Talking Politics

[RemoteTiger]

i totally agree with you remote .but can you tell me what taxy bracksy did last election that is so differant?pollies no matter what side of the fence are all the same .

Correct both sides of the fence treat us like a necessary nuisance.

You forgot R & D Remote. When the mining boom slows down we are going to be in real trouble. (At least Bracks is OS developing some bio partnerships on the back of some interesting R & D here in Vic..... patches for diabetics; new, less invasive tests that pick up cardiac problems earlier for example.)

And the $700 tutor allowance for children in years 3, 5 & 7 experiencing difficulty, not new. Take up rate was 30% last time. Wouldn't it be better to put in back into schools? No wait, if you do that then you'll no longer be able to castigate teachers and people might notice you've been at it for over 10 years now and according to you nothing's improved in standards and start blaming you instead of the professionals doing the best they can on a shoestring in most areas.

R and D isn't that something the large American Corporations do for us under the Free Trade Agreement - Australian R and D died about 11 years ago.

Teachers - primary and secondary education - there is another necessary nuisance - keep the masses dumb and you can feed them any information and they will believe it! Education is only for those who can afford it or those that are prepared to go deep into debt for it - anyway how does educating the young increase productivity and build the economy - who is going to do the sh!t jobs if we are all educated for heaven's sake?

 

[mld]

Hmm, I work in R&D for an Australian company. Pretty sure it ain't dead.

My major impression is Costello's failure yet again to reform income tax. Clearly the tax system isn't working efficiently if it is taking too much, filtering it through the bureaucracy and passing it back in bribes and handouts. It is just another form of the welfare state at the moment with middle-income families relying on government handouts. Stop taking so much tax in the first place and the handouts won't be necessary.

 

[poppa x]

My major impression is Costello's failure yet again to reform income tax. Clearly the tax system isn't working efficiently if it is taking too much, filtering it through the bureaucracy and passing it back in bribes and handouts. It is just another form of the welfare state at the moment with middle-income families relying on government handouts. Stop taking so much tax in the first place and the handouts won't be necessary.

You're asking a Treasurer to be honest MLD. It won't happen. Tax Indexation is death to all political parties because their revenue is basically restricted to CPI and natural growth in the economy. It denies them the opportunity to be grandiose at election time. And if they want to build a grand project (think Future Fund) then they may have to raise taxes to fund it.

 

[mld]

Fair point, but it shouldn't be too much to expect a party based on economic liberalism to embrace principles of small government rather than entrenching the Labor-style welfare state.

 

[poppa x]

Fair point, but it shouldn't be too much to expect a party based on economic liberalism to embrace principles of small government rather than entrenching the Labor-style welfare state.

Agreed. But I think the Labor style welfare state disappeared with Gough. As each Labor leader comes and goes, their policies move closer to the centre. It's the green fanatics who have "captured" the lefties who believe in the welfare state. Along with trying to deprive us of water, power and cars.

 

[an_oxford_man]

Agreed. But I think the Labor style welfare state disappeared with Gough. As each Labor leader comes and goes, their policies move closer to the centre. It's the green fanatics who have "captured" the lefties who believe in the welfare state. Along with trying to deprive us of water, power and cars.

Good post, Poppa. I reckon they've passed the center. Moving to the right now. What choice do we have?

 

[RemoteTiger]

Agreed. But I think the Labor style welfare state disappeared with Gough. As each Labor leader comes and goes, their policies move closer to the centre. It's the green fanatics who have "captured" the lefties who believe in the welfare state. Along with trying to deprive us of water, power and cars.

Good post, Poppa. I reckon they've passed the center. Moving to the right now. What choice do we have?

You guys have hit the nail on the head - the party that controls the middle ground in Federal Politics wins Government - Rudd knows that if he takes on the Howard Government with lefty economic policy he will never get near the middle ground which is substantially Australia's mortgage belt.

This is a watershed for the ALP - it is leaving its traditional base behind and moving to little "L" Liberalism - which should have been done over a decade ago - remember Simon Crean wanted to sever the ties between the ALP and the Unions - he was stopped by the "Get Crean out" mob within the ALP (Led by Beasley).

