Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[happy_tiger]

i havent read the entire thread but re: the election- the only thing is that i dont think Liberals won the election and more like the ALP lost it with the leadership dramas, carbon tax etc. public was fed up with them.

not sure if liberal is gonna do any better but ALP didn't deserve to be in the government esp led by keving rudd.

on the other side, liberals had a few very questionable policies as well.

They lost it 4 years ago and were just lucky they scrapped through last election

In fact I wonder if Abbott and the Coalition could see the dramas that would unfold and decided to wait another three years and were over the moon when the independents did what they did

 

[avocadoontoast]

Who do you think that the Coalition will make Speaker of the House ??

Sophie Mirabella has a face that would scare a shark if she is re elected

Sorted Any other takers ??

She's an absolutely disgraceful person. Refusal to acknowledge the stolen generation was simply offensive. Has the reputation of being the nastiest person in politics, and that's no mean feat.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[Tim Sheens]

The car industry is extremely important as it is our only one capable of being transformed for war production if the need should arise.

 

[happy_tiger]

The car industry is extremely important as it is our only one capable of being transformed for war production if the need should arise.

Bud its not the 1940's you know :laughing:

If we were involved in a war with another country we wouldn't last a month and the arms you speak of wouldn't even get off the ground

I believe that should become another issue we need to focus on though for the future

When supply becomes limited in the future countries will resort to almost anything to get what they need for their own survival

 

[Tim Sheens]

The car industry is extremely important as it is our only one capable of being transformed for war production if the need should arise.

Bud its not the 1940's you know :laughing:

If we were involved in a war with another country we wouldn't last a month and the arms you speak of wouldn't even get off the ground

I believe that should become another issue we need to focus on though for the future

When supply becomes limited in the future countries will resort to almost anything to get what they need for their own survival

Fair enough, it is a new millennium.

The trouble is history and the current climate show that not much has changed. The car industry is a major part of the Department of Defence planning.

 

[pHyR3]

Worst thing is, i have a good feeling the economy will do a lot better next year given the dollar is now weak (our exports are cheaper, growth goes up) and Liberal will get all the credit. They've been really lucky with the mining boom, ousted just before the GFC and put back in, in a likely recovery.

Obviously, i dont know for sure if it'll be better. Greece could suddenly default tomorrow, but not likely.

 

[happy_tiger]

Worst thing is, i have a good feeling the economy will do a lot better next year given the dollar is now weak (our exports are cheaper, growth goes up) and Liberal will get all the credit. They've been really lucky with the mining boom, ousted just before the GFC and put back in, in a likely recovery.

Obviously, i dont know for sure if it'll be better. Greece could suddenly default tomorrow, but not likely.

Lucky …........................ Are you kidding me

If it wasn't for the Coalition setting us up so well in the first place , Labor would not of been able to ride the GFC out as well as they did

 

[Saturnalia]

Worst thing is, i have a good feeling the economy will do a lot better next year given the dollar is now weak (our exports are cheaper, growth goes up) and Liberal will get all the credit. They've been really lucky with the mining boom, ousted just before the GFC and put back in, in a likely recovery.

Obviously, i dont know for sure if it'll be better. Greece could suddenly default tomorrow, but not likely.

Lucky …........................ Are you kidding me

If it wasn't for the Coalition setting us up so well in the first place , Labor would not of been able to ride the GFC out as well as they did

If by setting up, you mean selling government assets and establishing an across the board goods and services tax then yes, they _built_ a wonderful economy

 

[Tim Sheens]

Worst thing is, i have a good feeling the economy will do a lot better next year given the dollar is now weak (our exports are cheaper, growth goes up) and Liberal will get all the credit. They've been really lucky with the mining boom, ousted just before the GFC and put back in, in a likely recovery.

Obviously, i dont know for sure if it'll be better. Greece could suddenly default tomorrow, but not likely.

Lucky …........................ Are you kidding me

If it wasn't for the Coalition setting us up so well in the first place , Labor would not of been able to ride the GFC out as well as they did

If by setting up, you mean selling government assets and establishing an across the board goods and services tax then yes, they _built_ a wonderful economy

I do not mind the GST concept, except that it created millions of new tax collectors. A transaction tax is what I would prefer,as it chips away every time monies are shifted around a web of companies, trusts and through other loopholes.

As far as setting up goes, the worst legacy of the Howard government was the hangover from tax cuts, with the last promised round coming in after change of government. Many economists say it was a tipping point for revenue. Labor should have cancelled it when they would have had community backing following the advent of the GFC.t

 

[pHyR3]

Worst thing is, i have a good feeling the economy will do a lot better next year given the dollar is now weak (our exports are cheaper, growth goes up) and Liberal will get all the credit. They've been really lucky with the mining boom, ousted just before the GFC and put back in, in a likely recovery.

Obviously, i dont know for sure if it'll be better. Greece could suddenly default tomorrow, but not likely.

Lucky …........................ Are you kidding me

If it wasn't for the Coalition setting us up so well in the first place , Labor would not of been able to ride the GFC out as well as they did

Again, the coalition DID NOT CAUSE THE MINING BOOM. that's hundreds of billions of dollars growing at well over 8% per year. The tax was flowing in like there's no tomorrow, like they do today the treasury would get the revenue prediction wrong, except back then they'd predict too low a revenue while now they predict it too high.

So good job on them collecting money, not knowing what to do with it and setting it aside. The GST, that's fair the was an unpopular decision (i think) but a good one. But, in terms of 'hard' decisions, it was as unpopular but still good for the economy (or environment) as the carbon tax. If you are against making carbon intensive practices more expensive to discourage them then i can't help you.

