Jump to content
Melbourne Football
cadete

Domestic Politics

Recommended Posts

bt50    3,262
20 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

Even a broke clock is right twice a day, her policies are like Shazza the tuckshop lady has been voted into parliament 

Makes a fucking mean sausage roll though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bt50    3,262
20 hours ago, Tesla said:

Worst budget by a Liberal government in my life time?

At least could have cut $3bn from foreign aid instead of $300m, Soros doesnt need any more money.

Legit not going to vote Coalition at the next election if Malcolm and Scooty are still at the helm. Cunts completely fucked the country with that pissweak budget.

I'm usually a rusted on Lib voter, purely because they have been the most practical from an economic management sense but theyve fully lost the plot. LibDems might get a decent run at the next election, although I reckon Leyonheljm's outburst after Bourke St might have cost them a decent run at anything.

Can we have a new Liberal/Libertarian party that actually believe in more freedom/less government and are willing to spruik it?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being right of Lenin while living in the seat of Melbourne my vote counts for jack shit and I'll still probably vote lib dems, but Jesus I can't stomach thought of shorten as PM. I'd favour liberals over alp even after this abortion of a budget. @Deeming you're a card carrying liberal where do you see the party going?

Edited by thisphantomfortress
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068

I did not mind the Budget except for this crap about the stopping of funding for Catholic Schools... a lot of these schools affected are as sophisticated as the Local High School near to them.

Shorten says he will support the cuts to the schools that deserve them like the Big Independent Schools but not the one's for these schools and seeing as he has the next election close to won... I think on that issue things should be alright on that issue.

Also the fact that the electorate will only allow our Budgets to be Labor Lite/Liberal Lite IMO is why our system works as best it can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bt50    3,262
2 hours ago, cadete said:

Also the fact that the electorate will only allow our Budgets to be Labor Lite/Liberal Lite IMO is why our system works as best it can.

Agree with that point largely from a society and policy point of view, but strongly disagree economically. The system has evolved into a 'what about me' rhetoric and tbf like most other westernized democratic countries, we are hurtling towards the abyss with our refusal to spend within our means. The system is getting closer and closer to breaking imo, and whats going to happen when it collapses? Probably war, because there is always someone that is going to lose out massively when the ability to pay debts is cooked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068
42 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Agree with that point largely from a society and policy point of view, but strongly disagree economically. The system has evolved into a 'what about me' rhetoric and tbf like most other westernized democratic countries, we are hurtling towards the abyss with our refusal to spend within our means. The system is getting closer and closer to breaking imo, and whats going to happen when it collapses? Probably war, because there is always someone that is going to lose out massively when the ability to pay debts is cooked.

When you say "War" who do you mean between?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bt50    3,262
9 minutes ago, cadete said:

When you say "War" who do you mean between?

Whoever is going to suffer at the point where the system breaks. I don't profess to be a world economist or anything like that, but I can see how a situation such as below is a distinct possibility.

Put it this way, say the global economy collapses because multiple countries, lets say Greece, Spain and France, default due to their interest being higher than their GDP and can no longer obtain access to any credit whatsoever. The people who lent them the money have now effectively lost it, lets say Australia, with no realistic way of getting it back in the short to medium term future. Australia in the meantime have racked up a substantial debt and China are knocking down the door for them to pay it back, otherwise they threaten serious action. In order to satisfy its creditors, Australia needs to first get the money thats owed to them, but the European countries are basically saying fuck off, we cant give you anything. 
Australia goes well that's not fair, we need to seize some assets so we arent completely fucked from China, so they have to take something from those countries, whether its land or some other key resource. The Europeans arent going to have that, they are poor as fuck as it is and can't risk their people starving or slipping even further into the mire so they take up arms to defend what they have left. They probably don't want to, but when it comes a choice of death by starvation vs being an irresponsible global citizen and war its an easy choice.

