Domestic Politics

[hedaik]

 

That's interesting what you say about the guards because they showed footage of the guards when they had been removed from the Prison smoking outside. 

Pretty sure it hadnt been banned yet at that point (and either way as you said they were outside)

Edited July 7, 2015 by hedaik

[rayv36]

But what's the point to it?

 

I think its under the guise of no smoking in the workplace. NSW and New Zealand already have this in place. WA are considering bringing it in but due to the riots in Vic are now reconsidering it.

 

That's interesting what you say about the guards because they showed footage of the guards when they had been removed from the Prison smoking outside. 

Yeah no one can smoke or bring smokes on the premises, this would include the carpark from what i understand.

[cadete]

I think its under the guise of no smoking in the workplace. NSW and New Zealand already have this in place. WA are considering bringing it in but due to the riots in Vic are now reconsidering it.

Yeah no one can smoke or bring smokes on the premises, this would include the carpark from what i understand.

Fair enough.

NSW has now banned smoking in alfresco areas so its probably not long until Melbourne does as well...  looks like I am getting out at the right time.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/local/sydney/2015/07/06/new-smoking-bans-introduced-in-nsw.html

[Tesla]

As I've alluded to before, clearly the EWL was cancelled because there was no money going to the unions. $300k paid to AWU for eastlink, Napthine should have just stumped up the cash for the EWL if that's all it takes.

Those are just the costs of doing business in corrupt countries like Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Australia.

In b4 Abbott destroys Plibersek in early election

Edited July 10, 2015 by Tesla

[Jun]

As I've alluded to before, clearly the EWL was cancelled because there was no money going to the unions. $300k paid to AWU for eastlink, Napthine should have just stumped up the cash for the EWL if that's all it takes.

Those are just the costs of doing business in corrupt countries like Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Australia.

In b4 Abbott destroys Plibersek in early election

As much as I would love Plibersek and Wong, Australia isn't ready for that and Labor knows it.

Liberals will piss it in if anyone other than Abbott contests the next election but they will be too proud to ask him to fall on his sword.
Shorten is worthless, when they finally see some sense and remove him, Albo will find himself as the next pm. Put this on my bullshit list.

[cadete]

As much as I would love Plibersek and Wong, Australia isn't ready for that and Labor knows it.
Liberals will piss it in if anyone other than Abbott contests the next election but they will be too proud to ask him to fall on his sword.
Shorten is worthless, when they finally see some sense and remove him, Albo will find himself as the next pm. Put this on my bullshit list.

Why would someone who has come back from the brink in the polls fall on his sword?

I think u also need to take your rose coloured glasses of if you think Albo is going to end up ever contesting an election.

Someone as Left as Albo would be a god send to the Liberals in this present climate.

[Jun]

Why would someone who has come back from the brink in the polls fall on his sword?

I think u also need to take your rose coloured glasses of if you think Albo is going to end up ever contesting an election.

Someone as Left as Albo would be a god send to the Liberals in this present climate.

Didn't say I liked it.

[NewConvert]

As I've alluded to before, clearly the EWL was cancelled because there was no money going to the unions. $300k paid to AWU for eastlink, Napthine should have just stumped up the cash for the EWL if that's all it takes.

Those are just the costs of doing business in corrupt countries like Zimbabwe, Nigeria, and Australia.

In b4 Abbott destroys Plibersek in early election

The EWL was a dog of a project - didn't stack up financially so that Napthine & co did not even bother to submit it to infrastructure australia (know senior economist who has had to be in charge of $B on major infrastructure and that was his opinion on what was public knowledge). Anecdotally, third and fourth tier contractors were asked to submit tender bids within two to three days with a large figure and they would be compensated for their lack of effort. Normally, this sort of process would take at least 4 weeks and a competitive bidding process would be held. Nothing to do with the unions. But I still haven't found out how the money is getting channelled.

[jw1739]

Very disappointed with Abbott's stance on wind-power and renewables generally. He really is testing my patience. I'm by nature a conservative person, but it's perfectly possible to be conservative in some areas but progressive in others, but that doesn't seem possible for him.

[hedaik]

Very disappointed with Abbott's stance on wind-power and renewables generally. He really is testing my patience. I'm by nature a conservative person, but it's perfectly possible to be conservative in some areas but progressive in others, but that doesn't seem possible for him.

Must be some serious donations/corruption going up with the coal industry to say wind farms are a blight on the environment, then within days approve a massive coal mine bigger than the size of Sydney

Dont really care about his attitude to wind farms as the next PM with half a brain will just reverse the mess hes caused, but mines are irreversible.

Edited July 12, 2015 by hedaik

[malloy]

Very disappointed with Abbott's stance on wind-power and renewables generally. He really is testing my patience. I'm by nature a conservative person, but it's perfectly possible to be conservative in some areas but progressive in others, but that doesn't seem possible for him.

Not so concerned about the wind power (don't pay enough attention to it atm, but I have heard of studies saying they aren't economically viable), but I do agree with you in regards to renewable energy in general. I also am largely conservative as Cadete and others can attest.

[cadete]

Didn't say I liked it.

Sorry but the only PPL I have meet who think Albo can be PM tend to his supporters who seem to dismiss the existence of the NSW Right.

[Braveheart]

But what's the point to it?

 

We (the taxpayer) currently pay for all the medical treatment of those incarcerated in our prisons. Smoking induced emphysema, heart disease, lung disease, all types of cancer, diabetes etc. are all afflictions that the community need not have to pay to treat when considering the vastly reduced propensity for these to occur in our prison population if smoking is banned. 

