Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[777]

I take the position that ultimate truth is unknowable. Plato's parable of the cave teaches us that, and it is the basic message of the Tao te Ching. What is interesting here is identifying those who are so attached to their own perceptions that they think their views are ultimate truth. They are inevitably wrong.

The ultimate truth is unknowable but other people are inevitably wrong? You are a funny, funny man. Thanks for the light relief.

 

[Skyring]

The ultimate truth is unknowable but other people are inevitably wrong?

Nope. Read it again. Those who think that their views are perfect truth must be wrong. How long has the wisdom of Plato and Lao Tzu been revered now?

 

[Pukka]

Had to laugh about the government advertising bit ..... I believe John Howard will have that record in perpetuity, but I digress.

There were no doubt imperfections in the original legislation, and without doubt imperfections in the resulting compromise (not least of which is the hypocrisy of State Governments who bemoaned that the Federal Gavernment was killing the golden goose, and then stuck the fork in with glee immediately after).

But I look at intentions. The intention was to divert some of the more obscene profits away from mining companies and towards the general public, because if we can't afford to invest in things like infrastructure and education now, then we never will. The mining companies have a duty to protect their shareholders and no duty to the public, so they mounted a lovely feel good campaign about what a fantastic job they were doing and that nasty Mr Rudd was going to spoil it all. Net result - Rudd's popularity goes down further and his colleagues didn't need a second invitation to depose him.


Next the quick fix with Gillard, but the mining companies held all the cards and gleefully slapped each other on the back as they walked away with barely a scratch. Eddy Obeid could not have gotten a better result.


So the baying mob that said the tax would destroy our economy are now criticising it for not delivering enough funds. How quaint!

Why are the profits obscene ? It's just a number and these companies are huge. Are Apples profits obscene?

Why single out mining for an extra tax, why not tax say real estate agents more or politicians?

What's the problem with the mining companies advertising didn't the Government stick a sign on every school ( which I think had to be removed) about the building the school revolution, that's advertising

Seems like double standards to me.

 

[eastwest101]

Had to laugh about the government advertising bit ..... I believe John Howard will have that record in perpetuity, but I digress.

Good so we both agree that oppositions complain about government advertising when they are in opposition.

There were no doubt imperfections in the original legislation

Ya think???

, and without doubt imperfections in the resulting compromise (not least of which is the hypocrisy of State Governments who bemoaned that the Federal Gavernment was killing the golden goose, and then stuck the fork in with glee immediately after).

Did you just ignore the role that the treasurer, the PM, the big 3 mining companies played in the negotiation? It was the states and some companies whom were left out of two consultation processes and the negotiations.

But I look at intentions. The intention was to divert some of the more obscene profits away from mining companies and towards the general public,

So was the intent was to redistribute the profits from the shareholders to the public? If so its just another tax that is targetting one particular sector of the economy with highly variable and irregular profits and then relying on that revenue to fund recurrent expenditure. Unsustainable.

because if we can't afford to invest in things like infrastructure and education now, then we never will.

I am not arguing against spending in education and infrastructure, first of all they are state government matters, and second of all the current form of the MRRT opens up a new revenue sources for state governments - paid for by the federal government. Possibly not what the treasurer intended though!

The mining companies have a duty to protect their shareholders and no duty to the public,

False dichotomy.... The minerals belong to the states, and the governments from those states receive the royalties from the mines. The shareholders have paid the money to buy the shares to fund the exploration to find and build these mines, if it was so easy to find and run these mines then how come everyone isn't doing it? What are we doing here on AFF? Oh - thats right - you have to actually take a risk and contribute money and/or time to own a mine and enjoy the profits from it.

so they mounted a lovely feel good campaign about what a fantastic job they were doing and that nasty Mr Rudd was going to spoil it all.

What you mean the part about how they already paid slightly above average tax when all state royalties, mining lease fees, exploration rents, payroll tax, company tax etc is counted up? Not going to enter into a debate about PR campaigns - both industry and government had campaigns.

Net result - Rudd's popularity goes down further and his colleagues didn't need a second invitation to depose him.