Interstingly if Crean had of succeeded in positioning the ALP away from the Unions I dare say today Rudd would have had a far easier job of defeating Howard - because Howard's constantly promoting the fear campaign of "The ALP always does the Unions beckoning - beware of the Union control"

With the new century and all its new technologies - The labour market and Industrial relations is shifting away from the days of the Industrial Revolution and Tony Blair in the UK spotted this dragging the UK Labor Party into the middle ground of politics. Rudd is trying to do the same with the ALP - Howard has controlled the middle ground of Federal Politics since the mid '90s and he is not going to give it up easily because he fought so bloody hard to rest it off Hawke and Keating who controlled it for just over a decade from the early '80s to mid '90s.

All this being said - history also shows that there has to be some sort of economic crisis or problem before the Australian voter will remove a Government (It has long been recognised that in Australia - Governments lose elections - Oppositions do not win them) - and - as there is good growth in the economy from both the Minerals Boom and the Banking Boom it is highly unlikely that the Australian voter will be displeased with the Howard Government. It is a sad reflection on all Australians (me included) that we vote trhough our hip pocket and purses. All the other issues of Industrial Relations, Iraq, Education, Health, Australian Wheat Board, Ministerial miss-management etc. etc. are preceived as what we have become to believe from our typical lying politicians. But if those politicians can keep the economy on an even keel which puts money in my pocket then one side is as bad as the other so we will leave it as the status quo.

Hence Johnny should win the next election - the only real interest will be the reduced or increased majority of seats and if Rudd can after losing an election maintain the ALP leadership.

This is sad IMO. For if the information from

* those who run the Federal Public Service processes on a day to day basis
and
* those in the private sector who see our markets being taken over by overseas interests

- if that information could ever really touch the hearts of Australians - like it does the Americans or the Germans or the British or the Japanese or the Koreans then we would want to secure Australian Industry and throw out those who instigated Free Trade Agreements that are *smile* over Australian born companies. Throw out those whose Foreign policy is but a mirror image of the USA. (Sadly we have long lost our own identity on the world stage - we are but the deputy to the head sheriff)

But this does not matter as long as we have our mortgage covered and a quid or two to have a beer, holiday and a bet.

Pardon my cynicism - and before you have a go at me - I too am as guilty as the next man when it comes to a dollar in my pocket...........

 

[poppa x]

I'll betcha a fiver Remote that money doesn't motivate Australians.

 

[RemoteTiger]

I'll betcha a fiver Remote that money doesn't motivate Australians.

:clap

mate I don't get out of bed unless there is at least a "tenna" in it for me.......... :hihi

 

[tigersnake]

It's the green fanatics who have "captured" the lefties who believe in the welfare state. Along with trying to deprive us of water, power and cars.

like any political movement, there are green fananatic, but thankfully being green is very quickly becoming mainstream.

I've been amazed at how many thing that 5 years ago, even 1 year ago, would have been considered loony extreme, are suddenly common sense. Re-using grey water, going solar, buying a car that uses half the resources of your old one. None of these things 'deprive' us of anything, we can still watch telly, wash ourselves, and drive to the TAB. We still have water, power and cars, we are finally just starting to think about the wider implications of their use. Its restored my faith in humanity.

 

[tigersnake]

If people, through investing, or acquiring other companies, or from a large inheritance...become extremely wealthy...then good on them.
To me, all this "taxing rich people to the eyeballs"....and "distributing wealth" wreaks of jealousy, envy, and carrying a chip on one's shoulder.
It's quite pathetic actually.

yet again, we disagree liverpool. My beliefs are based on the premise that a human only requires so much stuff to be happy. I never know what your beliefs are based on, I never really seen any evidence you ever really stop and think about any issue, you just spout far right reactionary dogma, actually you can't really call it dogma because its incoherent.

What you see as a chip on my shoulder, I see as a hatred for greed. You say that is pathetic, I say a spoilt daugher of a self-made tycoon being given the most famous and one of the most expesive mansions in Sydney for a birthday present is pathetic.

 

[Liverpool]

yet again, we disagree liverpool.

Of course we disagree Tigersnake.
If I said the sky was blue, you would disagree still....

My beliefs are based on the premise that a human only requires so much stuff to be happy. I never know what your beliefs are based on, I never really seen any evidence you ever really stop and think about any issue, you just spout far right reactionary dogma, actually you can't really call it dogma because its incoherent.