In the mean time that is having serious global consequences with Australia not being able to pay debts, China potentially not being able satisfy their debts due to Australia now defaulting and so on and so fourth around the world until it all ends up as one massive credit crunch that completely fucks everyone and descends into war as everyone looks to protect their own interest, be that as a country or an individual.

All of a sudden people across the globe are thrown into poverty and the world becomes unruly and descends into chaos, particularly in the poor countries which are hardest hit.

The only real way to avoid being sucked into the mire completely is to make sure you aren't in debt when it all hits, something that until the last 10 years we have been relatively good at. Now we have a chronic spending problem, and our pollies are too self absorbed in getting re-elected than actually having the stones to do what is best for the countries financial situation. 

Admittedly that is a super simplistic version of how it could all happen, and the reality is that it is a slow process, happening over a few decades, but the wheels are in motion now, as seen by Greece in particular. Personally I feel that a global collapse is inevitable at some stage in the next decade or so and god help everyone when it occurs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Embee    2,325
10 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Whoever is going to suffer at the point where the system breaks. I don't profess to be a world economist or anything like that, but I can see how a situation such as below is a distinct possibility.

Put it this way, say the global economy collapses because multiple countries, lets say Greece, Spain and France, default due to their interest being higher than their GDP and can no longer obtain access to any credit whatsoever. The people who lent them the money have now effectively lost it, lets say Australia, with no realistic way of getting it back in the short to medium term future. Australia in the meantime have racked up a substantial debt and China are knocking down the door for them to pay it back, otherwise they threaten serious action. In order to satisfy its creditors, Australia needs to first get the money thats owed to them, but the European countries are basically saying fuck off, we cant give you anything. 
Australia goes well that's not fair, we need to seize some assets so we arent completely fucked from China, so they have to take something from those countries, whether its land or some other key resource. The Europeans arent going to have that, they are poor as fuck as it is and can't risk their people starving or slipping even further into the mire so they take up arms to defend what they have left. They probably don't want to, but when it comes a choice of death by starvation vs being an irresponsible global citizen and war its an easy choice.

In the mean time that is having serious global consequences with Australia not being able to pay debts, China potentially not being able satisfy their debts due to Australia now defaulting and so on and so fourth around the world until it all ends up as one massive credit crunch that completely fucks everyone and descends into war as everyone looks to protect their own interest, be that as a country or an individual.

All of a sudden people across the globe are thrown into poverty and the world becomes unruly and descends into chaos, particularly in the poor countries which are hardest hit.

The only real way to avoid being sucked into the mire completely is to make sure you aren't in debt when it all hits, something that until the last 10 years we have been relatively good at. Now we have a chronic spending problem, and our pollies are too self absorbed in getting re-elected than actually having the stones to do what is best for the countries financial situation. 

Admittedly that is a super simplistic version of how it could all happen, and the reality is that it is a slow process, happening over a few decades, but the wheels are in motion now, as seen by Greece in particular. Personally I feel that a global collapse is inevitable at some stage in the next decade or so and god help everyone when it occurs.

You've pitched this as a pilot to HBO haven't you?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097

Meh, it was only a matter of time before the world went full socialist, we're doing it about 10 years before I expected it though. 

Hard work and saving your money and all that shit is gay, just enjoy yourself and rely on that ez socialism that's incoming.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HeartFc    2,540

Planning for this as we speak. Acreage + .308 + every episode of Vasili's Garden on VHS. 

Come at me cunts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068
17 hours ago, Tesla said:

Meh, it was only a matter of time before the world went full socialist, we're doing it about 10 years before I expected it though. 

Hard work and saving your money and all that shit is gay, just enjoy yourself and rely on that ez socialism that's incoming.  

Seriously what the hell are you going on about???

One Liberal Budget that is not strictly focused on erasing debt and you would think this Country is going "Full Socialist"?

This is the same Country which over the course of my lifetime has continued to restrict access to: Medicare Benefits, Unemployment Benefits, Disability Benefits and a cheaper Higher Education for students. I really cant see how a country who has reduced almost all its Social Welfare consistently for twenty years is going "Full Socialist".

