Domestic Politics

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, GreenSeater said:

UOTIH: The date of Australia Day should change from the 26th of January. Australians were here well before the first fleet and to many of them it, like the union jack, represents the beginning of slavery and genocide on this continent. I love Australia, and I love Australia Day and celebrating this country, but literally any other day of the 365 days in a year would be better, and allow all Australians to celebrate this day rather than see it as a day of mourning.

That is why I suggested July 31 when WA were the last colony to ratify federation and the history of the Commonwealth began. Prior to that not only did the different indigenous nations have their own history but so did the colonies. It was in September 1901 that the current national flag was flown and it wasn't fully ratified until 1953 (apparently there was some confusion as many people flew the merchant navy's red ensign - the descendants of people who flew the red ensign later went onto form the Melbourne Heart fan forum demanding red as the main colour for the club specially  after they were taken over by CFG).

[Tesla]

Look I'm in favour of a republic cause the concept of monarchy is outdated, and it provides us no benefit. There is really no reason to keep it, and I haven't heard a better argument for it remaining than keeping that status quo, or some convoluted argument about 'tradition;' which kind of sounds like a nice way of saying something like  'the English own this country' (and it's always from people of English ancestry).

But what's really making me even more pro-republic is the fact that the only reason monarchy is becoming popular again is because of some retarded Kardashianesque celebrity obsession with William/Kate. Seriously WTF is wrong with people? My generation is full of fucking losers.

 

15 hours ago, cadete said:

Also Australia is due to have an upcoming Referendum anyway on a proposal to have Preamble about Aboriginals in the Constitution so a Republic Question could be asked at the same time and there would be no extra cost.

If anything is pointless / waste of money surely this is? Pls explain the benefits Cad cause I know you know all about it and are in favour.

[Tesla]

9 hours ago, GreenSeater said:

UOTIH: The date of Australia Day should change from the 26th of January. Australians were here well before the first fleet and to many of them it, like the union jack, represents the beginning of slavery and genocide on this continent. I love Australia, and I love Australia Day and celebrating this country, but literally any other day of the 365 days in a year would be better, and allow all Australians to celebrate this day rather than see it as a day of mourning.

While I understand why many people who identify as indigenous Australians won't celebrate Australia day, I don't see why the holiday needs to change. TBH, I feel all this stuff about recognising indigenous Australia is out of hand. Every country in the world has history, it has indigenous people, it has other people coming and taking over land, etc. Why does it have to be such a big deal in Australia? Why do we always have to have the 'we recognise the traditional owners of this land' crap? Why do we have to have shit added to the constitution? And why can't we celebrate the day that lead to the creation of Australia as we know it?

Again, I don't at all blame indigenous Australians feeling how they do about the day, they are 100% entitled to and if anything they are right to feel that way, what I don't understand is why they are so many non-indigenous people on this anti australia day bandwagon. I've said it before, but I feel like a lot of people of Anglo decent feel a sense of guilt and don't approach issues relating to indigenous Australian rationally. 

Well I don't since my ancestors had nothing to do with that stuff, they were coping it from the Ottomans at the time, and before that they were probably doing worse shit to the Persians and what not. But that's all just pages in history books.

The way I see it, what happened to the Aboriginals, lead to Australia as we know it today, which I think everyone agrees (despite all it's flaws which I am usually the first to bring up) is the best country in the world. So I'm going to celebrate it, and I'm going to celebrate it on the day it all started, January 26th.

[jw1739]

I agree with much of what you say there Tesla, but I'd actually go for 1st January as "Australia Day" to commemorate federation, which I feel was the founding of modern Australia and the most inclusive day that we could choose for all our peoples. I also feel that it is possible to celebrate what we are today whilst recognising past and existing injustices. Indeed, IMO it's important to celebrate it, because celebration of what we are gives us energy to go forward and make Australia even better in the future.

[Dylan]

10 hours ago, Tesla said:

While I understand why many people who identify as indigenous Australians won't celebrate Australia day, I don't see why the holiday needs to change. TBH, I feel all this stuff about recognising indigenous Australia is out of hand. Every country in the world has history, it has indigenous people, it has other people coming and taking over land, etc. Why does it have to be such a big deal in Australia? Why do we always have to have the 'we recognise the traditional owners of this land' crap? Why do we have to have shit added to the constitution? And why can't we celebrate the day that lead to the creation of Australia as we know it?

Again, I don't at all blame indigenous Australians feeling how they do about the day, they are 100% entitled to and if anything they are right to feel that way, what I don't understand is why they are so many non-indigenous people on this anti australia day bandwagon. I've said it before, but I feel like a lot of people of Anglo decent feel a sense of guilt and don't approach issues relating to indigenous Australian rationally. 

Well I don't since my ancestors had nothing to do with that stuff, they were coping it from the Ottomans at the time, and before that they were probably doing worse shit to the Persians and what not. But that's all just pages in history books.

The way I see it, what happened to the Aboriginals, lead to Australia as we know it today, which I think everyone agrees (despite all it's flaws which I am usually the first to bring up) is the best country in the world. So I'm going to celebrate it, and I'm going to celebrate it on the day it all started, January 26th.

Well the big deal is because it has never been properly dealt with  and the history is that we have a tendency to tell Aboriginal people what they should think and feel rather than asking them what they think and until that happens nothing will change. If you dont give any type of people some kind of ownership then its always going to leave a sour taste. FWIW I for the life of me cant understand why Aboriginal culture and history issnt embraced more, its absolutely fantastic and unique, best thing I ever did was get didgeredoo lessons

Edited January 26, 2016 by Dylan

[NewConvert]

12 hours ago, Tesla said:

While I understand why many people who identify as indigenous Australians won't celebrate Australia day, I don't see why the holiday needs to change. TBH, I feel all this stuff about recognising indigenous Australia is out of hand. Every country in the world has history, it has indigenous people, it has other people coming and taking over land, etc. Why does it have to be such a big deal in Australia? Why do we always have to have the 'we recognise the traditional owners of this land' crap? Why do we have to have shit added to the constitution? And why can't we celebrate the day that lead to the creation of Australia as we know it?

