Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[SQ421]

And if you do that rents go through the roof and property prices plummet, sure you bash a few "rich people" but the people that are renting aren't usually rich and ultimately those are the ones that will suffer. Landlords aren't charities and if they can't negatively gear they need to make a profit so rent has to go up.

Labor won't go there.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

Busting negative gearing’s myths | | MacroBusiness
Removing negative gearing would have little effect on rents: Philip Soos

More negative gearing scaremongering | | MacroBusiness

 

[drsmithy]

Meh. Why should I care. I don't lease cars so it has no impact on me. That seems to be the way to think these days.

Rudd certainly doesn't worry about the long term impacts of decisions he makes as all he wants are the headlines "I've done away with the carbon tax AND the battlers get to keep the bribe money". Speaking of rorts.

The long term impacts are that a lot of what is, in all but name, tax evasion, is eliminated and businesses that facilitate it cease to do so.

Why is this a bad thing ?

 

[Hvr]

<snip>
Why doesn't he admit that he caused the problem, he put the people-smugglers back in business, he's responsible for the appalling death toll?

Nothing about Howard's illegal invasion of Iraq which has caused many people to flee the area? The push factors for refugees is greater than the pull factors and once the allies withdraw from Afghanistan there will be many, many more refugees.

In the greater scheme of things we barely have any refugees. According to the UNHCR Pakistan for example is currently host to 1.6 million registered Afghani refugees.

 

[drsmithy]

Why doesn't he admit that he caused the problem, he put the people-smugglers back in business, he's responsible for the appalling death toll?

Because that would be, you know, wrong ?

Refugee movements are overwhelmingly push-driven.

Presumably you're OK with those people dying overseas ? Out of sight and out of mind ?

 

[Skyring]

But being on the security council at least Australia has a chance to lobby for change. I can't see the permanent members being resistant to changing the convention. Yeah it's going to take years and its only a very slim chance of making change. But it should still be an option to pursue.

We don't need a seat on the SC to lobby for a change. And why, when there hasn't been any change in the past seventy years, should there suddenly be a need now?

Let's face it, other nations - including permanent members of the SC - have had far greater refugee problems than anything facing Australia, and they haven't sought to change the convention.

Rudd is promising something so remote as to be unobtainable. It's like the plan on global warming he took to Copenhagen and was crushed beneath the heel of the big boys.

But he'd like voters to think he can do it. He'd really like that.

 

[drsmithy]

In the greater scheme of things we barely have any refugees. According to the UNHCR Pakistan for example is currently host to 1.6 million registered Afghani refugees.

Worth repeating. It's ridiculous to hear people argue we have a refugee - or, even more comically, a "national security" - problem. This is a refugee problem.

The actual problem we have is dog-whistle politics.

 

[Skyring]

The ABC reckons Rudd's chances are "slim to nothing".

An expert sees Rudd as out to undermine refugee protection.

Tony Abbott has got Rudd's number: "He wants to be in the front of a 747, travelling the world, engaging in meeting after meeting after meeting ... talking about the problem, not fixing the problem,'' said Mr Abbott.

That last one sounds like the real deal. Doesn't Rudd love to leave Australia!

 

[Hvr]

The ABC reckons Rudd's chances are "slim to nothing".

I agree, but while Abbott's in the chair there's still a small possibility.

An expert sees Rudd as out to undermine refugee protection.

And Abbott is even vaguely concerned about refugee protection?

Tony Abbott has got Rudd's number: "He wants to be in the front of a 747, travelling the world, engaging in meeting after meeting after meeting ... talking about the problem, not fixing the problem,'' said Mr Abbott.

That last one sounds like the real deal. Doesn't Rudd love to leave Australia!

Agree, I reckon Rudd enjoys being a CLP1. Maybe we should invite him to join AFF?

Still at least Rudd knows there's a problem, Abbott doesn't seem to even be at that stage.

 

[drsmithy]

Tony Abbott has got Rudd's number: "He wants to be in the front of a 747, travelling the world, engaging in meeting after meeting after meeting ... talking about the problem, not fixing the problem,'' said Mr Abbott.

That last one sounds like the real deal. Doesn't Rudd love to leave Australia!

This criticism is utterly nonsensical.

The whole point of a figurehead leader is to do that. To get out and be seen and to communicate. That's his primary function. The creation and implementation of policy is what the rest of Government is for.

Once again I am led to the conclusion that what conservatives really want is a dictatorship with term limits.

 

[SQ421]

We don't need a seat on the SC to lobby for a change. And why, when there hasn't been any change in the past seventy years, should there suddenly be a need now?

Oh, I don't know, becasue its been seventy years and things change.

Let's face it, other nations - including permanent members of the SC - have had far greater refugee problems than anything facing Australia, and they haven't sought to change the convention.