Last time I checked the mining companies didn't sit in the ALP caucus meeting on the 24th June 2010 that ended Rudds term as PM. In Rudds own speech on that day before he lost his job, there were five essential points brought up as items for concern for him:

1. The polls are bad (Rudd accepted some responsibility in this)
2. Abandonment/policy failures of the original emissions trading scheme (again - accepts some responsibility and thanks Wong for hard work)
3. Tax reform cough-ups (the RSPT being one) undertaken by Rudd, Gillard and Swan
4. Government waste and mismanagement BER
5. Importation of the "NSW-Right disease" into the federal ALP

Next the quick fix with Gillard,

there's your problem - Gillard inherited Swan's problem and then allowed him to make even bigger blunders! This should be in future Public Service handbooks about what not to do when consulting, planning and implementing a tax.

but the mining companies held all the cards and gleefully slapped each other on the back as they walked away with barely a scratch.

Were they wearing their top hats and smoking cigars a-la Monopoly cartoon characters???

Eddy Obeid could not have gotten a better result.

You really fell into that one with Eddie Obeid.... I'm sorry - wasn't meant to be nasty at all OK.

So the baying mob that said the tax would destroy our economy are now criticising it for not delivering enough funds. How quaint!

A bit early to tell yet as mining investment has 5-25 year lead times, and is all tied up in external factors like commodity prices and exchange rates, but my own suggestion would to be go all the way back to square 1 and start consultation all over again without politicians being involved too much.

Maybe have a look at how taxation of the mining industry is done in Canada and other countries that compete against us for investment. Maybe compare all our taxation laws with some of our competitors and see what they do better and worse than we do.

And I mean all the way back to the 130 odd suggestions in the Henry Review or maybe even just tidy up the current tax laws might be a better start and look at them sensibly. Unless you think that the Greens or Tony Windsor have the expertise to somehow make the MRRT better?

Anyway - back OT its good that we have a democracy and we can all decide later in the year whom we want to elect and then they will decide who forms the government.

 

[777]

Nope. Read it again. Those who think that their views are perfect truth must be wrong. How long has the wisdom of Plato and Lao Tzu been revered now?

Hmm. We aren't talking about whether views are perfect truth. We are talking about the correct use of the word "refugee" in a sentence. Nice pseudo philosophical justification though. At least it's funny.

 

[Skyring]

Hmm. We aren't talking about whether views are perfect truth. We are talking about the correct use of the word "refugee" in a sentence. Nice pseudo philosophical justification though. At least it's funny.

Heh. Plato is about as fair dinkum a philosopher as they come. I'm making a wider point here than refugees or carbon taxes. I'm talking about those who regard their own views as absolute truth. That their political or religious or sporting team is infallible.

Or at least seek to present that face to the world, regardless of any inner doubts.

These attitudes, using the accepted wisdom of revered philosophers, must be wrong. Nobody is perfect, nobody has complete and precise knowledge.

You do accept this, I trust?

 

[dfcatch]

TonyHancock and I are perfect

You say it like it's a question??

 

[777]

These attitudes, using the accepted wisdom of revered philosophers, must be wrong. Nobody is perfect, nobody has complete and precise knowledge.

You do accept this, I trust?

I have no problem with that at all, but you're the guy who described people's who's views you don't care to look at the detail of as "inevitably wrong."

Isn't that a complete contradiction?

 

[Skyring]

I have no problem with that at all, but you're the guy who described people's who's views you don't care to look at the detail of as "inevitably wrong."

Begging your pardon, but no. Here's what I said:

I take the position that ultimate truth is unknowable. Plato's parable of the cave teaches us that, and it is the basic message of the Tao te Ching. What is interesting here is identifying those who are so attached to their own perceptions that they think their views are ultimate truth. They are inevitably wrong.

Such people are inevitably wrong in thinking that their views are ultimate truth. You agreed with me above that there is no ultimate truth. Nobody is perfect, nobody has complete or precise knowledge.