Again, I don't at all blame indigenous Australians feeling how they do about the day, they are 100% entitled to and if anything they are right to feel that way, what I don't understand is why they are so many non-indigenous people on this anti australia day bandwagon. I've said it before, but I feel like a lot of people of Anglo decent feel a sense of guilt and don't approach issues relating to indigenous Australian rationally. 

Well I don't since my ancestors had nothing to do with that stuff, they were coping it from the Ottomans at the time, and before that they were probably doing worse shit to the Persians and what not. But that's all just pages in history books.

The way I see it, what happened to the Aboriginals, lead to Australia as we know it today, which I think everyone agrees (despite all it's flaws which I am usually the first to bring up) is the best country in the world. So I'm going to celebrate it, and I'm going to celebrate it on the day it all started, January 26th.

For starters not every country in the world has a history of being brutally colonised: Japan, Thailand, Nauru, etc. Some the brutalisation happened so long ago that these days its only in the history books: Italy (Romans did a good job there), England/Wales/Scotland (too conquerors to mention), etc.

Secondly, it is not only Australia that is having to deal with these issues: a decade ago the indigenous south of Mexico rose up in rebellion, Chile is dealing with large scale civil disobedience and terrorist acts from its southern indigenous population, Canada is also dealing with it, the USA have protected indigenous reservations, NZ still dealing with its Maori population. In a way it is something to be proud that some of the most difficult historical issues are being dealt in a relatively civilised way in the aforementioned countries. Contrast that with the way the Chinese central government deal with its minorities and don't forget the Russians. The Japanese don't talk about the Anui either.

Third, culturally speaking attachment to the land is not unique to Australian aboriginals. You will find many cultures around the world do: including the bushman of kalahari, the mapuches, etc. And the recognition of prior ownership is not unique to Australia. Perhaps it is the only way to recognise that a culture has once existed in these lands. I note that the Romans wiped out all recognition of Etruscan and so they remain an enigma.

Fourthly, If we added railway gauges to the constitution I don't have a problem with adding Aboriginal recognition.

As I've said in an earlier post I don't think that January 26th encompasses all that is Australia and which is why I suggested the last referendum held in the Swan River Colony or as someone else suggested September 17th when Queen Vic assented to the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia. I don't think that having such opinions make you anti-australian.

[Shahanga]

@cadete 

worth remembering everything the Poms did to our forebears in both wars they also did to their own (& Often worse).

Doesnt excuse it, but perhaps puts it in context.

[NewConvert]

49 minutes ago, Shahanga said:

@cadete 

worth remembering everything the Poms did to our forebears in both wars they also did to their own (& Often worse).

Doesnt excuse it, but perhaps puts it in context.

About time someone mention the aristocratic classes and their entitlements.

[cadete]

On 1/25/2016 at 2:10 AM, Tesla said:

If anything is pointless / waste of money surely this is? Pls explain the benefits Cad cause I know you know all about it and are in favour.

I can't be bothered... everything to you is a waste of taxpayers money, to the point that you could host a Commercial Talkback Radio Show in WA.

[Deeming]

Things that are more important than a Republic:

Fixing;

• taxation
• duplication between states and federal governments; Health, education etc
• getting the budget under control
• fighting militant Islam aboard and locally
• lack of accountability of local councils
• lack of accountability of judges and magistrates
• lax sentencing of criminals
• parole boards
• settling one way or another same-sex marriage

And I'm a nominal minimalist republican.

[bt50]

Imo the current income tax system is spot on.

GST needs to go up to 15% though, although as an accountant that will make things inconvenient when it comes to calculating GST off the top of your head

[cadete]

23 minutes ago, Deeming said:

Things that are more important than a Republic:

Fixing;

• taxation
• duplication between states and federal governments; Health, education etc
• getting the budget under control
• fighting militant Islam aboard and locally
• lack of accountability of local councils
• lack of accountability of judges and magistrates
• lax sentencing of criminals
• parole boards
• settling one way or another same-sex marriage

And I'm a nominal minimalist republican.

There are only two issues listed above that were not important twenty years ago for most Australians, the rest are always going to be topics that as Society moves forward and changes will require revision from Governments over time... in fact things like the Tax System, or the Legal System basically require revision as soon as they have just been revised by a Government.

So you're basically saying no Australian Government should ever pursue any Social or Community Minded Project ever...

Edited January 27, 2016 by cadete

[Deeming]

5 minutes ago, cadete said:

There are only two issues listed above that were not important twenty years ago for most Australians, the rest are always going to be topics that as Society moves forward and changes will require revision from Governments over time... in fact things like the Tax System, or the Legal System basically require revision as soon as they have just been revised by a Government.

So you're basically saying no Australian Government should ever pursue any Social or Community Minded Project ever...

I think many of the issues above have increased in importance over the last 20 years so if Australia rejected a republic then now it will also fail.

Changing to a republic is not just a 'project'. Even on a minimalist model it fundamentally changes the way we are governed. 

If we are putting time and effort into a change of this size then I think its better to get some measurable benefit out of it.

[cadete]

5 minutes ago, Deeming said:

I think many of the issues above have increased in importance over the last 20 years so if Australia rejected a republic then now it will also fail.

Changing to a republic is not just a 'project'. Even on a minimalist model it fundamentally changes the way we are governed. 

If we are putting time and effort into a change of this size then I think its better to get some measurable benefit out of it.

I am sorry but you have listed the issues that every State or Federal election has been fought about for the past fifty years... perhaps PPL care more about tougher sentencing but generally none of those above issues will ever leave from the forefront of Australian Political Landscape. 