From the libertarian side of things, we forgo certain rights when we transgress in society e.g. personal liberty and tbh I have zero problem with restricting access to potentially lethal and inarguably costly privileges such as cigarettes. 

Also, for the cons and neo-libs on here, how can you be against limiting the amount of public expenditure on prisoners on top of the already astronomical cost of housing and monitoring them? It's nonsensical.

[KSK_47]

On a side note, i wonder how much it changes prison economics . Imagine if someone had bulk purchased cartons of durries to pay for protection. 

[NewConvert]

On a side note, i wonder how much it changes prison economics . Imagine if someone had bulk purchased cartons of durries to pay for protection. 

This may not be a side note.  One of the news report (Channel 9 I think) said that the problem started when some prisoners had stocked up on cigarettes whilst other missed out causing a high level of tension. This could be interpreted to mean that scarcity has led to a severe price rise on a precious commodity leading to rampant profiteering and the ghost of Lenin rising to lead the inmates that didn't have smokes.

We (the taxpayer) currently pay for all the medical treatment of those incarcerated in our prisons. Smoking induced emphysema, heart disease, lung disease, all types of cancer, diabetes etc. are all afflictions that the community need not have to pay to treat when considering the vastly reduced propensity for these to occur in our prison population if smoking is banned. 

From the libertarian side of things, we forgo certain rights when we transgress in society e.g. personal liberty and tbh I have zero problem with restricting access to potentially lethal and inarguably costly privileges such as cigarettes. 

Also, for the cons and neo-libs on here, how can you be against limiting the amount of public expenditure on prisoners on top of the already astronomical cost of housing and monitoring them? It's nonsensical.

The underlying assumption here is that the prisoner population suffers a greater incidence of these diseases compared to the general population AND that the problem originates in the prison system. Carl Williams demise did not occur because of his smoking habit; indeed if I was informed that I had to share a cell with MJ I would take up smoking knowing full well that it will never kill me as it won't have the time to do so.

I am not aware of statistics regarding the health issues of prisoners or whether they get tracked over time. that could be interesting reading but I can't see anyone funding any such studies. And even if cigarette smoking is banned in prisons there is nothing to stop the inmate from taking up the habit once they are released.

Also I am not sure that the taxpayer pays for the cigarettes. If the inmates pay for it then the issue becomes more of a general health problem rather than a financing of a habit.

An argument for  allowing smoking is that illicit drugs do get into the prison system anyway and they form a black market. Banning cigarettes will add another item into the black market. And in my books there are few sins worse than the creation of an artificial black market.

Actually I am for the supplying of soma (Brave New World) to prisoners. The cost of keeping them perpetually drugged and in a state of blissful tranquillity should reduce the cost of jailing them. 

[Shahanga]

We (the taxpayer) currently pay for all the medical treatment of those incarcerated in our prisons. Smoking induced emphysema, heart disease, lung disease, all types of cancer, diabetes etc. are all afflictions that the community need not have to pay to treat when considering the vastly reduced propensity for these to occur in our prison population if smoking is banned. 

From the libertarian side of things, we forgo certain rights when we transgress in society e.g. personal liberty and tbh I have zero problem with restricting access to potentially lethal and inarguably costly privileges such as cigarettes. 

Also, for the cons and neo-libs on here, how can you be against limiting the amount of public expenditure on prisoners on top of the already astronomical cost of housing and monitoring them? It's nonsensical.

I get what your saying but your argument really only works if they never smoke again once their out. Frankly I find that doubtful. 

In the mean time you have a continual issue with people who probably aren't that nice to start with being even more Agro than normal ( this will never stop as you'll continue to have new ones coming in).

anyway, the point (I think you were also making) that we shouldn't worry too much about prisoners rights is fair enough.

[malloy]

Very disappointed with Abbott's stance on wind-power and renewables generally. He really is testing my patience. I'm by nature a conservative person, but it's perfectly possible to be conservative in some areas but progressive in others, but that doesn't seem possible for him.

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2015/07/12/15/15/research-shows-mini-ice-age-coming-in-15-years

 

so turns out Abbot is a genius and is merely trying to combat the upcoming ice age.

[Tesla]

We (the taxpayer) currently pay for all the medical treatment of those incarcerated in our prisons. Smoking induced emphysema, heart disease, lung disease, all types of cancer, diabetes etc. are all afflictions that the community need not have to pay to treat when considering the vastly reduced propensity for these to occur in our prison population if smoking is banned. 

From the libertarian side of things, we forgo certain rights when we transgress in society e.g. personal liberty and tbh I have zero problem with restricting access to potentially lethal and inarguably costly privileges such as cigarettes. 

Also, for the cons and neo-libs on here, how can you be against limiting the amount of public expenditure on prisoners on top of the already astronomical cost of housing and monitoring them? It's nonsensical.

The flaw in your argument is that taxpayers pay for the medical consequences regardless of whether the smoker is incarcerated or not. But even that's not really an accurate and fair statement, because the excise on cigarettes goes beyond the medical costs taxpayers have to cover for smokers. So really the smokers are paying, and most likely overpaying, for their smoking, whether incarcerated or not. 

As for your last paragraph, neo-cons would have jaywalkers jailed if they had it their way,  if they don't care about the cost of their 'send everyone to prison' mentality then your convoluted argument is hardly going to hold any weight.

You're slipping TBH. Greek situation got you fucked up? Questioning your beliefs seeing the left condem millions to a life of poverty? Or was it that the left sent a country on the brink of collapse within 5 months of taking government? Not too late, the free market holds no grudges, you're welcome to switch over. 