Edited by cadete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bt50    3,262
4 minutes ago, cadete said:

Seriously what the hell are you going on about???

One Liberal Budget that is not strictly focused on erasing debt and you would think this Country is going "Full Socialist"?

This is the same Country which over the course of my lifetime has continued to restrict access to: Medicare Benefits, Unemployment Benefits, Disability Benefits and a cheaper Higher Education for students. I really cant see how a country who has reduced almost all its Social Welfare consistently for twenty years is going "Full Socialist".

Is that bold bit actually true? I'd be shocked if we weren't paying significantly more in welfare per person now than what we were twenty years ago, even allowing for inflation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068
12 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Is that bold bit actually true? I'd be shocked if we weren't paying significantly more in welfare per person now than what we were twenty years ago, even allowing for inflation.

The price we spend overall is irrelevant...  

It is a different argument to say that we have to be realistic and acknowledge that we cant afford to provide the Welfare that we once did.

However, I dont know how someone can say that we are becoming a "Full Socialist Country" when the Average Citizen of the Country has continually had the main Welfare Services available to them (if they need to use them) consistently reduced over time. 

Also I am not comparing what we get today to what bloody Gough gave people which we all saw almost destroy the country. I am talking about how the Average Citizen in 2000 compared to now had a far easier time receiving the Dole, Austudy, Disability Pensions, Medicare Assistance and HECS Assistance. 

Edited by cadete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,991
1 hour ago, cadete said:

The price we spend overall is irrelevant...  

It is a different argument to say that we have to be realistic and acknowledge that we cant afford to provide the Welfare that we once did.

However, I dont know how someone can say that we are becoming a "Full Socialist Country" when the Average Citizen of the Country has continually had the main Welfare Services available to them (if they need to use them) consistently reduced over time. 

Also I am not comparing what we get today to what bloody Gough gave people which we all saw almost destroy the country. I am talking about how the Average Citizen in 2000 compared to now had a far easier time receiving the Dole, Austudy, Disability Pensions, Medicare Assistance and HECS Assistance. 

I'd like to see some hard numbers to back up your claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,991
6 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

DAE think @cadete might be turning socialist?

In my experience many people claim to not being socialist...until their own little perk/benefit/concession etc. comes under threat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068
9 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I'd like to see some hard numbers to back up your claims.

You dont need the numbers just the everyday facts of life back in 2000:

1. You could walk into a Centrelink and work out with around $400 by submitting a form and showing you had no money in your bank account, now you get made to work for the dole after you have collected Unemployment benefits a couple of times. (Back then you could collect for months before having to speak to someone/take a twenty minute review class).

2. You could see a decent Bulk Billed Doctor basically anywhere in Australia and not just in certain areas, and walk out without spending a dime.

3. You could collect a Disability Unemployment benefit just by having a Doctor fill out a one simple one sheet form every six months.

4. HECS was a fuckload simpler and cheaper.

9 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

DAE think @cadete might be turning socialist?

If this bloody Budget is apparently "Socialism" then I cant see how a sane person would not be a Socialist.

Edited by cadete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068
19 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

In my experience many people claim to not being socialist...until their own little perk/benefit/concession etc. comes under threat.

Actually I am the bloke who is highly aware of the perks and benefits I have received in life due to my parent's occupations and them always placing their highest priority on their children's education and thus sending me to an Elite School and University College. I dont hide this and I am proud of attending these Institutions.

However I of course I get reminded about it by everyone including my mates constantly... I even get reminded about how my Wife is from a similar privileged background.

And the reality is that I agree that this Country is becoming more and more like the States where is is about "Who You Know" rather than "What You Can Do" in terms of advancement. 

Which is why it baffles me why the exact same PPL who complain about the APS Private School Network in Australia have political views which will only see this system to continue to become more ingrained rather than for us to go back to the kind of Meritocracy that country was in the past.