The only two new issues were Same Sex Marriage and the Islamic Issues.

And I really struggle to see how replacing the current system of a Bi-Partisan GG with a Bi-Partisan Figurehead President as proposed by the past referendum would see any great difference in how we are governed. 

Edited January 27, 2016 by cadete

[jw1739]

Because the present Head of State - that's if it is indeed HM The Queen - is apolitical and has no involvement in "issues", and the rules of succession are fixed and require no nomination or election. Therein lies the greatest change in moving to a republican model of some description. 

On the other hand, if the Governor-General is already the Head of State - as argued by some authorities - then look no further at the previous incumbent, who was involved in women's issues and could not be said to be apolitical being the mother-in-law of the leader of one of our major parties.

It is very hard to keep a President out of politics.

[NewConvert]

30 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

Because the present Head of State - that's if it is indeed HM The Queen - is apolitical and has no involvement in "issues", and the rules of succession are fixed and require no nomination or election. Therein lies the greatest change in moving to a republican model of some description. 

On the other hand, if the Governor-General is already the Head of State - as argued by some authorities - then look no further at the previous incumbent, who was involved in women's issues and could not be said to be apolitical being the mother-in-law of the leader of one of our major parties.

It is very hard to keep a President out of politics.

It has been in the English press for quite some time but not only does the Queen get information from the cabinet but so does Prince Charles and Prince Williams. And Prince Charles has always been involved in politics in the UK. Of course the Queen and Thatcher got on almost as well as the Sunnis do with the Shias.

As far as Australia is concerned Charles has always said that he is very open to the idea of Australia becoming a republic (tut tut a political opinion). I  don't know whether the GG or the Palace get reports from the Australian federal or state cabinets, so I can't really say that they would be apolitical. If Parliament appointed a paralympian as GG it would be a political statement regardless if the GG was mute. Personally I would have loved to have seen Stella Young as a GG/President but that will never happen now.

Of course one of the funniest moments in Australia's history was Richard Butler the governor of Tasmania who was told to resign when he made a speech to graduating high school students and just couldn't be bothered and abbreviated his speech to etc etc. now that was political as well...

I don't think that the position could ever be apolitical but it does require someone who has an enormous amount of decorum and tact. I am sad to say that I don't believe that we have any politician that could possibly fill that role because if they were ministers or shadow ministers the politics have become so angry that they cannot rise above it. Thankfully there are enough people that could fill the role without having soiled themselves in parliament.

[cadete]

1 hour ago, jw1739 said:

Because the present Head of State - that's if it is indeed HM The Queen - is apolitical and has no involvement in "issues", and the rules of succession are fixed and require no nomination or election. Therein lies the greatest change in moving to a republican model of some description. 

On the other hand, if the Governor-General is already the Head of State - as argued by some authorities - then look no further at the previous incumbent, who was involved in women's issues and could not be said to be apolitical being the mother-in-law of the leader of one of our major parties.

It is very hard to keep a President out of politics.

The President would have the same exact powers as the Governor General and would have to be agreed upon by both parties... therefore they would have same Political Mandate as the GG. I agree an elected President would be hard to keep out of Politics but not somebody chosen by the public's favourite PPL: Politicians is a different situation.

Also what did Quentin Bryce do that seriously influenced Australian Political Policy?

Only one GG in over hundred years had an influence on Politics in Australia, and this one incident has only enforced the fact that no GG should ever act in such a manner.

Edited January 27, 2016 by cadete

[Shahanga]

10 hours ago, cadete said:

I can't be bothered... everything to you is a waste of taxpayers money, to the point that you could host a Commercial Talkback Radio Show in WA.

And if I must say, (kind of unfortunately, as it will go to his head), it would be a damn fine show.

[Shahanga]

5 hours ago, cadete said:

The President would have the same exact powers as the Governor General and would have to be agreed upon by both parties... therefore they would have same Political Mandate as the GG. I agree an elected President would be hard to keep out of Politics but not somebody chosen by the public's favourite PPL: Politicians is a different situation.

Also what did Quentin Bryce do that seriously influenced Australian Political Policy?

Only one GG in over hundred years had an influence on Politics in Australia, and this one incident has only enforced the fact that no GG should ever act in such a manner.

But cadete exactly what you are proposing (which I largely agree with) is exactly what was voted down resoundly. I doubt it will ever get up.

The argument at the time was in essence "we want to elect the President to avoid a politician being appointed".

An argument I found very wierd as if you elect someone, doesn't that make them a politician, by definition?

[jw1739]

5 hours ago, cadete said:

The President would have the same exact powers as the Governor General and would have to be agreed upon by both parties... therefore they would have same Political Mandate as the GG. I agree an elected President would be hard to keep out of Politics but not somebody chosen by the public's favourite PPL: Politicians is a different situation.

Also what did Quentin Bryce do that seriously influenced Australian Political Policy?

Only one GG in over hundred years had an influence on Politics in Australia, and this one incident has only enforced the fact that no GG should ever act in such a manner.

Except that his action was subsequently roundly endorsed by the electorate?

[Tesla]

On 26/01/2016 at 1:37 PM, Dylan said:

Well the big deal is because it has never been properly dealt with  and the history is that we have a tendency to tell Aboriginal people what they should think and feel rather than asking them what they think and until that happens nothing will change. If you dont give any type of people some kind of ownership then its always going to leave a sour taste. FWIW I for the life of me cant understand why Aboriginal culture and history issnt embraced more, its absolutely fantastic and unique, best thing I ever did was get didgeredoo lessons

Pretty good explanation really, but what hasn't been dealt with properly as of yet? It's not like what happened in the past is denied / covered up, and we even had the apology. Let's not forget the completely ridiculous 'recognising the traditional owners of the land' whenever a public speech is made (oh no I must be a racist for pointing this out). What's left to do? Is it the constitutional recognition? Will that be the end of it? If so, I'm more than happy to vote for it.