Edited July 12, 2015 by Tesla

[Braveheart]

This may not be a side note.  One of the news report (Channel 9 I think) said that the problem started when some prisoners had stocked up on cigarettes whilst other missed out causing a high level of tension. This could be interpreted to mean that scarcity has led to a severe price rise on a precious commodity leading to rampant profiteering and the ghost of Lenin rising to lead the inmates that didn't have smokes.

The underlying assumption here is that the prisoner population suffers a greater incidence of these diseases compared to the general population AND that the problem originates in the prison system.

Carl Williams demise did not occur because of his smoking habit; indeed if I was informed that I had to share a cell with MJ I would take up smoking knowing full well that it will never kill me as it won't have the time to do so.

I am not aware of statistics regarding the health issues of prisoners or whether they get tracked over time. that could be interesting reading but I can't see anyone funding any such studies. And even if cigarette smoking is banned in prisons there is nothing to stop the inmate from taking up the habit once they are released.

Also I am not sure that the taxpayer pays for the cigarettes. If the inmates pay for it then the issue becomes more of a general health problem rather than a financing of a habit.

An argument for  allowing smoking is that illicit drugs do get into the prison system anyway and they form a black market. Banning cigarettes will add another item into the black market. And in my books there are few sins worse than the creation of an artificial black market.

Actually I am for the supplying of soma (Brave New World) to prisoners. The cost of keeping them perpetually drugged and in a state of blissful tranquillity should reduce the cost of jailing them. 

1: Where did I assume that the prison population has a higher rate of anything?

2: I have zero idea what your Carl Williams tangent has to do with anything let alone my point about prison healthcare?

3: Of course there isn't? Once again, I, at no point in my post insinuated that prisoners would be rid of the smoking habit via the ban just that they would have a greatly reduced capacity to acquire the cigarettes and thus be less of a drain on the health system while incarcerated. The fact they can begin smoking again once released is philosophically void as once the judiciary has decided that the denial of personal liberty to a transgressor ceases upon release and moreover, the reinstating of the freedom to partake in behaviours that the state has not deemed beyond the realms of social acceptability (only a matter of time btw) e.g. smoking should occur, then they are free to do so and we pay for their smoking related healthcare just as we do any other idiot who choses to smoke in our society. The question is why are we affording people, who we have been denied basic liberties due to their unacceptable behaviour, the privilege of the choice to smoke and then foot the bill for that choice when we deny them access to other potentially costly/illness inducing luxuries such as alcohol or gambling while in the same position? I genuinely don't understand why there would be a pushback from those who are not currently incarcerated against this policy. 

4: I at no point claimed the tax payer pays for their cigarettes. It is not a general health problem simply due to the origin of the purchase, it is a public health problem because of the implicit duty of care mandated for any person residing at Her Majesty's Leisure which encompasses our healthcare standards and inevitably the taxpayer foots the bill for that.  

5: They are already an item for barter which drives conflict and the creation of said 'black-market' intrinsically implies that they are harder to get within this confined setting thus via simple deduction their scarcity assures fewer cases of prisoners contracting smoking related ailments which we in turn have to pay for. 

Edited July 13, 2015 by Braveheart

[Braveheart]

The flaw in your argument is that taxpayers pay for the medical consequences regardless of whether the smoker is incarcerated or not. But even that's not really an accurate and fair statement, because the excise on cigarettes goes beyond the medical costs taxpayers have to cover for smokers. So really the smokers are paying, and most likely overpaying, for their smoking, whether incarcerated or not. 

As for your last paragraph, neo-cons would have jaywalkers jailed if they had it their way,  if they don't care about the cost of their 'send everyone to prison' mentality then your convoluted argument is hardly going to hold any weight.

You're slipping TBH. Greek situation got you fucked up? Questioning your beliefs seeing the left condem millions to a life of poverty? Or was it that the left sent a country on the brink of collapse within 5 months of taking government? Not too late, the free market holds no grudges, you're welcome to switch over. 

Any and all items that attract significant amounts of excise go above paying just for the problem they are creating. Excise taxes on Fuel, alcohol, smoking etc. are intrinsically designed to engender positive societal benefit beyond the scope of the problems they cause. Not in any of your economics textbook's readings that detail the simple sum ease of "how to govern a country" and as much as it grinds your gears, not everything in our society is dollar for dollar due to our propensity for a sense of social justice that sees the redirection, reallocation of capital from individuals, sometimes disproportionately, to obtain an overall more just society, case in point being that smokers pay for my healthcare with both their personal tax and their bad choices  you may view this as irrational or unfair in your own twisted, Friemanite conception but in Australia it's the reality. Enjoy  

1) The Rightest/Neo-lib fiscal and financial doctrine central to the composition of the Eurozone mechanism from its conception to it's current economic minatoar form coupled with the extortionate usury practices of the ECB and IMF have everything to do with the current situation in Greece. The market is broken. You'd say stop meddling and let the market correct itself but what happens in the mean time before this economic utopia materialises? Those numbers on the spread sheets of Reaganite politicians and economists are actually people. Come up with a real solution to the crisis that affords the people that it is actually effecting some form of realtime assistance/relief instead of just having 'faith' that the market will inevitably look after them. Are you denying that some form of state/public sphere intervention is not needed in this situation? The church of the Market is very irrational and inflexible sometimes for an institution that claims to have the monopoly on economic sense and authority. 
 

2) You are genuinely kidding yourself if you actually believe that Tsipras created this situation. I personally think the bloke is a populist and have no love for him. You may think he's going about it the wrong way in trying to clean it up but he didn't create the mess and you know it. 