:rofl...far right reactionary dogma?
I thought my last post on this issue was quite clear on my beliefs.
It has nothing to do with far right, or far left...but just MY thoughts, that if people do well for themselves, and continue to make more and more money, then good on them.
Your 'premise' that a human only needs so much...well, your idea of enough, might be different to my idea of enough to be happy....and my neighbours might have another amount of $$$ that he wants/needs to be happy.
Everyone is different, and everyone should have the right to make as much money as they want, and spend it how they want.
That is what living in a free world is all about.
I think what you're looking for is Australia to become the "new USSR", or giving North Korea a run for its money, eh? :hihi

What you see as a chip on my shoulder, I see as a hatred for greed. You say that is pathetic, I say a spoilt daugher of a self-made tycoon being given the most famous and one of the most expesive mansions in Sydney for a birthday present is pathetic.

No, I think you don't have a chip...but a big bloody hairy gorilla, on your shoulder.
If a self-made tycoon wants to buy his daughter a mansion....congratulations, I say.
I'm sure if you won Powerball this week, and the Government came along and told you that you only need $10,000 to be happy, and the other $29million and change will be spread out to help dole bludgers and the like, you would certainly have a different opinion then, I'm sure!

 

[tigersnake]

You always have to chuck in a hypothetical red herring to scramble the issue.

I'll tell you what I reckon illustrates my point, show inspirational common sense, self awareness, all that can be good about people.

There was this bloke in NZ who invested in his sons internet auction company. The thing went beserk and was bought out by a big company, Fairfax from memory, for tens on millions. The bloke stood to collect $30 odd million.

He gave the lot away, appointed a panel of experts, who worked for free, to decide who and how to give it away. He basically said 'I have a good job, a house, a beach shack, a Harley Davidson, I go overseas on holiday most years, why do I need any more money?'

That is what I call common sense.

 

[jb03]

You always have to chuck in a hypothetical red herring to scramble the issue.

I'll tell you what I reckon illustrates my point, show inspirational common sense, self awareness, all that can be good about people.

There was this bloke in NZ who invested in his sons internet auction company. The thing went beserk and was bought out by a big company, Fairfax from memory, for tens on millions. The bloke stood to collect $30 odd million.

He gave the lot away, appointed a panel of experts, who worked for free, to decide who and how to give it away. He basically said 'I have a good job, a house, a beach shack, a Harley Davidson, I go overseas on holiday most years, why do I need any more money?'

That is what I call common sense.

I understand what you are trying to say snakeman but how can anyone, you included determine what is the minimum money, or 'stuff' required to make any individual happy. One man's assessment of greed may be another's assessment of necessity.

 

[tigersnake]

I understand what you are trying to say snakeman but how can anyone, you included determine what is the minimum money, or 'stuff' required to make any individual happy. One man's assessment of greed may be another's assessment of necessity.

the on-the-button key issue JB. I consider myself to be wealthy, most people would consider me to be either not poor or reasonably well-off. Its tough, and is extremely hard to envisage in our system, but I reckon if there was a rule that say, no individual could have more than 3 houses and $5 million in the bank, I can't really see anyones human rights being infringed by that. Any surplus wealth or energy goes, in good faith (which is the hard part) goes to helping the poor and the community.

I reckon that kiwi bloke's line in the sand was pretty sensible, but thats just me.

There has been a truckload of studies that show that once a persons personal wealth reaches a certain level, their level of happiness stalls regardless of how much more money they accumulate.

Not so long ago I thought this notion was utopian, pie in the sky idealism. But with the super rapid realisation of the limits imposed on our consumption by the environment, we may yet see my kind of common sense in our lifetimes.

 

[mopsy fraser]

remote ,unions are an outdated dinosaur that bleed money off working class ppl. tell me why should anyone be entitled to 17% on thier annual leave?? its beyond me.show me more than one case were someone is worse off under an a w a ?? also i thought we lived in a free country ,so what gives a union the right to force me to join and pay fees just so i can ply my trade on a construction site ??unions are just bloodsucking money draining *smile*s politicians by another name .its obvious to me remote that you have never had to pay wages or workcover premiums or *smile* holiday entitlements.remote if you ever have the joy of putting in a tender for work on a union construction site its pretty simple you come up with the figure it should cost to do the work then you multiply that by 5 .after all its only usally taxpayer monies that are being spent.do you get it ?everybody pays for the unions bloated and outdated work practices.now thats australian aint it :hihi

Far better to make sure the big end of town makes their profits - at the expense of the working man/woman - far better to divide Australia into the haves and the have nots just like the USA.

Unions are not perfect - BUT - nor are employer groups who suck every last bit out of a worker at a minimum cost to the business.