 

14 hours ago, cadete said:

I can't be bothered... everything to you is a waste of taxpayers money, to the point that you could host a Commercial Talkback Radio Show in WA.

Not really, actually I don't think referendums are a waste of taxpayer money at all (though I've never really thought about it, surely they don't actually cost that much?), my comment was due to people saying a monarchy referendum is potentially a waste of taxpayer money whereas I see it as more important than the aboriginal one, hence my comment that if a monarchy referendum is a waste of money than surely the aboriginal one is. Though of course you can't question the aboriginal one or you're a racist.

FWIW, being a talkback radio show host would be a great job, not sure about the WA bit. It's more fun when the callers don't agree with you  

 

12 hours ago, bt50 said:

Imo the current income tax system is spot on.

GST needs to go up to 15% though, although as an accountant that will make things inconvenient when it comes to calculating GST off the top of your head

I'm probably repeating myself for the 1000th time, but increasing the GST to 15% greatly affects the difference in purchasing power between the classes, in effect low income earners are going to be paying a lot more of their income as tax than currently. So, are you saying that, even though you think income taxes are spot on, that overall low income earners are paying too little tax?

GST should first be broadened to include everything (or at the very least the most nonsensical exclusions like raw food), like it should have from the get go. If you increase GST without broadening you only make the problem worse. And if GST is increased, there needs to be a discussion of whether we are: 1. Smashing low income earners with a lot more tax OR 2. decreasing other taxes (such as income tax) for low income earners to make up for it.

I feel like increasing the GST is going to end up being a huge mistake, because in the long run it will end in more social spending to offset it's effects on low income earners. I'd rather just keep the GST at 10%, better for low income earners (which is obviously why Labor and the Greens oppose it), but I think it's also better for those of us who don't like to see government waste and I think those on the right side of politics are being very short sighted with this idea of increasing the GST. Mark my words, it will end in more social spending, which will probably end up costing more than any revenue raised from the GST while still leaving low income earners in a worse position than currently.

I really think people don't understand how huge a change increasing the GST to 15% will be. It will completely change the economy, and I think there is a burden on whoever is proposing it to put forward a detailed explanation of if they will address (or not address, that's fine too, I'd jsut like to see it acknowledged) it's side effects, and if so how they will address things like: the effect on low income earners, the effect on people's savings and super (your savings and super are basically being instantly taxed when GST increases as now they buy less), the fact that without other changes this is an increase in the total tax paid by the public (will other taxes be reduced to offset it or are we paying more tax), etc.

Personally, I am against any increase in the total tax we have to pay (as a proportion of GDP), because the present reality is that taxes will NEVER decrease, so any increase in tax is permanent. I don't like permanent, and I definitely don't like more tax. I don't think I will vote for the Liberals at the next election if their key policy is to make us pay more tax.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Tesla

[bt50]

Because I’m lazy and can’t really be bothered typing out an in detail response : generally I agree with you and am against bumping up taxes and clearly the most effective way would be to properly slash spending and starting again when it comes to a budget.
However the current political climate doesn’t really allow for it with any government that tries to show some fiscal responsibility immediately taking a large dip in the polls, a la Abbott in his first budget. Now that of recent times there seems to be the added pressure of the knife in the back from within your own party, its almost impossible to make any great dent in cutting back the over officious spending of the last decade.

The obvious answer to being unable to slash spending then becomes raising revenue.

Argh the perils of a PC country.

[NewConvert]

9 hours ago, Tesla said:

Pretty good explanation really, but what hasn't been dealt with properly as of yet? It's not like what happened in the past is denied / covered up, and we even had the apology. Let's not forget the completely ridiculous 'recognising the traditional owners of the land' whenever a public speech is made (oh no I must be a racist for pointing this out). What's left to do? Is it the constitutional recognition? Will that be the end of it? If so, I'm more than happy to vote for it.

 

Not really, actually I don't think referendums are a waste of taxpayer money at all (though I've never really thought about it, surely they don't actually cost that much?), my comment was due to people saying a monarchy referendum is potentially a waste of taxpayer money whereas I see it as more important than the aboriginal one, hence my comment that if a monarchy referendum is a waste of money than surely the aboriginal one is. Though of course you can't question the aboriginal one or you're a racist.

FWIW, being a talkback radio show host would be a great job, not sure about the WA bit. It's more fun when the callers don't agree with you  

 

I'm probably repeating myself for the 1000th time, but increasing the GST to 15% greatly affects the difference in purchasing power between the classes, in effect low income earners are going to be paying a lot more of their income as tax than currently. So, are you saying that, even though you think income taxes are spot on, that overall low income earners are paying too little tax?

GST should first be broadened to include everything (or at the very least the most nonsensical exclusions like raw food), like it should have from the get go. If you increase GST without broadening you only make the problem worse. And if GST is increased, there needs to be a discussion of whether we are: 1. Smashing low income earners with a lot more tax OR 2. decreasing other taxes (such as income tax) for low income earners to make up for it.

I feel like increasing the GST is going to end up being a huge mistake, because in the long run it will end in more social spending to offset it's effects on low income earners. I'd rather just keep the GST at 10%, better for low income earners (which is obviously why Labor and the Greens oppose it), but I think it's also better for those of us who don't like to see government waste and I think those on the right side of politics are being very short sighted with this idea of increasing the GST. Mark my words, it will end in more social spending, which will probably end up costing more than any revenue raised from the GST while still leaving low income earners in a worse position than currently.

I really think people don't understand how huge a change increasing the GST to 15% will be. It will completely change the economy, and I think there is a burden on whoever is proposing it to put forward a detailed explanation of if they will address (or not address, that's fine too, I'd jsut like to see it acknowledged) it's side effects, and if so how they will address things like: the effect on low income earners, the effect on people's savings and super (your savings and super are basically being instantly taxed when GST increases as now they buy less), the fact that without other changes this is an increase in the total tax paid by the public (will other taxes be reduced to offset it or are we paying more tax), etc.