Edited July 13, 2015 by Braveheart

[NewConvert]

We (the taxpayer) currently pay for all the medical treatment of those incarcerated in our prisons. Smoking induced emphysema, heart disease, lung disease, all types of cancer, diabetes etc. are all afflictions that the community need not have to pay to treat when considering the vastly reduced propensity for these to occur in our prison population if smoking is banned. 

From the libertarian side of things, we forgo certain rights when we transgress in society e.g. personal liberty and tbh I have zero problem with restricting access to potentially lethal and inarguably costly privileges such as cigarettes. 

Also, for the cons and neo-libs on here, how can you be against limiting the amount of public expenditure on prisoners on top of the already astronomical cost of housing and monitoring them? It's nonsensical.

1: Where did I assume that the prison population has a higher rate of anything?

2: I have zero idea what your Carl Williams tangent has to do with anything let alone my point about prison healthcare?

3: Of course there isn't? Once again, I, at no point in my post insinuated that prisoners would be rid of the smoking habit via the ban just that they would have a greatly reduced capacity to acquire the cigarettes and thus be less of a drain on the health system while incarcerated. The fact they can begin smoking again once released is philosophically void as once the judiciary has decided that the denial of personal liberty to a transgressor ceases upon release and moreover, the reinstating of the freedom to partake in behaviours that the state has not deemed beyond the realms of social acceptability (only a matter of time btw) e.g. smoking should occur, then they are free to do so and we pay for their smoking related healthcare just as we do any other idiot who choses to smoke in our society. The question is why are we affording people, who we have been denied basic liberties due to their unacceptable behaviour, the privilege of the choice to smoke and then foot the bill for that choice when we deny them access to other potentially costly/illness inducing luxury such as alcohol or gambling while in the same position? I genuinely don't understand why there would be a pushback from those who are not currently incarcerated agains this policy. 

4: I at no point claimed the tax payer pays for their cigarettes. It is not a general health problem simply due to the origin of the purchase, it is a public health problem because of the implicit duty of care mandated for any person residing at Her Majesty's Leisure which encompasses our healthcare standards and inevitably the taxpayer foots the bill for.  

5: They are already an item for barter which drives conflict and the creation of said 'black-market' intrinsically implies that they are harder to get within this confined setting thus via simple deduction their scarcity assures fewer cases of prisoners contracting smoking related ailments which we in turn have to pay for. 

On your points:

1. On your original post your first paragraph links the medical treatment with the treatment of smoking related diseases. No allowance is made for the fact that these diseases may already have been contracted or can contracted after they leave prison. However you do clarify your point in your third response. Also note that I said the underlying assumption, that is, you made no explicit assumption in your original post.

2. I raised the death of Carl Williams to highlight that smoking related death amongst hard core prisoners is not a major issue. The two holes in this point are that the riot occurred at the remand centre and not all prisoners are hard core. None the less allowance has to be made for the fact that smoking related health issues are not always a major factor in a career criminal's life.

3. OK you have clarified your position. However regarding as to why I oppose the smoking ban in prisons and even more ardently the ban of smoking in hospital grounds the reasons are varied. My father died of lung cancer at a relatively young age due to a lifetime of smoking, he also worked in Melbourne's docks and was one of the hardest nuts I have ever met. He also suffered from vertigo, as do I, yet he had no qualms in climbing the communications mast on ships some 50 metres above water level and about 30 metres above the main deck, but he could never quit smoking - he tried, God knows he tried, but it beat him. So I can understand why some of these inmates started rioting - I lived with my father when he tried quitting smoking. And although my preference would be for the inmates to stop smoking, I would never ban their access to cigarettes. As I stated at the end I would rather that prisoners be sedated using soma but alas that would be unacceptable.

4. I know that you didn't state that the taxpayer does not pay for cigarettes. But this thread seemed to imply that it did so. As for the general well being of prisoners that would also include not to be injured whist rioting due to the ban on smoking.

5. The reduced availability may lead to other conflicts with even greater health ramifications.

[Tesla]

Any and all items that attract significant amounts of excise go above paying just for the problem they are creating. Excise taxes on Fuel, alcohol, smoking etc. are intrinsically designed to engender positive societal benefit beyond the scope of the problems they cause. Not in any of your economics textbook "how to govern a country" readings and as much as it grinds your gears, not everything in our society is dollar for dollar due to our propensity for a sense of social justice that sees the redirection, reallocation of capital from individuals, sometimes disproportionately, to attain an overall more 'just society case in point being that smokers pay for my healthcare with both their personal tax and their bad choices  you may view this as irrational or unfair in your own twisted, Friemanite conception but in Australia it's the reality. Enjoy  

1) The Rightest/Neo-lib fiscal and financial doctrine central to the composition of the Eurozone mechanism from its conception to it's current economic minatoar form coupled with the extortionate usury practices of the ECB and IMF have everything to do with the current situation in Greece. The market is broken. You'd say stop meddling and let the market correct itself but what happens in the mean time before this economic utopia materialises? Those numbers on the spread sheets of Reaganite politicians and economists are actually people. Come up with a real solution to the crisis that affords the people it is actually effecting some form realtime assistance instead of just having 'faith' that the market will inevitably look after them. Are you denying that some form of state/public sphere intervention is not needed in this situation? The church of the Market is very irrational and inflexible sometimes for a institution that claims to have the monopoly on economic authority. 
 

2) You are genuinely kidding yourself if you actually believe that Tsipras created this situation. I personally think the bloke is a populist and have no love for him. You may think he's going about it the wrong way in trying to clean it up but he didn't create the mess and you know it. 

