up of the CSIRO to too much commercial funding. A good report of the problems with the CSIRO by Garth Paltridge here: http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/has_the_csiro_lost_its_way_GQXJkn51cSmSovqKYdMAcI, an extract below.

New management philosophies emerged. One of them was to form large and geographically dispersed divisions by combining smaller divisions of complementary interests. No doubt there were attractive arguments for this sort of thing, but the outcome was to remove any serious interaction on scientific matters between a division chief and individuals of his research staff. The chiefs became, or were appointed to be, managers rather than scientists. As a consequence they lost much of their power. They became cogs in a machine, with much less ability to influence the scientific direction of their divisions, and much less inclination to question the views expressed by the organisation as a whole.

...the CSIRO operates under a matrix management system that runs into problems even in the engineering world for which it was originally designed. It is more or less bound to maximise both the scale of the management process and the number of its management personnel. Its major characteristic is a diffusion of the lines of responsibility. It has multiple reporting avenues that vastly increase the time a scientist spends on bureaucracy rather than research.​
Garth Paltridge has good standing and credibility.

In August 2009 he published a book on the global warming debate, The Climate Caper. Paltridge believes that anthropogenic global warming is real, but disagrees with mainstream scientific opinion in that he thinks that the warming will probably be too small to be a threat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_Paltridge

So, while I welcome some cuts to the federal bureaucracy, it is not in our long term best interests to extend the heavy commercialisation of the CSIRO and patronise the corporate influence at the top.

The CSIRO was and still is capable of being the tool to make our country smarter in the agricultural and resources areas in particular to get more value per unit of production. I've mentioned before (and McLovin above) how countries like Germany, which has a large scientific research organisation like us, uses it to much better effect than we are to generate innovative value adding for their industry. It's nothing to do with the size of the population, but the size of the fight and determination in the population. That is the main reason why countries like Germany, even the US and Britain in their day, become economic power houses.

The capitalists imply we are not smart enough or wealthy enough to better exploit our agricultural and resource industries. Their political tentacles are just tending to become too subservient to the US.

The bottom line; stop the Big L Liberalism stacking the boards of our companies and quango's dumbing them down and trying to steer them away from our sovereign benefit and into multinational control.
 
I hate to admit it, but as I have been raising concerns about the psychology of the behaviour of Abbott's Libs since the election I fear many Aussies may come to believe they endorsed a 'lemon' with Abbott.

More evidence of them talking the talk, but not able to walk the walk.

A number of boatloads of asylum seekers have been returned to Indonesia by Aus patrol/war ships...but late on Thursday night a spokesman for Djoko Suyanto, the Indonesian co-ordinating minister for Legal, Political and Security Affairs, told Fairfax Media: “At least for the time being we will not accept them, since we consider them to be asylum seekers”.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...o-indonesia-20131107-2x4qs.html#ixzz2k27jFSrH​

Heavy handed thuggery and spying are just not in the recipe for good Indonesian relations to stop the people smugglers or improve trade relations.

This is not going to end well for the Libs. I just hope the Nationals and the more moderate Libs get behind the public concern and start throwing plenty of weight up against Abbot, Hockey, Morrison, MacFarlane and the likes to bring them back into line.
 
Top