Personally, I am against any increase in the total tax we have to pay (as a proportion of GDP), because the present reality is that taxes will NEVER decrease, so any increase in tax is permanent. I don't like permanent, and I definitely don't like more tax. I don't think I will vote for the Liberals at the next election if their key policy is to make us pay more tax.

That is a long post covering a lot of topics.

On the Aboriginal question, to me, your response lacks respect and I think that a well written constitutional amendment will afford that. Having worked in the iron ore mines with Aboriginal men (I did not work with any Aboriginal women) and seen some of the horrible cases of human degradation, I don't have any solution or way forward. It is a complex issue. My one recommendation would be for ministers who are responsible for aboriginal affairs to be bi-cultural, that is, either migrants or the children of migrants solely so that there is greater understanding of living with two cultures.

As for the question of the cost of referendums, in yesterdays papers the costing for Tony Abbot's plebiscite on gay marriage was quoted as being $150M.

Fully agree with you regarding GST. I still don't like it because there are plenty of tradies that are not paying any and I am still not convinced that organised crime are not profiteering from it. Certainly at the five year mark it was estimated that about $200M had been pilfered by organised crime so the federal government took two steps to rectify this situation - made some amendments to the GST and then prohibited the reporting of how much money organised crime were pilfering. Nothing to see here, move along.

Finally regarding your statements about taxes never coming down in the present reality is not worthy of you. Every day is a new reality, every election cycle is a new reality. Define a period of time; a window of time and then determine whether taxes have come down. I can tell you that in the early 70s the top tax rate was 63c/$ and company tax rate was also in that order of magnitude. Then in the 80s the Hawke government began reducing the tax rates. So in a 40 year period the tax rates have come down. The other issue is that taxes should reflect the conditions of the times - so for example Australian federal debt in 1945 was about 110% of GDP (The UK's was 248%) and this was understandable at the conclusion of WWII (one of Tony Blair's final act was to pay off the british debt to the USA). Hence taxes after WWII needed to remain high to pay the debt. Then under Whitlam the final push to have all major capital cities with connected sewerage and potable water begun and that incurred additional debt. Today I can see that we need a proper NBN and that will cost a bundle but in decades to come there will be a payoff. What I don't see a need for is the new submarines that governments have been getting tied up in knots over.

[GreenSeater]

FWIW a large percentage of Indigenous Australians are against constitutional recognition

[Tesla]

6 hours ago, bt50 said:

Because I’m lazy and can’t really be bothered typing out an in detail response : generally I agree with you and am against bumping up taxes and clearly the most effective way would be to properly slash spending and starting again when it comes to a budget.
However the current political climate doesn’t really allow for it with any government that tries to show some fiscal responsibility immediately taking a large dip in the polls, a la Abbott in his first budget. Now that of recent times there seems to be the added pressure of the knife in the back from within your own party, its almost impossible to make any great dent in cutting back the over officious spending of the last decade.

 

The obvious answer to being unable to slash spending then becomes raising revenue.

 

Argh the perils of a PC country.

 

But that's exactly what I'm saying, it's impossible to cut spending, so any increase in tax is permanent, and if anything will just lead to more spending and more tax needing to be raised. It's, under the present reality, a never ending cycle. And if the economy improves, and therefore tax revenue increases without increasing as a % of GDP, this cyclical increase in revenue will probably also lead to more spending as whoever is in government won't be able to contain their desire to buy votes, creating an even worse structural deficit.

I think I have to really downgrade my opinion of Howard & Costello TBH with what's happened the last few years, they created the structural deficit because they were balling off of the cyclical surplus at the time (though, given they also paid off the debt before doing that, I don't hold it against them too much). It's lead to the problems we have now, though I'm sure if they were in office they would have handled the situation better and not made it worse like Rudd/Gillard did.

 

5 hours ago, NewConvert said:

That is a long post covering a lot of topics.

On the Aboriginal question, to me, your response lacks respect and I think that a well written constitutional amendment will afford that. Having worked in the iron ore mines with Aboriginal men (I did not work with any Aboriginal women) and seen some of the horrible cases of human degradation, I don't have any solution or way forward. It is a complex issue. My one recommendation would be for ministers who are responsible for aboriginal affairs to be bi-cultural, that is, either migrants or the children of migrants solely so that there is greater understanding of living with two cultures.

As for the question of the cost of referendums, in yesterdays papers the costing for Tony Abbot's plebiscite on gay marriage was quoted as being $150M.

Fully agree with you regarding GST. I still don't like it because there are plenty of tradies that are not paying any and I am still not convinced that organised crime are not profiteering from it. Certainly at the five year mark it was estimated that about $200M had been pilfered by organised crime so the federal government took two steps to rectify this situation - made some amendments to the GST and then prohibited the reporting of how much money organised crime were pilfering. Nothing to see here, move along.

Finally regarding your statements about taxes never coming down in the present reality is not worthy of you. Every day is a new reality, every election cycle is a new reality. Define a period of time; a window of time and then determine whether taxes have come down. I can tell you that in the early 70s the top tax rate was 63c/$ and company tax rate was also in that order of magnitude. Then in the 80s the Hawke government began reducing the tax rates. So in a 40 year period the tax rates have come down. The other issue is that taxes should reflect the conditions of the times - so for example Australian federal debt in 1945 was about 110% of GDP (The UK's was 248%) and this was understandable at the conclusion of WWII (one of Tony Blair's final act was to pay off the british debt to the USA). Hence taxes after WWII needed to remain high to pay the debt. Then under Whitlam the final push to have all major capital cities with connected sewerage and potable water begun and that incurred additional debt. Today I can see that we need a proper NBN and that will cost a bundle but in decades to come there will be a payoff. What I don't see a need for is the new submarines that governments have been getting tied up in knots over.