I think you mean excises go above and beyond paying for the problem they're creating because they're easy ways for the government to raise revenue and pay for their killer pink batts scams, and you're genuinely kidding yourself if you think any differently. But let's say you were right, doesn't that mean you're against a system that lets prisoners 'engender positive societal benefit' by smoking? 

Regardless, it has nothing to do with what I've said. Prisoners pay their cigarette excise, which (at the very least) pays for the cost of any negative health effects that may burden the tax payer. Rendering your argument mute.

As for Greece, firstly there is nothing 'usury' about the loans to Greece, the interest rates Greece had on it's loans were very reasonable and would never be seen again if there is a default and "#Grexit". I agree that the conditions imposed on Greece have at times been harsh and perhaps not aligned with the greater good, but really the Greeks only have themselves to blame for running unsustainable budgets over a long period of time. I honestly hate nothing more than the attitude of entitlement that got Greece into this mess, and rather than learning from their mistakes and giving up this attitude of entitlement they voted in a government who was selling them lies and false hope that they could continue their unsustainable fiscal policies.

What Tsipras did was make a bad situation worse. This is exactly why I have no time for the far left, in the guise of being a man of the people who would save the poor, instead he created a situation where they are unable to access their own money. You want to talk about actual people, are the people crying in the streets and waiting hour in line just to access a few of their own hard earned euros not real people? Fuck the left, arrogant fucking assholes who only care about making themselves feel better and inflating their egos, they never actually achieve what they claim to stand for. What did all this crap achieve? In the end Greece has had to accept what their European overlords tell them to. As Tsipras him self said, it's a bad deal but it's the best Greece could get. Thanks mate, it was obvious to everyone else all along that was the case. Fuck, I would have more respect for this cunt if he had the balls to actually go the "#Grexit" route, it also would have been pretty interesting TBH to see how it went.

So in the end, we can chalk this up as another fucking great left wing government, just like every other one in history

PS not sure if you're just trying to rustle my jimmies but a lot of what I believe in isn't taught in economic textbooks, and the mainstream economic paradigm is as much, if not more, Keynes than Friedman.

PPS Being a strong believer in the power of the market doesn't equate to a  disregard for the less fortunate, the market can still be utilised to deliver outcomes that meet society's expectations of wealth distribution and so forth with minimal interference, and do so better than any other system. Even in this technological age, the strongest super computers can't make forecast to answer the basic economic questions (what to produce? for whom to produce? how to produce)  better than a simple system like the market can. 

PPPS what the fuck is a "how to govern a country" reading? Can we send one to Tsipras? An economics textbook also wouldn't go astray TBH.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Tesla

[cadete]

I think you mean excises go above and beyond paying for the problem they're creating because they're easy ways for the government to raise revenue and pay for their killer pink batts scams, and you're genuinely kidding yourself if you think any differently. But let's say you were right, doesn't that mean you're against a system that lets prisoners 'engender positive societal benefit' by smoking? 

Regardless, it has nothing to do with what I've said. Prisoners pay their cigarette excise, which (at the very least) pays for the cost of any negative health effects that may burden the tax payer. Rendering your argument mute.

As for Greece, firstly there is nothing 'usury' about the loans to Greece, the interest rates Greece had on it's loans were very reasonable and would never be seen again if there is a default and "#Grexit". I agree that the conditions imposed on Greece have at times been harsh and perhaps not aligned with the greater good, but really the Greeks only have themselves to blame for running unsustainable budgets over a long period of time. I honestly hate nothing more than the attitude of entitlement that got Greece into this mess, and rather than learning from their mistakes and giving up this attitude of entitlement they voted in a government who was selling them lies and false hope that they could continue their unsustainable fiscal policies.

What Tsipras did was make a bad situation worse. This is exactly why I have no time for the far left, in the guise of being a man of the people who would save the poor, instead he created a situation where they are unable to access their own money. You want to talk about actual people, are the people crying in the streets and waiting hour in line just to access a few of their own hard earned euros not real people? Fuck the left, arrogant fucking assholes who only care about making themselves feel better and inflating their egos, they never actually achieve what they claim to stand for. What did all this crap achieve? In the end Greece has had to accept what their European overlords tell them to. As Tsipras him self said, it's a bad deal but it's the best Greece could get. Thanks mate, it was obvious to everyone else all along that was the case. Fuck, I would have more respect for this cunt if he had the balls to actually go the "#Grexit" route, it also would have been pretty interesting TBH to see how it went.

So in the end, we can chalk this up as another fucking great left wing government, just like every other one in history

PS not sure if you're just trying to rustle my jimmies but a lot of what I believe in isn't taught in economic textbooks, and the mainstream economic paradigm is as much, if not more, Keynes than Friedman.

PPS Being a strong believer in the power of the market doesn't equate to a  disregard for the less fortunate, the market can still be utilised to deliver outcomes that meet society's expectations of wealth distribution and so forth with minimal interference, and do so better than any other system. Even in this technological age, the strongest super computers can't make forecast to answer the basic economic questions (what to produce? for whom to produce? how to produce)  better than a simple system like the market can. 

PPPS what the fuck is a "how to govern a country" reading? Can we send one to Tsipras? An economics textbook also wouldn't go astray TBH.

No offence mate but sometimes I read your posts and think this guy actually needs to meet a real politician and have a decent chat or do some work in a government agency or just some form of beaucracy that works alongside government.

Its just the way you see some things is as idealistic as many a Marxist when it comes to your outlook on some of this stuff.  

Edited July 15, 2015 by cadete

[Tesla]

Good to see my crazy idealistic ideas gaining traction with my solution to both housing prices and state revenue (land tax)  now very much on the agenda across the states and pretty close to being reality in SA at least.