 

[amaroo]

Good so we both agree that oppositions complain about government advertising when they are in opposition.

hahahaha....

The commercials for the the election should be rippers......said this - did that.

When they've bored everyone stiff.......they'll start running the startling in-house appraisals of Kevin 07

 

[777]

Begging your pardon, but no. Here's what I said:

Such people are inevitably wrong in thinking that their views are ultimate truth. You agreed with me above that there is no ultimate truth. Nobody is perfect, nobody has complete or precise knowledge.

You left out the bit you were replying to. You were arguing the point (initially) that people who describe ALL asylum seekers as "refugees" or as "illegal immigrants" were likely biased one way or the other. I agreed! But I added there a plenty of circumstances where the term refugee is correctly used (and gave an example) and need not refer to ALL boat arrivals. [FWIW i noted that there may well be circumstances where illegal immigrant is correctly used as well].

Unless you work from a system of logic different to me it is possible to be an advocate for the rights of refugees and not assume that ALL arrivals are refugees. Frankly, the logic of that is so incontestable the only way to get around it is to change the subject to something whacky like whether truth exists at all... which you did!

The deft move was to explain that "I'm not interested in what is correct" and then proceeded to explain that truth wasn't really a thing and that -- while refusing to consider the actual position at hand conclude that anyone who held it is "inevitably wrong." The irony was that this refusal to consider any actual logic is apparently in the service of "identifying people with closed minds."

This is one of the more amusing exchanges i've had in a while.

 

[Skyring]

You were arguing the point (initially) that people who describe ALL asylum seekers as "refugees" or as "illegal immigrants" were likely biased one way or the other. I agreed!

Good-oh. The matter of bias is the point I'm exploring. Not just bias, but dogmatic extremism to the point where opposing points of view are seen as completely wrong and one's own point of view is perfectly correct.

Philosophically, neither perception can be correct. And yet we see it all the time in political or religious discussions.

For example, when the Independents dictated a new set of rules for Question Time, they were looking at a "kindler, gentler" environment. There was even a group hug. And yet we now see an absolutely poisonous atmosphere. What went wrong?

I see this matter of dogmatic extremism as being the problem. Where (for example) Craig Thomson cannot admit to any wrongdoing. I don't know who thinks he's kidding. Or where Kevin Rudd was tossed out by his own party, but cannot accept that he deserved it. Or in Question Time, Julia Gillard is asked specific questions about the string of disasters that has accompanied her government, but she deflects the precise questions.

The schoolchildren in the gallery above, who have spent years being taught to answer questions in the best and most correct fashion, look on in frustration and dismay at the antics below. Every time they sit an exam, their answers are graded and returned to them. Their futures depend on how well they perform in tests.

And yet, here in front of their eyes they see the leader of the government, a person who should be a shining role model, waffling and dodging and making personal attacks. Unwilling to concede even the most obvious point for fear she would look weak.

Perhaps she is thinking of Mr Rudd, ready to pounce.

That is what disturbs me most about the behaviour of the leaders of this nation. That they see their own points of view as perfectly correct, and that of their opponents as perfectly wrong. It is behaviour which doesn't fool the schoolchildren. All they see are grownups who should know better. Who should be more polite to each other, who should be honest rather than evasive, who should be responsible adults.

And then I see the same sort of behaviour here. Snarky little asides, an inability to listen to what others have to say, a dogmatic adherence to one's own views above all others. When I see that, I see a closed mind. I see somebody who is just wasting everybody's time.

Like Question Time. A grand and expensive waste of time. We should put the schoolkids in charge for their day in Canberra. We'd likely see more common sense, more honesty, more sincerity.

 

[777]

Good-oh. The matter of bias is the point I'm exploring. Not just bias, but dogmatic extremism to the point where opposing points of view are seen as completely wrong and one's own point of view is perfectly correct.

... and you think this is everyone else's problem while simultaneously refusing to consider the nuances of other points of view? Perhaps that absolutism is part of the very problem you're professing to be above?

 

[Moody]

Good so we both agree that oppositions complain about government advertising when they are in opposition.