 

Look, you're right I don't have the best understanding of Aboriginal issues and don't really see the big deal, but that's why I'd happily vote for the constitutional amendment if it means I don't have to keep hearing about what doesn't seem like a big deal to me. That's not to say I don't understand there are many Aboriginals living in horrible conditions which is obviously a disgrace for a country like Australia, and that a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, but these things about recognition etc I don't see the big deal.

$150m isn't a lot of money given there are referendums rarely and especially if we can do a few things at once. Regardless, I don't see a problem with the taxpayers paying for a function of democratic society, that's probably the most legitimate use of taxpayer money.

I too have a problem with the amount of GST scamming going on. Tradies, and to a lesser extent fast food shops, being the prime culprits. Though clearly fast food shops have a greater incentive to scam the system because of the flaw in the GST where raw food doesn't attract GST while fast food does, so fast food shops can't even claim a GST cost on their inputs and are basically taking ta larger GST hit than they should. Though the fact that most young people don't carry cash is helping to reduce the amount of GST scamming by fast food shops, personally I refuse to buy from fast food shops that only accept cash.

Stopping GST scamming by tradies is obviously much harder, but I suppose as more houses are ending up in the hands of investors instead of owner occupiers that will decrease too. It's still going to be a problem though.

Well you're right that times change, but that's why I say the 'present reality', because currently I can't see spending being decreased, and if it wasn't for the budget being in such a bad shape I'm sure we'd even be seeing increases in spending. So I really struggle to see how any increase in tax won't be permanent, and there are actually some prominent economists who are saying the same thing, that taxes will only be going up in any foreseeable horizon. Also those past examples, you're only mentioning income/company tax, I wonder how different the total tax paid by the public was (as a % of GDP of course)?

[jw1739]

On the question of "recognition" of indigenous/Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in the Constitution I see that as symbolic only and containing nothing of substance. The arguments I hear on a regular basis are that none of the symbolic gestures made so far have made a jot of difference to the situation indigenous people (generally) find themselves in today, so why would this particular gesture be any different? I also question why one particular group of people should be mentioned or recognised when no other group of people will be, and I therefore see it as a divisive move that will inevitable lead to the mentioned group being treated differently, or asking to be so treated, thus bringing up the old thorny question of the definition of what constitutes an indigenous person. We should be focussing on the things we have in common and working to bring us all closer together rather than those that we do not share and tend to push us apart.

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, Tesla said:

But that's exactly what I'm saying, it's impossible to cut spending, so any increase in tax is permanent, and if anything will just lead to more spending and more tax needing to be raised. It's, under the present reality, a never ending cycle. And if the economy improves, and therefore tax revenue increases without increasing as a % of GDP, this cyclical increase in revenue will probably also lead to more spending as whoever is in government won't be able to contain their desire to buy votes, creating an even worse structural deficit.

I think I have to really downgrade my opinion of Howard & Costello TBH with what's happened the last few years, they created the structural deficit because they were balling off of the cyclical surplus at the time (though, given they also paid off the debt before doing that, I don't hold it against them too much). It's lead to the problems we have now, though I'm sure if they were in office they would have handled the situation better and not made it worse like Rudd/Gillard did.

 

 

Look, you're right I don't have the best understanding of Aboriginal issues and don't really see the big deal, but that's why I'd happily vote for the constitutional amendment if it means I don't have to keep hearing about what doesn't seem like a big deal to me. That's not to say I don't understand there are many Aboriginals living in horrible conditions which is obviously a disgrace for a country like Australia, and that a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, but these things about recognition etc I don't see the big deal.

$150m isn't a lot of money given there are referendums rarely and especially if we can do a few things at once. Regardless, I don't see a problem with the taxpayers paying for a function of democratic society, that's probably the most legitimate use of taxpayer money.

I too have a problem with the amount of GST scamming going on. Tradies, and to a lesser extent fast food shops, being the prime culprits. Though clearly fast food shops have a greater incentive to scam the system because of the flaw in the GST where raw food doesn't attract GST while fast food does, so fast food shops can't even claim a GST cost on their inputs and are basically taking ta larger GST hit than they should. Though the fact that most young people don't carry cash is helping to reduce the amount of GST scamming by fast food shops, personally I refuse to buy from fast food shops that only accept cash.

Stopping GST scamming by tradies is obviously much harder, but I suppose as more houses are ending up in the hands of investors instead of owner occupiers that will decrease too. It's still going to be a problem though.

Well you're right that times change, but that's why I say the 'present reality', because currently I can't see spending being decreased, and if it wasn't for the budget being in such a bad shape I'm sure we'd even be seeing increases in spending. So I really struggle to see how any increase in tax won't be permanent, and there are actually some prominent economists who are saying the same thing, that taxes will only be going up in any foreseeable horizon. Also those past examples, you're only mentioning income/company tax, I wonder how different the total tax paid by the public was (as a % of GDP of course)?

That line piqued my curiosity and a quick search in the treasury website showed a graph beginning in 1980/81 through to 2010/11 showed that total taxes (fed, state and local) started at about 25% and peaked at about 30% with a fair amount of fluctuation in between. This is below OECD average all the way through. What it does not show is revenue shortfall which should be the complementary graph. Also I would prefer to see the graph from 1945 (or 1948) through to the present.

I personally don't think that the budget is in such bad shape and there are are a lot of things that could be done without increasing the GST. The hard part is finding a credible politician that can explain if you want a decent highway between Melbourne and Sydney it costs money and that it has to be paid. If you want decent health care it has to be paid. if you want low rise with a 1/4 acre backyard it has to be paid.