 

Edited by cadete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097

I think the level of taxation is a greater measure of the level of socialisim,and given our tax brackets aren't indexed, the level of taxation is always increasing unless the government implements a tax cut and even then it's probably not offsetting the bracket creep. This time around we actually have other increases in tax as well. 

On the spending side, the NDIS aside, the rest is shit. There is a reason no private company wanted to build and operate the second Sydney airport, and now that the government is building it it will just be another disaster like the NBN. The Melbourne to Brisbane freight line also doesn't stack up and is just another case of rural Australia having too much political power and holding the rest of us to ransom.

There are no fixes to the broken housing market where in all honestly the ALP has better policies. 

The plan to return to surplus is fraud as well, based on speculative best case assumptions of the economy growing.

More taxes, bad spending, further debt, this is a socialist budget. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068
46 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I think the level of taxation is a greater measure of the level of socialisim,and given our tax brackets aren't indexed, the level of taxation is always increasing unless the government implements a tax cut and even then it's probably not offsetting the bracket creep. This time around we actually have other increases in tax as well. 

On the spending side, the NDIS aside, the rest is shit. There is a reason no private company wanted to build and operate the second Sydney airport, and now that the government is building it it will just be another disaster like the NBN. The Melbourne to Brisbane freight line also doesn't stack up and is just another case of rural Australia having too much political power and holding the rest of us to ransom.

There are no fixes to the broken housing market where in all honestly the ALP has better policies. 

The plan to return to surplus is fraud as well, based on speculative best case assumptions of the economy growing.

More taxes, bad spending, further debt, this is a socialist budget. 

I seriously CBF...

But anyone who flies to Sydney just a little bit knows that the Airport has been required since when the Bears were still playing the Jets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097
2 minutes ago, cadete said:

I seriously CBF...

But anyone who flies to Sydney just a little bit knows that the Airport has been required since when the Bears were still playing the Jets.

Seemingly not required enough at the price tag. Otherwise not only would a private company build it they'd also pay the government for the pleasure of doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068
16 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Seemingly not required enough at the price tag. Otherwise not only would a private company build it they'd also pay the government for the pleasure of doing so.

Yep... 

hqdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,991
1 hour ago, Tesla said:

Seemingly not required enough at the price tag. Otherwise not only would a private company build it they'd also pay the government for the pleasure of doing so.

Oh, I can't agree with that. Private companies have criteria on return on investment that are restricted to just that company's financials. They don't give a toss about any other criteria. Governments have a much wider set of criteria and responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097
7 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Oh, I can't agree with that. Private companies have criteria on return on investment that are restricted to just that company's financials. They don't give a toss about any other criteria. Governments have a much wider set of criteria and responsibilities.

I don't deny that, there certainly are reasons for the government to subsidise it. But that then becomes a very subjective game of where to direct government money between all the competing projects in the country. And of course as someone who lives in Melbourne where we seem to constantly miss out I'm not going to be particularly happy about it going to Sydney (at the end of the day Melbourne is the fastest growing major city and where money should be directed to). 

The bigger issue TBH is that it costs so much to build anything in this country that a big city and financial centre like Sydney can't build a second airport on it's financial merits alone (even though the current one has some severe limitations like curfews). I doubt there'd be many comparable cases in the world. 

Edited by Tesla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bt50    3,262
2 minutes ago, Tesla said:

I don't deny that, there certainly are reasons for the government to subsidise it. 

The bigger issue TBH is that it costs so much to build anything in this country that a big city and financial centre like Sydney can't build a second airport on it's financial merits alone (even though the current one has some severe limitations like curfews). I doubt there'd be many comparable cases in the world. 

Blame the Unions for that

giphy.gif

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,991
5 minutes ago, Tesla said:

The bigger issue TBH is that it costs so much to build anything in this country that a big city and financial centre like Sydney can't build a second airport on it's financial merits alone (even though the current one has some severe limitations like curfews). I doubt there'd be many comparable cases in the world. 