It is all about distribution of wealth - and it appears to me you guys like to see the wealth stacked into the top 3% of our population and the rest can go get *smile*ed.

I prefer to see everybody get a fair go and those extra rewards for the worker enabled a better distribution of wealth.

And to answer your question I have 22 staff I pay them above award rates plus quarterly bonuses for their productivity plus an annual bonus at Christmas to tie them over the holidays - I have had only 2 employees leave in the time I owned the busness - since 2002. All this done with union consent and common law contracts. I feel that AWAs are a way to manipulate workers (the Libs call it flexibility) to the benefit of Company profits - rather than look after your personnel with common law contracts or union agreed wages and conditions - just keep beating them into submission with *smile* poor AWAs.

ssstone go back to you bar and sip your drink and think you are an entreprenuer - when in truth you and I as business people are middle class people being constantly manipulated by the big end of town - and - we are just like the worker who gets manipulated by different method to us - its called AWAs.

Time for you and me to wake up - as small business men that is exactly what we are - small. The Libs cater for the bigger boys - ie. Murdoch, Packer, Stokes, Williams

do you have any positions vacant at the moment remote tiger?

 

[Chelsea]

I understand what you are trying to say snakeman but how can anyone, you included determine what is the minimum money, or 'stuff' required to make any individual happy. One man's assessment of greed may be another's assessment of necessity.

the on-the-button key issue JB. I consider myself to be wealthy, most people would consider me to be either not poor or reasonably well-off. Its tough, and is extremely hard to envisage in our system, but I reckon if there was a rule that say, no individual could have more than 3 houses and $5 million in the bank, I can't really see anyones human rights being infringed by that. Any surplus wealth or energy goes, in good faith (which is the hard part) goes to helping the poor and the community.
I reckon that kiwi bloke's line in the sand was pretty sensible, but thats just me.

There has been a truckload of studies that show that once a persons personal wealth reaches a certain level, their level of happiness stalls regardless of how much more money they accumulate.

Not so long ago I thought this notion was utopian, pie in the sky idealism. But with the super rapid realisation of the limits imposed on our consumption by the environment, we may yet see my kind of common sense in our lifetimes.

Isn't that what they call 'socialism'.... or is it 'communism'? If someone is lucky enough to be wealthy, then good luck to that person, and let him do with his wealth what he wishes. No problem to me.

 

[an_oxford_man]

I understand what you are trying to say snakeman but how can anyone, you included determine what is the minimum money, or 'stuff' required to make any individual happy. One man's assessment of greed may be another's assessment of necessity.

the on-the-button key issue JB. I consider myself to be wealthy, most people would consider me to be either not poor or reasonably well-off. Its tough, and is extremely hard to envisage in our system, but I reckon if there was a rule that say, no individual could have more than 3 houses and $5 million in the bank, I can't really see anyones human rights being infringed by that. Any surplus wealth or energy goes, in good faith (which is the hard part) goes to helping the poor and the community.

I reckon that kiwi bloke's line in the sand was pretty sensible, but thats just me.

There has been a truckload of studies that show that once a persons personal wealth reaches a certain level, their level of happiness stalls regardless of how much more money they accumulate.

Not so long ago I thought this notion was utopian, pie in the sky idealism. But with the super rapid realisation of the limits imposed on our consumption by the environment, we may yet see my kind of common sense in our lifetimes.

We'll need some sort of a recession before people decide they want to share again.

 

[evo]

Did anyone watch 'Bastard Boys' on the ABC the last 2 nights?

Haargh Haargh.

Combet couldn't have directed it better himself.The best free advertising he'll ever get.I thought it was good of Jarvis Cocker to play him too."The best part was holding hands with Greg Combet for 5 hours,he's so sexy" ;D

Apparently Bill Kelty was seething they got Krust the Clown to play him. ;D

 

[tigersnake]

Isn't that what they call 'socialism'.... or is it 'communism'? If someone is lucky enough to be wealthy, then good luck to that person, and let him do with his wealth what he wishes. No problem to me.

incisive contribution there Ibramovich.

Yeah, i suppose you're right, 3 houses and $5 mill, goddamn communism.

There's a lot about capitalism I really like, and a lot I don't. Just too few people with big a share of the pie, and the vast majority of the super rich are that way due to their hereditary privelege. I'd like to see some kind of social capitalism. People are allowed to be rich, just not ridiculously rich.