One thing that I would do is to ensure that any future natural resources revenue should go into a sovereign fund and that government can only receive revenues from the profit of the sovereign fund. For me the Howard/Costello model of giving the public the revenues through super concessions, tax cuts and the like has not withstood the test of time. Norway with its sovereign fund has also suffered a downturn but is in much better shape because the governments don't have the ready access to the revenue. Sure it means that the colin barnetts of the world won't be able to afford $1B stadiums but so what?

[NewConvert]

2 hours ago, jw1739 said:

On the question of "recognition" of indigenous/Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in the Constitution I see that as symbolic only and containing nothing of substance. The arguments I hear on a regular basis are that none of the symbolic gestures made so far have made a jot of difference to the situation indigenous people (generally) find themselves in today, so why would this particular gesture be any different? I also question why one particular group of people should be mentioned or recognised when no other group of people will be, and I therefore see it as a divisive move that will inevitable lead to the mentioned group being treated differently, or asking to be so treated, thus bringing up the old thorny question of the definition of what constitutes an indigenous person. We should be focussing on the things we have in common and working to bring us all closer together rather than those that we do not share and tend to push us apart.

Symbols carry a lot of weight. Now I don't like to admit it but if there is one aspect where I am totally autistic is the concept of symbols and it has taken me a lifetime of discipline to actually look at them and recognise them (however I still struggle with giving them any weight). And saying that symbols are insubstantial cuts both ways. As a simple example think about what the colour red means to so many people on this forum. Another one would be what happened to the Fitzroy Football Club supporters after their club was extinguished. A more controversial symbol would be changing the Australian flag or Australia Day.

As for your last sentence I have to say that I envy the Kiwis and their Haka. A traditional welcome (with a menacing edge) that has been embraced by both Maoris and settlers. I wish we had something like that.

 

 

[Tesla]

Bit off topic, but if the Victorian government needs some more revenue, one new 'tax' I'm a supporter of, and Napthien wanted to bring this in, is a charge of plastic bottles and aluminium cans like SA have. Of course this will be refundable if you take it to a collection depot, but you obviously won't have 100% of them finding their way back so it should make some money (probably not much but better than nothing).

Anyway the point actually isn't about government revenue, but to change the incentives. For example, I only drink bottled water, and I find it quite ridiculous that buying a bulk pack of 1.5L bottles costs pretty much the same (per litre) as buying a bulk pack of 600ml bottles. One obviously is going to lead to more trash, but because that externality isn't captured at any point in the supply chain, you end up with a pretty similar cost as water and plastic are both cheap so it's really things like the transport etc that you're paying for mostly. Meanwhile, the public is bearing the cost of the proliferation of plastic bottles and aluminium cans. Now if that 24 pack of 600ml bottles cost another $3-4 I'm going to primarily buy the bigger bottles, as would many other people, and you have a lot less plastic entering our trash.

Plus it gives an incentive for those who deem it worth their time to go pick up trash for a few $$ a reason to do so.

Chuck a 20c levy on bottles/cans and they'll be a lot less litter  

[cadete]

12 hours ago, Tesla said:

Bit off topic, but if the Victorian government needs some more revenue, one new 'tax' I'm a supporter of, and Napthien wanted to bring this in, is a charge of plastic bottles and aluminium cans like SA have. Of course this will be refundable if you take it to a collection depot, but you obviously won't have 100% of them finding their way back so it should make some money (probably not much but better than nothing).

Anyway the point actually isn't about government revenue, but to change the incentives. For example, I only drink bottled water, and I find it quite ridiculous that buying a bulk pack of 1.5L bottles costs pretty much the same (per litre) as buying a bulk pack of 600ml bottles. One obviously is going to lead to more trash, but because that externality isn't captured at any point in the supply chain, you end up with a pretty similar cost as water and plastic are both cheap so it's really things like the transport etc that you're paying for mostly. Meanwhile, the public is bearing the cost of the proliferation of plastic bottles and aluminium cans. Now if that 24 pack of 600ml bottles cost another $3-4 I'm going to primarily buy the bigger bottles, as would many other people, and you have a lot less plastic entering our trash.

Plus it gives an incentive for those who deem it worth their time to go pick up trash for a few $$ a reason to do so.

Chuck a 20c levy on bottles/cans and they'll be a lot less litter  

LOL - I can just remember the kids in their Duffle Coats running around after the Footy at the MCG to pick up all the cans for the Pat Cash sponsored "Cash A Can" Campaign.

[Deeming]

12 hours ago, Tesla said:

Bit off topic, but if the Victorian government needs some more revenue, one new 'tax' I'm a supporter of, and Napthien wanted to bring this in, is a charge of plastic bottles and aluminium cans like SA have. Of course this will be refundable if you take it to a collection depot, but you obviously won't have 100% of them finding their way back so it should make some money (probably not much but better than nothing).

Anyway the point actually isn't about government revenue, but to change the incentives. For example, I only drink bottled water, and I find it quite ridiculous that buying a bulk pack of 1.5L bottles costs pretty much the same (per litre) as buying a bulk pack of 600ml bottles. One obviously is going to lead to more trash, but because that externality isn't captured at any point in the supply chain, you end up with a pretty similar cost as water and plastic are both cheap so it's really things like the transport etc that you're paying for mostly. Meanwhile, the public is bearing the cost of the proliferation of plastic bottles and aluminium cans. Now if that 24 pack of 600ml bottles cost another $3-4 I'm going to primarily buy the bigger bottles, as would many other people, and you have a lot less plastic entering our trash.

Plus it gives an incentive for those who deem it worth their time to go pick up trash for a few $$ a reason to do so.

Chuck a 20c levy on bottles/cans and they'll be a lot less litter  

Disagree. What do we do with all the bottles and cans we use at home? Are we expected to drive them to the local bottle collecting depot? This seems very inefficient. I already put them in our recycling bin. The only difference would be I would now have to spend time going somewhere for the same result. Plus I would burn 'evil' fossil fuels driving there.