Clearly Joe Hockey and Jay Weatherill reading my posts on this forum

[Tesla]

Though if a new or greater land tax replaces stamp duty then it's hard to know what affect there would be on housing prices, it will really depends on the rate

What is known is that it will skew buying towards owner occupiers and it will skew buying away from the foreign investors who buy property just to park their funds. 

Ultimately a win for economic efficiency, and a win for getting people owning their own house. Plus if it's high enough to remove the need for increasing GST, it's a win for low income earners. 

[GreenSeater]

TTIM: Trying to understand Telsa's posts which I'm sure are interesting make solid points but not knowing anything about economics

[cadete]

Good to see my crazy idealistic ideas gaining traction with my solution to both housing prices and state revenue (land tax)  now very much on the agenda across the states and pretty close to being reality in SA at least.

Clearly Joe Hockey and Jay Weatherill reading my posts on this forum

I agree clearly your Balkan Genetics have been recognised...

What are you going to do when you have to choose between your inevitable nomination for preselection for the seat of Kooyong or Chairman of the VRC?

[NewConvert]

Though if a new or greater land tax replaces stamp duty then it's hard to know what affect there would be on housing prices, it will really depends on the rate

What is known is that it will skew buying towards owner occupiers and it will skew buying away from the foreign investors who buy property just to park their funds. 

Ultimately a win for economic efficiency, and a win for getting people owning their own house. Plus if it's high enough to remove the need for increasing GST, it's a win for low income earners. 

 

Taking credit for the Henry review or are you Ken Henry???

As far as skewing foreign investors that park their funds - that is assuming that the funds are legitimate and can be safe anywhere in the world. Else, if they are not legitimate then that won't stop the parking of the money. AFAIK that has not stopped money laundering from the South American drug warlords.

 

 

[Tesla]

Taking credit for the Henry review or are you Ken Henry???

As far as skewing foreign investors that park their funds - that is assuming that the funds are legitimate and can be safe anywhere in the world. Else, if they are not legitimate then that won't stop the parking of the money. AFAIK that has not stopped money laundering from the South American drug warlords.

 

 

I'm sure me and Mr Henry would agree on a lot of things. But we all know that these reviews and reports produce very few real outcomes.

Seemingly tax reform was on the agenda and a priority but instead we have some expenses bullshit taking all the focus of our parliament currently.

Honestly I couldn't give a fuck what MPs are paid. That's not the problem. The question that should be asked is what are taxpayers getting for the money that goes to MPs pay and entitlements? I honestly dont think the average member of the public realises how little the average MP is actually in parliament, would only make all this 'outrage' so much more if a big deal was made about that as well.

This is one where cadete can enlighten me, what the fuck do MPs do the rest of the time?

It seems to me the system is a leftover from a long time ago where being an MP maybe wasn't a full time job and/or MPs had to spend more time in their local district. Seems to me the average MP wouldn't even be putting in the hours of a full time job.

The way I see it, the pay of MPs is fine but frankly I'd expect at least 70 hours of work a week from an MP in return. As for ministers, they're actually probably underpaid, the PM is definitely underpaid. The PM should be on 7 figures if you ask me. But again I'd expect 90-100 hours a week from a minister, and 120 hours a week from the PM.

Maybe then the government wouldn't come to a standstill whenever there is some bullshit like MPs entitlements in the media, and the whole term of a government wouldn't be spent trying to get the same handful of budget measures through parliament.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Tesla

[NewConvert]

I'm sure me and Mr Henry would agree on a lot of things. But we all know that these reviews and reports produce very few real outcomes.

Not really most reports get partially implemented depending on the government electoral cycle. In my lifetime the ones that have been ignored are the on aborigines. The big exception was the Ralph report on taxation commissioned by Howard and that was because it said that trusts were a rort and should be abolished. The Henry report has probably been implemented to the 60% mark and I suspect that the Murray report will be ignored because it says that trusts and negative gearing are a big rort.

Seemingly tax reform was on the agenda and a priority but instead we have some expenses bullshit taking all the focus of our parliament currently.

Tax remains n the agenda but due to polling and complexity will be ignored. The expenses is the blowback to the political comments on leaners and the end of the age of entitlement. And having been born in a continent rife with corruption I don't believe it to be bullshit.

Honestly I couldn't give a fuck what MPs are paid. That's not the problem. The question that should be asked is what are taxpayers getting for the money that goes to MPs pay and entitlements? I honestly dont think the average member of the public realises how little the average MP is actually in parliament, would only make all this 'outrage' so much more if a big deal was made about that as well.

This is one where cadete can enlighten me, what the fuck do MPs do the rest of the time?

Being a member of parliament is an unusual occupation. For starters, where is their office? Is it Canberra (or state capital) or is it in their electorate? They are part sales, part academic, part Oprah, part manager. All MPs and senators belong to some standing committee that oversees legislation and operations. The problem that I have with MPs entitlements is that they are not defined. The remuneration commission makes recommendations regarding their salary but nothing defines their entitlements - well other than themselves. Hence the rorting. In my yoof I was offered the opportunity to follow a political career but turned it down in that I don't have a thick hide and most likely would have decked a number of MPs.

It seems to me the system is a leftover from a long time ago where being an MP maybe wasn't a full time job and/or MPs had to spend more time in their local district. Seems to me the average MP wouldn't even be putting in the hours of a full time job.

They do. Most of them will be attending some local event in the evenings or weekends as well as attending to constituents matters (which about 30 years ago numbered about 100 cases a week).

