Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[medhead]

It is hilarious when senior public servants are scrambling to get away from this clown.

Rudd's $10b hole claim blown apart

Except they're not. Also interesting that the PBO statement is that the coalition policies have not been costed by the PBO. Very interesting indeed, if you consider that against abbott's claim they have been costed by the PBO.

 

[Pushka]

Very interesting indeed, if you consider that against abbott's claim they have been costed by the PBO.

As opposed to Rudd's claim they had been costed by them and had found a $10billion hole?

I've only read they've been scrutinised by three financial independent experts.

 

[amaroo]

The SMH poll doesn't look very good for [-]Rudd[/-] ALP in the credibility stakes.

Poll: Do you think Labor's claim of a $10b hole in Coalition's announced savings is credible?

20090 voted - 78% say NO

 

[Skyring]

An excellent outline of the choice we face.

Australia

The defective manifesto can be massaged in the Senate. The defective personality is harder to tweak.

It will be interesting to see how Canberra votes. There are competing forces all over. No public servant wants Rudd back, but Abbott is going to cut back on the public service. And the Greens are mounting a strong push for that second Senate seat. There's also a fair bit of angst over the Liberal preselection, where the established Senator was dumped through tactical voting. Malcolm Mackerras is keeping an eye on things for us.

The wheels are well and truly coming off the Ruddwagen. Policy announcements are flying thick and fast, most of them unknown to the Cabinet and campaign HQ. He's making false statements - demonstrably and knowingly false - in the relentlessly negative campaign he said was old politics. The polls are looking hopeless, the bookies have given up...

Rudd's looking tired, probably from yelling at people over the phone as he tries to micromanage the thing.

I'm inevitably reminded of the last days in the Fuhrerbunker.

[video=youtube;SXfP2763gYo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXfP2763gYo[/video]

 

[11sjw]

An excellent outline of the choice we face.



Australia

The talk of China's growth at 7.5% being a problem is difficult to fathom. As many publications have mentioned this growth is on top of the decade of double or near double digit growth, meaning that although the amount of pie being added is less the pie is massive compared to what it was a decade ago. Therefore in absolute terms they're doing fine.

One example is the profit recently announced by FMG.

 

[Pushka]

The talk of China's growth at 7.5% being a problem is difficult to fathom. As many publications have mentioned this growth is on top of the decade of double or near double digit growth, meaning that although the amount of pie being added is less the pie is massive compared to what it was a decade ago. Therefore in absolute terms they're doing fine.

One example is the profit recently announced by FMG.

Because they've ramped up for much more growth than 7.5% in anticipation. So it's a let down from that.

 

[spudseamus]

It's all over bar the shouting !!! I hate counting chooks before you know what ! But after Rudd's thought bubble today on a minister for city's !!

 

[amaroo]

Can't be very many examples in the history of the World where scrapping taxes - actually saves a Government money:!:


CHRIS UHLMANN: The structural problem with the mining and carbon taxes was that the Government promised more to voters to sell them than either tax raised, and when the mining tax failed to make anything like what was forecast, multibillion-dollar funding gaps yawned.

So abolishing both and the spending programs bolted to them like the billion-dollar-a-year Schoolkids Bonus actually raises money. $15.7 billion is saved over four years by scrapping spending attached to the mining tax. Another $8.3 billion is saved by axing programs linked to the carbon tax. Cutting the public service by 12,000 saves $5.2 billion. Reducing the number of places set aside for refugees by 8,000 a year saves $1.3 billion. And in its first years of operation, the Coalition's paid parental leave scheme will leave the budget $1.1 billion better off. So, the Opposition calculates total savings to the budget bottom line at $31.6 billion.

 

[Skyring]

CHRIS UHLMANN: The structural problem with the mining and carbon taxes was that the Government promised more to voters to sell them than either tax raised, and when the mining tax failed to make anything like what was forecast, multibillion-dollar funding gaps yawned.

So abolishing both and the spending programs bolted to them like the billion-dollar-a-year Schoolkids Bonus actually raises money. $15.7 billion is saved over four years by scrapping spending attached to the mining tax. Another $8.3 billion is saved by axing programs linked to the carbon tax.

I think the lesson here is to keep the Greens away from anything to do with money.

Both taxes were conceived in haste around the 2010 election. Julia Gillard may be blamed for both - the mining tax because it was poorly implemented in the haste to solve a political problem before the election, and the carbon tax because she foolishly bowed to the Greens when she automatically had their support in any confidence motion.

Both taxes were Green wetdreams, attacking big business and handing out money to those most likely to vote for them.

 

[amaroo]

I think the lesson here is to keep the Greens away from anything to do with money.