If I was out and about I don't think 10c or 20c would change me throwing a can or bottle in a bin instead of taking it to a depot and I don't think it would change the minds of those that litter.

[cadete]

I dont think following the South Australians' as a general rule is good idea considering the state of the place...

I am not saying that to pay out on Adelaide because I consider it a shithole but nobody can deny that the place has got some real serious now ingrained economic and social issues and seemingly no real way to resolve this issues.

Edited January 28, 2016 by cadete

[malloy]

2 hours ago, Deeming said:

Disagree. What do we do with all the bottles and cans we use at home? Are we expected to drive them to the local bottle collecting depot? This seems very inefficient. I already put them in our recycling bin. The only difference would be I would now have to spend time going somewhere for the same result. Plus I would burn 'evil' fossil fuels driving there.

If I was out and about I don't think 10c or 20c would change me throwing a can or bottle in a bin instead of taking it to a depot and I don't think it would change the minds of those that litter.

Clearly missed the point. You can still dispose of the bottles and cans in your recycling bin and if you do then you don't get the rebate and hence the government generates income. 

As for those people who litter, yes they still will, but you will find that some people will find it worthwhile yo go pick up this rubbish to cash it in. 

Furthermore it will affect peoples purchasing decisions especially if it is non perishable. As with more people buying in bulk there is less plastic being produced.

[Deeming]

1 minute ago, malloy said:

Clearly missed the point. You can still dispose of the bottles and cans in your recycling bin and if you do then you don't get the rebate and hence the government generates income. 

As for those people who litter, yes they still will, but you will find that some people will find it worthwhile yo go pick up this rubbish to cash it in. 

Furthermore it will affect peoples purchasing decisions especially if it is non perishable. As with more people buying in bulk there is less plastic being produced.

No. I realise I can still use my recycling and forfeit the rebate. In effect it either forces me to pay an extra levy/tax or spend time and effort to avoid paying the levy/tax. But the point behind these scams schemes is to reduce litter and increase recycling. 

Also governments don't 'generate' income. They take money from taxpayers and businesses. That is not the same as generating income. Income is money earned through work or investment.

[Tesla]

You do bring up a floor in the process Deeming, in regard to recycling collection at home. I wonder how this works in SA? 

I do see a simple solution though, an extra recycling bin for only those items that attract the rebate. No need to drive to the collection depot, your rebate will be processed based on what you put in this bin. 

Maybe it can be optional and attract a fee from the council (which shouldn't be much based on the fees for other bins, like $100 a year). 

[jw1739]

2 minutes ago, Tesla said:

You do bring up a floor in the process Deeming, in regard to recycling collection at home. I wonder how this works in SA? 

I do see a simple solution though, an extra recycling bin for only those items that attract the rebate. No need to drive to the collection depot, your rebate will be processed based on what you put in this bin. 

Maybe it can be optional and attract a fee from the council (which shouldn't be much based on the fees for other bins, like $100 a year). 

I'd say that bin would be emptied by the local kids by collection time...

Overall though, recycling and waste management schemes need to be as simple as possible for the consumer. The moment you have to drive somewhere, or there are only irregular collections, or complicated lists of what's OK and what's not, etc. etc. then immediately there's a disincentive to participate and the temptation is to put the stuff into your garbage bin (or someone else's) or a handy builder's skip. It's the same with imposing fees on disposal.

[Tesla]

21 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I'd say that bin would be emptied by the local kids by collection time...

Overall though, recycling and waste management schemes need to be as simple as possible for the consumer. The moment you have to drive somewhere, or there are only irregular collections, or complicated lists of what's OK and what's not, etc. etc. then immediately there's a disincentive to participate and the temptation is to put the stuff into your garbage bin (or someone else's) or a handy builder's skip. It's the same with imposing fees on disposal.

Well the rebate side of it is just part of it, really you could have no rebate and just charge a levy on all bottles and cans to make up for the littering they cause, still achieves the goal of getting people to buy less shit that will cause litter. 

The rebate just gives people who deem it worth their time an incentive to go collect bottles/cans of the street.

So actually in some ways deeming's argument can be dismissed if you compare a non-refundable levy on bottles/cans to a refundable one, as you'd be in the same position recycling your cans/bottles at home either way. It's only an issue if you compare the current no levy system with a refundable one. 

I do agree with you though, there is fuck all incentive for people to use their recycling bins properly, some people just treat both bins as the same and put any garbage in each. Maybe someone from the council should go around checking recycling bins and handing out fines for people that put other trash in it. 

Edited January 29, 2016 by Tesla

[Shahanga]

Good idea Tesla. Hadn't actually thought of putting my normal rubbish in the recycling or veg bibs but maybe I should seeing as the drop kicks at council have given me a bin the quarter the size of a normal one. But it's ok if you pay extra you can get 1 half the size of a normal one. 

Maybe people would use the right bins if they got decent size ones? We aren't all one people households.

[jw1739]

7 hours ago, Tesla said:

I do agree with you though, there is fuck all incentive for people to use their recycling bins properly, some people just treat both bins as the same and put any garbage in each. Maybe someone from the council should go around checking recycling bins and handing out fines for people that put other trash in it. 

I'd have been fined several times on that basis. But not because of what we do. Living on a corner block it seems that our bins are remarkably attractive to passers-by and I have found materials such as bricks in the recycle bin and glass in the green waste.

Fortunately we give each of the truck drivers a "Christmas box" of a bottle of good wine every year.

[Shahanga]

20th anniversary of one of the best things that our parliament has ever done.  I was living in the Top End and i knew a few people who were ticked off at the time (more people up there had legitimate uses for a gun than most places), but even so most were still for it.

This is a great interview with John Howard:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/conversations/john-howard-gun-control-20-years-on-from-port-arthur/7133042