I don't disagree here. Purely on a qualitative basis it seems to me that our record on infrastructure (not the only aspect of our society either) is bloody appalling compared with some other countries.

3 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Blame the Unions for that

Is it just the unions? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097
13 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I don't disagree here. Purely on a qualitative basis it seems to me that our record on infrastructure (not the only aspect of our society either) is bloody appalling compared with some other countries.

Is it just the unions? 

In order:

1. Unions

2. Overly subsidised university (which leads people to do uni rather than trades)

3. Just a high cost society in general due to a bunch of other government policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewConvert    708
3 hours ago, jw1739 said:

Oh, I can't agree with that. Private companies have criteria on return on investment that are restricted to just that company's financials. They don't give a toss about any other criteria. Governments have a much wider set of criteria and responsibilities.

A quick google search showed that the three busiest airports in the USA are publicly owned but privately operated. Narita airport was also built with public funds and then privatised into a parastatal company. Ditto Hong Kong and SIngapore airports (the latter being a bastion of Socialists).

Building infrastructure is not as simple as saying "Private enterprise". The bigger the infrastructure, the more money needs to be spent and therefore the fewer the number of companies that will have access to capital. So for example @TeslaAirport Corporation would not get any private funding to build a second airport because the corporation would have no record of building airports and not enough assets. Secondly, there are the risks - the bigger the project the bigger the risks. Third would be how to capture a return on assets because if you charge the full costs then air travel becomes too expensive and there is less people flying through however a government can charge less at teh airport and gain money through the increased trade. I note that mining companies do build their own infrastructure (but they do get subsidies) where it is easier to capture the return.

The additional costs of building airports and a lot infrastructure in Australia lies in the cost of land. In places like Singapore and Japan the public benefit tests trumps the ownership rights of individuals in a way that would not be tolerated in Australia. Also with the new aircraft the type of concrete is actually really expensive and that has nothing to do with labour costs, it is all material costs. And it is also a skilled occupation to lay it properly unlike housing slabs.

Where private enterprise does have a roll to play is in raising capital, providing engineering expertise and the actual project delivery. Government role is to define the contracts, specifications, acquire the land, and high level management. The difficulty for the latter is for the public servants to maintain the skilset  required to do this which is hard even for private sector companies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097
44 minutes ago, NewConvert said:

A quick google search showed that the three busiest airports in the USA are publicly owned but privately operated. Narita airport was also built with public funds and then privatised into a parastatal company. Ditto Hong Kong and SIngapore airports (the latter being a bastion of Socialists).

Building infrastructure is not as simple as saying "Private enterprise". The bigger the infrastructure, the more money needs to be spent and therefore the fewer the number of companies that will have access to capital. So for example @TeslaAirport Corporation would not get any private funding to build a second airport because the corporation would have no record of building airports and not enough assets. Secondly, there are the risks - the bigger the project the bigger the risks. Third would be how to capture a return on assets because if you charge the full costs then air travel becomes too expensive and there is less people flying through however a government can charge less at teh airport and gain money through the increased trade. I note that mining companies do build their own infrastructure (but they do get subsidies) where it is easier to capture the return.

The additional costs of building airports and a lot infrastructure in Australia lies in the cost of land. In places like Singapore and Japan the public benefit tests trumps the ownership rights of individuals in a way that would not be tolerated in Australia. Also with the new aircraft the type of concrete is actually really expensive and that has nothing to do with labour costs, it is all material costs. And it is also a skilled occupation to lay it properly unlike housing slabs.

Where private enterprise does have a roll to play is in raising capital, providing engineering expertise and the actual project delivery. Government role is to define the contracts, specifications, acquire the land, and high level management. The difficulty for the latter is for the public servants to maintain the skilset  required to do this which is hard even for private sector companies.

1. Publicly 'owned' and privately operated is most likely a long term lease which is very similar to the private company owning it. 