The way I see it, the pay of MPs is fine but frankly I'd expect at least 70 hours of work a week from an MP in return. As for ministers, they're actually probably underpaid, the PM is definitely underpaid. The PM should be on 7 figures if you ask me. But again I'd expect 90-100 hours a week from a minister, and 120 hours a week from the PM.

Maybe then the government wouldn't come to a standstill whenever there is some bullshit like MPs entitlements in the media, and the whole term of a government wouldn't be spent trying to get the same handful of budget measures through parliament.

That is actually a reflection of this government. It never Happened under Hawke, Keating or Howard. Under any of those three, the speaker would have been gone within hours. The only occasion that had Howard bamboozled was when one of his MPs was issued with an apprehended violence order and then it was discovered that quite a few had a history of domestic violence. The resolution was that all parties trawled through their MPs details and those found wanting were told that they would not be pre-selected for the next election. As Robert Ray said at the time "Let the cards fall where they may".

[Tesla]

What I meant regarding expenses is that it's not a huge figure in the grand scheme of things and taxpayers would derive more value from the government focusing on getting things done rather than squabbling over expenses and entitlements even if the end result is a decrease in costs to the tax payer. 

When you hear some of the expenses claimed it does seem out of hand and a stricter approach is needed, but it needs to be balanced with letting MPs do their job, and right now there are people trying to score political points with shit like saying that MPs only should fly economy class, the way I see it MPs should fly business class because business class actually let's you get some work done while flying. 

[NewConvert]

What I meant regarding expenses is that it's not a huge figure in the grand scheme of things and taxpayers would derive more value from the government focusing on getting things done rather than squabbling over expenses and entitlements even if the end result is a decrease in costs to the tax payer. 

When you hear some of the expenses claimed it does seem out of hand and a stricter approach is needed, but it needs to be balanced with letting MPs do their job, and right now there are people trying to score political points with shit like saying that MPs only should fly economy class, the way I see it MPs should fly business class because business class actually let's you get some work done while flying. 

I disagree with you on this. A very good friend of mine (we see each other twice a week) is an executive for a very large multinational - one of the largest companies in the world actually and so for them the cost of some little pissant in Melbourne buying himself a pie on the company expense account should not even be on the radar but it is - it could lead to immediate dismissal and using the corporate card for personal use no matter how small is instant dismissal. So if private enterprise deems that expenses need to be accounted for then so should the government. I also have worked for large multinationals and they were also stingy. Oh, and the company I worked for was strictly economy except for the CEO and board; or upon arrival you need to go into a business meeting.

And as far as business class another mate of mine was flying business class and sat next to someone who worked for my competitor; got enough info to let us win the contract Hence the only work I do whilst flying is stuff that could be advertised and having no impact on the business.

Oh, and what do you really mean by "government focusing on getting things done"? Since you have libertarian leanings wouldn't you prefer a paralyzed government?

 

 

 

[Shahanga]

Interesting post earlier New Convert (couldn't quote it for some reason), but it was my understanding that the Henry review got binned 100% by Rudd/Gillard.  They came up with something different instead* (the mining tax) which then got revised due to the political storm it generated.

As to expenses i think both you and Tesla are right.  Tesla is right in that the amounts are tiny (a fraction of what was thrown away on East-West link, for instance), but you are also right in that they are still important as to what they represent. 

* I thought Henry produced something like 40 recommendations, so you can't really say 1 new tax replaced them.

[NewConvert]

Interesting post earlier New Convert (couldn't quote it for some reason), but it was my understanding that the Henry review got binned 100% by Rudd/Gillard.  They came up with something different instead* (the mining tax) which then got revised due to the political storm it generated.

As to expenses i think both you and Tesla are right.  Tesla is right in that the amounts are tiny (a fraction of what was thrown away on East-West link, for instance), but you are also right in that they are still important as to what they represent. 

* I thought Henry produced something like 40 recommendations, so you can't really say 1 new tax replaced them.

There was a lot of stuff in the Henry review but the centre piece was a mining tax of some kind. Of course the mining industry went full bore on Rudd with it because they don't pay taxes (Chile had a similar problem but there the overall political consensus was that the mining industry by not paying royalties was getting subsidized by everyone else hence their royalty scheme was passed into legislation and no the mining companies did not flee) and to make matters worse Rudd and Swan came up with a truly complicated scheme. Once Rudd was overthrown, Gillard and Swan personally went into direct negotiations with the mining industry without any bureaucrats and came up with the dogs breakfast where the mining companies did not pay any taxes. But a lot of the other stuff for example lifting the tax threshold to $17k was passed. Gillard/Swan had to do a lot negotiations with the Senate but eventually the taxation system became simpler in a lot ways as per the Henry review.

[NewConvert]

Earlier I wrote

"The big exception was the Ralph report on taxation commissioned by Howard and that was because it said that trusts were a rort and should be abolished."

However Peter Martin writing in Fairfax stated that parts of the Ralph report were implemented and that is how we got the negative gearing that we have today. Apparently the Ralph report also had measures to prevent housing bubbles but Howard did not implement those.

[Shahanga]

There was a lot of stuff in the Henry review but the centre piece was a mining tax of some kind. 

I remember now that Henry (quite rightly) identified that mining royalites were inefficient and should be replaced with a super profits tax (the logic on that is Royalties are constant, you have to pay them even in the bad years, where as an APT would only be paid in the good years).  Rudd's "solution" was to keep royalties and ADD an additional profits tax.  He then also had the front to have this kick in at normal profit level (about 10% I think), which is less than a project's internal hurdle, in effect attempting to render most (new) mining projects uneconomic and stripping the existing ones like a robber baron.