Both taxes were conceived in haste around the 2010 election. Julia Gillard may be blamed for both - the mining tax because it was poorly implemented in the haste to solve a political problem before the election, and the carbon tax because she foolishly bowed to the Greens when she automatically had their support in any confidence motion.

Both taxes were Green wetdreams, attacking big business and handing out money to those most likely to vote for them.

The real devil is wealth distribution.......ALP just can't help themselves.

 

[drsmithy]

Can't be very many examples in the history of the World where scrapping taxes - actually saves a Government money:!:

I imagine there are many.

However, in this case it's not the scrapping of the tax that saves the money, it's the scrapping of the spending.

Those "little" details are probably easier to see if you have both eyes open.

 

[drsmithy]

I think the lesson here is to keep the Greens away from anything to do with money.

On the contrary. The lesson is to keep big business away from anything to do with running a Government.

Both taxes were Green wetdreams, attacking big business and handing out money to those most likely to vote for them.

No, they weren't.

The mining tax was to create benefits for the whole country from the once-off sale of our assets, rather than the handful of people employed in mining, a couple of billionaires, and a whole bunch of foreign investors.

The carbon price was to provide a disincentive for carbon-intensive industries so they would move to more carbon efficient methods.

Neither, outside of the massive confected media outrage, were particularly unusual. They weren't "attacking business" (any more than any other tax does), nor were their outcomes intended to be targeted at a narrow range of voters.

 

[drsmithy]

The real devil is wealth distribution.......ALP just can't help themselves.

Wealth distribution is one of the foundations of modern, civilised society. The police, to name but one example few would disagree with, are the product of wealth redistribution.

The difference is the social democrats like the Greens aim to redistribute the wealth towards people who need it, while the neoliberals like the Liberals and increasingly the ALP aim to redistribute the wealth towards people who don't.

 

[amaroo]

I imagine there are many.

However, in this case it's not the scrapping of the tax that saves the money, it's the scrapping of the spending.

Those "little" details are probably easier to see if you have both eyes open.

LOL the [-]spending[/-] vote buying on the back of the tax is a con.....particularly when the tax raise bugger all! Typical wealth distribution.....won't need to worry about this come Sunday the 8th

 

[eastwest101]

The mining tax was to create benefits for the whole country from the once-off sale of our assets, rather than the handful of people employed in mining, a couple of billionaires, and a whole bunch of foreign investors.

There were and still are a number of ways for people to enjoy the benefits of the resources industries, they are called state royalties, companies paying corporate tax, working in the industry or one of the service providers for the industry, or buying shares in resource companies (by default having a superannuation balance).

And don't bother trotting out the discredited stuff that Swan and Gillard were quoting in May 2010 where they ignored existing State Royalties...... the ATO stats themselves showed that the finance and real estate/insurance were the industries paying the least tax.

 

[Skyring]

This focus group has nailed it.

 

[Pukka]

Wealth distribution is one of the foundations of modern, civilised society. The police, to name but one example few would disagree with, are the product of wealth redistribution.

The difference is the social democrats like the Greens aim to redistribute the wealth towards people who need it, while the neoliberals like the Liberals and increasingly the ALP aim to redistribute the wealth towards people who don't.

I have no problem with funding the Police and infrastructure but my idea of "people who need it " is not those that choose not to work, queue jumpers & general wasters.

The Liberals do not redistribute tax from the poor they just don't take as much tax away from those that are already paying more than their fair share.

Well that's what I'm hoping for anyway.

 

[amaroo]

Wealth distribution is one of the foundations of modern, civilised society. The police, to name but one example few would disagree with, are the product of wealth redistribution.

Thats why we pay things like income tax and a range of other Fed/State/local - taxes/rates/fees.

Taxing carbon and shifting the loot into marginal electorates/voters is pure socialist unproductive and wasteful wealth distribution. Not to mention it maintained the votes in parliament so the ALP could cash in for another three years.

 

[samh004]

I'm finally wading in to say I filled in my postal vote today and shall be popping it in a letterbox as soon as I see one.

 

[drron]

On the contrary. The lesson is to keep big business away from anything to do with running a Government.


No, they weren't.

The mining tax was to create benefits for the whole country from the once-off sale of our assets, rather than the handful of people employed in mining, a couple of billionaires, and a whole bunch of foreign investors.

The carbon price was to provide a disincentive for carbon-intensive industries so they would move to more carbon efficient methods.

Neither, outside of the massive confected media outrage, were particularly unusual. They weren't "attacking business" (any more than any other tax does), nor were their outcomes intended to be targeted at a narrow range of voters.

One fact you left out.In Australia the minerals belong to the States and State taxes(Royalties) are paid.The MRRT I believe was part of the ALP's policy to weaken State Governments making them rely even more on the Commonwealth.