2. The reason those werent privately owned to begin with is that it just wasnt how things were done 70 years ago.

3. In Australia we have a bunch of super funds itching to get involved in these sort of things, which could be done by partnering with one of the many companies that specialise in the field.

4. Eventually it will be privatised, so it's not an issue of the money not being there or the companies with expertise not being there, simply they dont want to pay $6bn+ for it but will gladly take a 100 year lease for $3bn once the government has spent $20bn building it.

5. Major airports in this country are already privatised and charge what they want, as will be the case when this airport is privatised.

6. The cost of this concrete hasn't stopped every major airport in the world upgrading to be able to handle the largest aircraft, including in Australia. The concrete is not the problem.

7. The cost of land? I assumed the government was providing that for free in any case, and still no one wanted to build it.

Edited by Tesla
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewConvert    708
12 hours ago, Tesla said:

1. Publicly 'owned' and privately operated is most likely a long term lease which is very similar to the private company owning it. 

Yes and there is nothing wrong with that as long as the terms of the contract are public.

2. The reason those werent privately owned to begin with is that it just wasnt how things were done 70 years ago.

HK was not 70 years ago, my youngest brother did part of his training there when they were building it. Neither was Singapore airport. I haven't looked but I am quite certain that most major airports are still built by governments.

3. In Australia we have a bunch of super funds itching to get involved in these sort of things, which could be done by partnering with one of the many companies that specialise in the field.

You can add Canadian funds as well. But I note that they want to lend capital - which they can do to both private and public enterprises in any case. And there are also funds that have engineering expertise. I have yet to read anywhere that the funds want to build major infrastructure on their own. I will also note that in NSW that a private consortium wanted to build a tunnel and went bust. Here in Victoria the Western Distributor is a private sector initiative (or so we are led to believe) but in this instance the government will legislate to push trucks onto it (secure customers) and so the revenues will be easier to collect. BTW my brother and I work in the delivery of infrastructure these days so I am acutely aware of the limits that private sector companies have.

4. Eventually it will be privatised, so it's not an issue of the money not being there or the companies with expertise not being there, simply they dont want to pay $6bn+ for it but will gladly take a 100 year lease for $3bn once the government has spent $20bn building it.

My experience is that there are engineering companies that deliver the project, there are operating companies that run the project once completed and then there are the owners (quite often the latter two are the government). But taking an example from RTZ (whom I worked for 25 years ago in one their earlier incarnations) they had separate divisions mimicking the project delivery, operations and ownership. So when you say that there are companies that have the experience, I don't quite follow whether you mean construction, operations or ownership. By and large engineering companies don't get involved in the other spheres and vice versa. And again I state that nobody will lend $6bn+ to @TeslaAirport Corporation - there are very few companies that would be able to borrow that sort of money and capital funds will spread the risk.

5. Major airports in this country are already privatised and charge what they want, as will be the case when this airport is privatised.

6. The cost of this concrete hasn't stopped every major airport in the world upgrading to be able to handle the largest aircraft, including in Australia. The concrete is not the problem.

The cost of concrete is a very real issue. Cement is something that has to be manufactured as close as possible to the building site because of the cost of transportation and its ability to go off really quickly. You won't find ships transporting cement - it sinks them. I never said taht the cost of concrete would stop the construction of airports, I simply stated that this is also a considerable cost.

7. The cost of land? I assumed the government was providing that for free in any case, and still no one wanted to build it.

I don't know whether the government already owns the land for the airport but there will also be suppoirting infrastructure to get to and from teh airport. And this may require acquiring land as well. If they do own the land then I imagine that you as a taxpayer would want a decent return on it, or at the very least not a loss.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097

Now that the ALP will increase the top marginal tax rate to 49.5%, are we officially a socialist country yet?