  (The problem for Prime Ministers is that royalties go the states, obviously you require some major taxation restructuring if you are going to abolish them and not face a state's revolt, Rudd couldn't be arsed doing that, so he just whacked on (or tried to) a huge brand new tax.

BTW the assertion of some that mining companies don't pay tax is simply false.  I know when i worked for one of the major's the minimum host country tax (including taxes by any name) was just short of 50%.  People can make it sound like less if they ignore stuff like royalties for instance (in much the same way the government wants us to think that the medicare "levy" is not a tax).

[bt50]

I remember now that Henry (quite rightly) identified that mining royalites were inefficient and should be replaced with a super profits tax (the logic on that is Royalties are constant, you have to pay them even in the bad years, where as an APT would only be paid in the good years).  Rudd's "solution" was to keep royalties and ADD an additional profits tax.  He then also had the front to have this kick in at normal profit level (about 10% I think), which is less than a project's internal hurdle, in effect attempting to render most (new) mining projects uneconomic and stripping the existing ones like a robber baron.

  (The problem for Prime Ministers is that royalties go the states, obviously you require some major taxation restructuring if you are going to abolish them and not face a state's revolt, Rudd couldn't be arsed doing that, so he just whacked on (or tried to) a huge brand new tax.

BTW the assertion of some that mining companies don't pay tax is simply false.  I know when i worked for one of the major's the minimum host country tax (including taxes by any name) was just short of 50%.  People can make it sound like less if they ignore stuff like royalties for instance (in much the same way the government wants us to think that the medicare "levy" is not a tax).

Yeh mate, but #Kevin07

[NewConvert]

I remember now that Henry (quite rightly) identified that mining royalites were inefficient and should be replaced with a super profits tax (the logic on that is Royalties are constant, you have to pay them even in the bad years, where as an APT would only be paid in the good years).  Rudd's "solution" was to keep royalties and ADD an additional profits tax.  He then also had the front to have this kick in at normal profit level (about 10% I think), which is less than a project's internal hurdle, in effect attempting to render most (new) mining projects uneconomic and stripping the existing ones like a robber baron.

  (The problem for Prime Ministers is that royalties go the states, obviously you require some major taxation restructuring if you are going to abolish them and not face a state's revolt, Rudd couldn't be arsed doing that, so he just whacked on (or tried to) a huge brand new tax.

BTW the assertion of some that mining companies don't pay tax is simply false.  I know when i worked for one of the major's the minimum host country tax (including taxes by any name) was just short of 50%.  People can make it sound like less if they ignore stuff like royalties for instance (in much the same way the government wants us to think that the medicare "levy" is not a tax).

Actually the minerals belong to the states by constitutional fiat, so any changes there will need a federal referendum to change the constitution where the mining states agree to let the federal government have the royalties. And that will never happen, so we are stuck with Queensland and WA having their economies entirely propped up by the extractive industries, and the federal government getting the scraps. Hence the added tax - where Rudd  went wrong was that he should have taken Garnaut's advice and extended the petroleum excise to iron ore and coal, and that would have been a lot easier politically and financially. Stupid is as stupid does.

I worked for both Rio and BHP in the Pilbara. Back then they were retrenching people. The real problem occurs when there is a bubble because what ever balance the economy has is quickly lost and you end up with the 'Dutch disease'. Just in case, the 'Dutch disease' happens when an extractive industry causes the currency to appreciate quickly devastating all other export industries but when the currency falls again, the old industries don't return - in the case of the Netherlands petroleum caused the demise of a lot of industries. Right now, the mineral boom is all but over but there does not appear to be any green shoots of returning industries.

[Tesla]

Will be interesting to see what news comes out of NBN Co this week, new estimates in regard to cost and timing will be announced.

It is suspected that the news will be that the whole thing has been a complete and utter fuck up.

Let's face it, people vote for the Coalition because they'll manage the economy better, but all their good work will probably be wiped out by how much fucking the NBN up has cost the economy and tax payers.

Don't know why the government even bothered, should have just privatised it when they came to office and moved on, instead the end result will be pretty muc the same money and more time for a shitter product.

[NewConvert]

Will be interesting to see what news comes out of NBN Co this week, new estimates in regard to cost and timing will be announced.

It is suspected that the news will be that the whole thing has been a complete and utter fuck up.

Let's face it, people vote for the Coalition because they'll manage the economy better, but all their good work will probably be wiped out by how much fucking the NBN up has cost the economy and tax payers.

Don't know why the government even bothered, should have just privatised it when they came to office and moved on, instead the end result will be pretty muc the same money and more time for a shitter product.

Indeed it will as currently their tech expert has refused to attend the senate estimates committee. I am not sure that it has been a fuck up per se - I have a lot of questions regarding the construction industry as a whole but one thing is always clear with them - they always underestimate with large projects. Hell even when they built my house they couldn't get the timing right - not even within the ball park!

As far as this coalition government, I haven't heard anyone in industry admire them for their economic management. Indeed I expect that many, if not most, of them will have rather limited opportunities post-politics. As far as the cost of the NBN last time I did the sums (when I had better access to international cost comparison) the cost at the time was equivalent to the UK (the difference was small). Singapore had the best cost figures because the place is so small. Japan had better figures as well but their construction industry is superb. The jury is out as to whether it has cost the cost the economy as it has not been completed nor the stimulus effect been calculated but I do note that almost all of the OECD countries (and non-OECD) are implementing the same GPON/XPON technology. And if you don't know why the NBN has not been privatised as yet that simply tells me that you have never followed the NBN very closely.