When the Rudd/Gillard governments hit $2B then I will concede that their expenditure is excessive Howard's $2 billion ad splurge - National - theage.com.au

Did you just ignore the role that the treasurer, the PM, the big 3 mining companies played in the negotiation? It was the states and some companies whom were left out of two consultation processes and the negotiations..

No - did you? My point was that after the Ken Henry version of the Resource Super Profits Tax was not sufficiently watered down into the Swan\Rudd RSPT, the mining companies went to town on the government and got the plan (and the PM) chucked out. Gillard was thankful for that and also really keen to cement her leadership, so she told Wayne to talk to the 3 amigos and get them to lay down their formidable coughnal. The states weren't consulted because they were irrelevant ... a decision that has come back to haunt them now. Ken Henry had proposed to abolish royalties and I bet they wish they'd followed his advice!

So was the intent was to redistribute the profits from the shareholders to the public? If so its just another tax that is targetting one particular sector of the economy with highly variable and irregular profits and then relying on that revenue to fund recurrent expenditure. Unsustainable.

Which way do you want it? Is it an unsustainable tax that only kicks in when there are ... wait for it ... Super Profits .... or is it an embarrassing flop of a revene raising exercise??? I'll wait for the penny to drop if you like.

I am not arguing against spending in education and infrastructure, first of all they are state government matters, and second of all the current form of the MRRT opens up a new revenue sources for state governments - paid for by the federal government. Possibly not what the treasurer intended though!

Agreed. WA and QLD are screwing us all harder than ever and the Federal Government is getting the blame. How droll!

False dichotomy.... The minerals belong to the states, and the governments from those states receive the royalties from the mines. The shareholders have paid the money to buy the shares to fund the exploration to find and build these mines, if it was so easy to find and run these mines then how come everyone isn't doing it? What are we doing here on AFF? Oh - thats right - you have to actually take a risk and contribute money and/or time to own a mine and enjoy the profits from it.

An honest days' pay for an honest days' work, eh? Well that's fair enough then - and why should mining companies pay 50% tax like the rest of us, when they take so many risks. No - like any business they should be taxed at 30% to encourage that entrepreneurial endeavour they have in digging things up and selling them. What ?? They only pay 15% tax??? Surely that can't be right because the shareholders wouldn't want the rest of Australia to suffer whilst they are enjoying a windfall, would they?

What you mean the part about how they already paid slightly above average tax when all state royalties, mining lease fees, exploration rents, payroll tax, company tax etc is counted up? Not going to enter into a debate about PR campaigns - both industry and government had campaigns.

Ahh! So the State Governments are the ones you have been milking the cow. And BTW - ROYALTIES ARE NOT A TAX. They are the price that State Governments put on the minerals that they own. The federal government picks up its revenue from profits, and that was certainly one of the reasons we ducked a recession during the GFC. But since the mining industry has quadrupled its profits in the past decade the federal government thought that they could afford to contribute a bit more to the Australian people and a bit less to their executives and their (mostly foreign) shareholders.

Last time I checked the mining companies didn't sit in the ALP caucus meeting on the 24th June 2010 that ended Rudds term as PM. In Rudds own speech on that day before he lost his job, there were five essential points brought up as items for concern for him:

1. The polls are bad (Rudd accepted some responsibility in this)
2. Abandonment/policy failures of the original emissions trading scheme (again - accepts some responsibility and thanks Wong for hard work)
3. Tax reform cough-ups (the RSPT being one) undertaken by Rudd, Gillard and Swan
4. Government waste and mismanagement BER
5. Importation of the "NSW-Right disease" into the federal ALP.

Are you seriously saying that the mining tax campaign wasn't the catalyst for Rudd's downfall? Sure there were other factors and smear campaigns on the go, but anyone with more than one eye knows that the mining tax was the game-changer. Would Rudd have been rejected by his caucus anyway? The answer is probably yes as he had made too meny enemies, but the focus on the mining tax failure meant that Gillard had to get a quick fix, hence the weak as piss legislation.

there's your problem - Gillard inherited Swan's problem and then allowed him to make even bigger blunders! This should be in future Public Service handbooks about what not to do when consulting, planning and implementing a tax.