Having said that, at least the ALP's policies you can make some sort of sense of, as much as I disagree with them. The Liberals on the other hand are just making shit up as they go along. Eg cut corporate tax, while increasing personal income tax makes little sense already, then you throw in a crack down on foreign investment into that mix at the same time and it's possibly the most nonsensical policy mix I've ever seen. 

Edited by Tesla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068
25 minutes ago, Tesla said:

Now that the ALP will increase the top marginal tax rate to 49.5%, are we officially a socialist country yet?

Having said that, at least the ALP's policies you can make some sort of sense of, as much as I disagree with them. The Liberals on the other hand are just making shit up as they go along. Eg cut corporate tax, while increasing personal income tax makes little sense already, then you throw in a crack down on foreign investment into that mix at the same time and it's possibly the most nonsensical policy mix I've ever seen. 

No...  

And I think the proof is in the fact that the PPL I know who are in the top marginal tax rate def would not say that Australia is a Socialist Country at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097
4 hours ago, cadete said:

No...  

And I think the proof is in the fact that the PPL I know who are in the top marginal tax rate def would not say that Australia is a Socialist Country at all.

This post sure does sound like passive aggressive bragging to me, two thing you apparently despise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,991
4 hours ago, cadete said:

No...  

And I think the proof is in the fact that the PPL I know who are in the top marginal tax rate def would not say that Australia is a Socialist Country at all.

If you accept that principal aim of a socialist state is to eradicate inequality in income, status and standards of life, then differential taxation, which has the effect of reducing the net income of certain individuals, is indeed consistent with socialism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bt50    3,262

Dan Andrews firies announcement today is an absolute disgrace. Corrupt cunt.

Edited by bt50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hedaik    2,630
9 hours ago, bt50 said:

Dan Andrews firies announcement today is an absolute disgrace. Corrupt cunt.

Do people actually care about this other than it being an issue that they can sink the boot into Labor for? 

My dad was going on about how he's a union lackie etc but couldn't explain what is actually wrong with the changes. I suspect he's no different to most Herald Sun readers. 

(Not saying I know either as I don't care) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bt50    3,262
51 minutes ago, hedaik said:

Do people actually care about this other than it being an issue that they can sink the boot into Labor for? 

My dad was going on about how he's a union lackie etc but couldn't explain what is actually wrong with the changes. I suspect he's no different to most Herald Sun readers. 

(Not saying I know either as I don't care) 

Tbf its prob not such a big issue in the metro areas. The country areas are pretty worked up about it though, its essentially a union cash grab and an override of the volunteer system that has stood for decades. Basically taking the power away from volunteers to make decisions, but what the unions dont seem to grasp is if they piss off the volunteers who are doing it for nothing, when a big bushfire comes around they will find themselves seriously under resourced.

Not to mention the cost to the government of fire services has just risen exponentially, at a time where we need to be saving more and spending less.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068
1 hour ago, hedaik said:

Do people actually care about this other than it being an issue that they can sink the boot into Labor for? 

My dad was going on about how he's a union lackie etc but couldn't explain what is actually wrong with the changes. I suspect he's no different to most Herald Sun readers. 

(Not saying I know either as I don't care) 

I have to say this is my feeling as well... and its echoed by how the most Pro-ALP Person I know (my younger brother) also cant be bothered wasting my breath on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cadete    6,068

Albo???

Is he cranking through the gears as they come down the hill at Caulfield???

I cant see him losing an election against Turnbull TBH, not that I think Shorten would be losing either ATM... and I do think Shorten is a lot better than what he looks like on TV.

Mind you I think in hindsight Albo could have won the last election.

Edited by cadete
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shahanga    3,509
2 hours ago, cadete said:

Albo???

Is he cranking through the gears as they come down the hill at Caulfield???

I cant see him losing an election against Turnbull TBH, not that I think Shorten would be losing either ATM... and I do think Shorten is a lot better than what he looks like on TV.

Mind you I think in hindsight Albo could have won the last election.

Do you really think a left winger like Albo is electable? Need more than the latte set to vote for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×