Nor have they sought to shirk their responsibility.

Rudd is promising something so remote as to be unobtainable.

But he'd like voters to think he can do it. He'd really like that.

And that's different to Anthony John Abbott's "turn back the boats" rhetoric how?

 

[Skyring]

My point in posting wasn't to talk about refugees. Or the UN.

It was to highlight that Rudd cannot bring forward an end to the Carbon Tax, and he cannot change the UN Refugee Convention.

His behaviour, in making promises that cannot be kept, is misleading, to put the best shine on it.

Interesting to see that Rudd's cheer squad don't want to discuss Rudd!

 

[SQ421]

It was to highlight that Rudd cannot bring forward an end to the Carbon Tax, and he cannot change the UN Refugee Convention.

Re. the former, it boils down to how the numbers stack up in the Senate, and while the greens have come out strongly against the change, there's every chance they will negotiate and support the legislation.

Re the latter, I don't think he has said that he wants to change the UN Refugee Convention, but that at discussion is essential on that front, as the refugee crisis is a global problem, which is more than can be said about AJA and his plan to turn back the boats (which must be kept secret because the people smugglers might find out)

 

[drsmithy]

His behaviour, in making promises that cannot be kept, is misleading, to put the best shine on it.

Interesting to see that Rudd's cheer squad don't want to discuss Rudd!

What's to discuss ? You're just going to dismiss everything he "promises" as "misleading".

 

[Skyring]

Re. the former, it boils down to how the numbers stack up in the Senate, and while the greens have come out strongly against the change, there's every chance they will negotiate and support the legislation.

Re the latter, I don't think he has said that he wants to change the UN Refugee Convention, but that at discussion is essential on that front, as the refugee crisis is a global problem, which is more than can be said about AJA and his plan to turn back the boats (which must be kept secret because the people smugglers might find out)

Thanks. On the former, the Senate numbers won't change before next July - the very time Rudd says the thing will happen. So he has to get it through the Senate before then. He needs the Greens. The Greens have made it plain they won't support it.

Sure, he could negotiate with the Greens, but what could he give them to make up for the price of carbon being slashed to a quarter of what it is now? They will want something very very tasty to sell out on a core platform. It would be like Howard negotiating with Labor to implement WorkChoices.

On refugees, the ABC certainly thinks Rudd wants the convention changed. What did he say exactly, do you know?

 

[Pukka]

Evidence suggests otherwise.

Busting negative gearing’s myths | | MacroBusiness
Removing negative gearing would have little effect on rents: Philip Soos

More negative gearing scaremongering | | MacroBusiness

Well Hawke/Keating tampered with it in 1985 and it did cause rents to rise.

In fact it was such a complete shambles that they restored the old rules in 1987

That's evidence because it actually happened.

 

[medhead]

We don't need a seat on the SC to lobby for a change.

No. But that seat on the security council gives great access to the top to lobby for change. Connections and influence that allow us to start a discussion at the very least.

 

[drsmithy]

Well Hawke/Keating tampered with it in 1985 and it did cause rents to rise.

In fact it was such a complete shambles that they restored the old rules in 1987

That's evidence because it actually happened.

No, it didn't, and all those false claims are demolished on Macro business.

One cannot overestimate the strength of the real estate lobby in Australia.

 

[SQ421]

Well Hawke/Keating tampered with it in 1985 and it did cause rents to rise.

In fact it was such a complete shambles that they restored the old rules in 1987

That's evidence because it actually happened.

The links I posted actually refer to those statistics along with evidence that rents did not go "through the roof" as your asserted.

Nationwide, the rise in rents was 2.7% which was not reflected by a corresponding decrease once negative gearing was "de-quarantined" in 1987

 

[SQ421]

Sure, he could negotiate with the Greens, but what could he give them to make up for the price of carbon being slashed to a quarter of what it is now? They will want something very very tasty to sell out on a core platform. It would be like Howard negotiating with Labor to implement WorkChoices.

Greens aren't selling out "on a core party platform" as the existing legislation (which they have supported) brings in a floating price in 2015.

The proposed changes merely bring it forward to to 2014. It is nowhere remotely close to your analogy of negotiating with Labor to implement WorkChoices.

Negotiating with Democrats to get his GST might be a closer parallel.

 

[Pukka]

The links I posted actually refer to those statistics along with evidence that rents did not go "through the roof" as your asserted.

Nationwide, the rise in rents was 2.7% which was not reflected by a corresponding decrease once negative gearing was "de-quarantined" in 1987

Isn't the 2.7% for inflation adjusted rents? The nominal rents did rise over 25% over that 2 year period.

They won't do it again anyway ;I'm sure it would be very unpalatable with the electorate. They would need a big majority to start changing those rules