The legislation was extremely generous to the mining companies and should really have be called the "Super Super Profits Tax". Then those greedy and hypercritical States jacked up their royalties (a DIRECT attack on mining investment) and the legislation is now the "Super Super Super Profits Tax" and the Australian public gets three-fifths of FA.

Were they wearing their top hats and smoking cigars a-la Monopoly cartoon characters???

I don't know - I wasn't a party to the negotiations. Hang-on ... that was an attempt at humour, wasn't it?

You really fell into that one with Eddie Obeid.... I'm sorry - wasn't meant to be nasty at all OK.

Nothing nasty about that - Eddie Obeid is a Right-Wing crook of the highest order, and I hope him and his sons and cronies all get jail time.

A bit early to tell yet as mining investment has 5-25 year lead times, and is all tied up in external factors like commodity prices and exchange rates, but my own suggestion would to be go all the way back to square 1 and start consultation all over again without politicians being involved too much.

Maybe have a look at how taxation of the mining industry is done in Canada and other countries that compete against us for investment. Maybe compare all our taxation laws with some of our competitors and see what they do better and worse than we do.

And I mean all the way back to the 130 odd suggestions in the Henry Review or maybe even just tidy up the current tax laws might be a better start and look at them sensibly. Unless you think that the Greens or Tony Windsor have the expertise to somehow make the MRRT better?

Anyway - back OT its good that we have a democracy and we can all decide later in the year whom we want to elect and then they will decide who forms the government.

The current tax is so innocuous there isn't a mining executive worth his paycheck who would give a rats cough about it. It is a non event and if by chance it makes some real money in the future, the mining companies will be too busy counting their own money to care.

And finally - I would trust an independent over a party hack to best represent the nation's interests ... wouldn't you?

 

[Skyring]

And finally - I would trust an independent over a party hack to best represent the nation's interests ... wouldn't you?

We'll see how the jury votes on that proposition in September. The Independents had the national government in their hands and I'm not predicting a majority verdict in their favour.

 

[Moody]

We'll see how the jury votes on that proposition in September. The Independents had the national government in their hands and I'm not predicting a majority verdict in their favour.

If only it were a jury that voted based on the facts. Unfortunately facts rarely get in the way of democracy and some outcomes begger belief. Your reference to Heinlein and his neo-fascist theories was interesting, I agree with some of the sentiment but rather than testing the prospective voter's IQ I would rather test their humanity. [BTW - Paul Verhoeven's take on Starship Troopers was perfect.]

 

[Skyring]

If only it were a jury that voted based on the facts. Unfortunately facts rarely get in the way of democracy and some outcomes begger belief. Your reference to Heinlein and his neo-fascist theories was interesting, I agree with some of the sentiment but rather than testing the prospective voter's IQ I would rather test their humanity.

Well, I like that idea. Trouble is, it'd be like a citizenship test where the answers are passed around on cheat sheets. People would lie to vote.

 

[Alanslegal]

Come 15 September 2013 the Mining Tax better be gone, if not, you're a liar Mr Abbott.

 

[Major]

I must say Skyring that any cabbie I have been with has not discussed or commented on politics to the extent you have. Once we have established which terminal or which hotel any talk is about the weather in Kabul or what's happening in the Punjab.
No politics

 

[Skyring]

I must say Skyring that any cabbie I have been with has not discussed or commented on politics to the extent you have. Once we have established which terminal or which hotel any talk is about the weather in Kabul or what's happening in the Punjab.
No politics

Well, Canberra's a political town. My evenings were spent hanging around Manuka and the Parliament House rank, ferrying a steady flow of staffers to and from restaurants and hotels. Every now and then I'd get some heavy hitter like Bob Brown or a Sate Premier.

Of all my political passengers, my favorite was Michelle Grattan. She is a darling. She calls 'em as she sees 'em, she has her head screwed on firmly, and a big heart.

Others, you are the dirt beneath their feet.