Labor are the ones that actually implemented the stimulus package, one of the, if not THE quickest and best targetted stimulus package in the world which allowed us to keep growing during 2009! An amazing feat. For reference, Britain is only **now** getting their GDP back to where they were in 2007\. 0% growth in 6 years. We've achieved something like 15% real growth.

Edit: Although they got in the GST, they also raised the highest tax bracket from 80k to 180k, or something equally as short sighted, and we're still facing the issues from that, since that meant less equal taxation and less taxation.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

Lucky …........................ Are you kidding me

If it wasn't for the Coalition setting us up so well in the first place , Labor would not of been able to ride the GFC out as well as they did

I don't think there is any argument that Australia was well positioned to confront the GFC, however what is coming to the surface now, is that we should have been _better_ positioned. The surplus position should have been higher.

In the final year or two leading up to the GFC, we were booming, yet the government through excessive spending and tax cuts worked against the automatic stabilisers in the budget. Whilst the government was running surpluses, the budget was actually having an _expansionary_ effect on the economy because from year to year, the government was increasing its involvement in the economy. In contrast, monetary policy had a contractionary stance with the RBA was raising rates due to inflation. The RBA kept warning the government about its budget. It was poor economic management from the government.

It is interesting. Howard left government and at the time was deemed an economic genius. The wheel of history is now turning on his economic credentials. Keating left hated by the electorate, but history now views his years as Treasurer and PM more positively due to seeing the impact of reforms and opening the door into Asia under his stewardship. I think Gillard will be judged very well by history.

 

[pHyR3]

Sorry, are you saying that the liberal surplus was contractionary but it should have been MORE contractionary?

Cause, in my opinion, running moderate surpluses is good in good economic times running big ones is not good politically. People will wonder why they're being taxed so much if no one is using it.

Also, monetary policy is far better at managing high economic growth than fiscal policy. But, fiscal policy is much better at stimulating growth than monetary. Cause even if interest rates are 0% (like in US) some factory owner isn't gonna go, OH i'm barely staying afloat and running at half capacity but sure i wanna borrow a bucket load of money to build a 2nd factory.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

There seems to be a lot of smart people on here… Unfortunately, I'm a dumb arse when it comes to governments etc, but I have one MAJOR gripe:

Why cant we get a fairer tax system in Australia.... Why do I have to pay more tax than the guy in front of me? If there is a traffic jam on the national highways, shouldn't he move over for me because I pay more?

I have no problem paying more actual dollars than the other guy, but I still think my tax percentage should be the same contribution as everyone else. Why should I be forced to pay 33c in every dollar I earn because I worked hard to achieve the results I have, but old mate over there only pays 25c and he gets the same say as I do?

 

[pHyR3]

There seems to be a lot of smart people on here… Unfortunately, I'm a dumb arse when it comes to governments etc, but I have one MAJOR gripe:

Why cant we get a fairer tax system in Australia.... Why do I have to pay more tax than the guy in front of me? If there is a traffic jam on the national highways, shouldn't he move over for me because I pay more?

I have no problem paying more actual dollars than the other guy, but I still think my tax percentage should be the same contribution as everyone else. Why should I be forced to pay 33c in every dollar I earn because I worked hard to achieve the results I have, but old mate over there only pays 25c and he gets the same say as I do?

So, like you don't want a progressive tax system (where rich people pay more tax per dollar)?

Well, it simply just helps reduce inequality. Someone on 200k should be paying considerably more tax than someone on 30k. I cant be bothered to work it out exactly, but on 200k you'd pay around 60k tax. But because it's progressive, someone on 30k would pay just 2,000!!! Which is great for a struggling single parent.

If you had just a flat 30% tax rate, that person on 30k would pay 4k (no tax on first 18 thousand like it is now thanks to gillard :smiley: ). And the 200k person would pay 60k. So the exact same, but now poorer people are taxed more than before

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

Sorry, are you saying that the liberal surplus was contractionary but it should have been MORE contractionary?

Towards the end of the Howard government, the budget was actually having an expansionary effect on the economy when it was not required. In the final years the government was putting more cash into the economy than taking out. A surplus was still being achieved, but the level of surplus fell. It is a common misunderstanding that just because a surplus is being held the view is that policy is contractionary. It is the _movement_ in the budget position from year to year that determines the budget's effect on the economy.

Cause, in my opinion, running moderate surpluses is good in good economic times running big ones is not good politically. People will wonder why they're being taxed so much if no one is using it.

With regard to the economy, fiscal policy has the responsibility on the supply side of the economy. It should only be involved in the demand side of the economy in extreme circumstances. Therefore, so long as the supply side of the economy is being improved, a surplus can be as big as it wants because as we have seen, it can be used in extreme circumstances.

Also, monetary policy is far better at managing high economic growth than fiscal policy. But, fiscal policy is much better at stimulating growth than monetary. Cause even if interest rates are 0% (like in US) some factory owner isn't gonna go, OH i'm barely staying afloat and running at half capacity but sure i wanna borrow a bucket load of money to build a 2nd factory.

Monetary policy has responsibility on the demand side. With regard to stimulating growth, it depends how quick you want it to occur. The transmission mechanism of monetary policy means the impact on aggregate demand can be anywhere between 6 and 24 months. The impact of stimulatory fiscal policy is related to the type of investment made by the government. It can be quicker than monetary policy (cash payments) or much slower (infrastructure). It is why the government's stimulatory package in the aftermath of the GFC was seen to be the best in the world. It was split into three parts:

1\. Cash payments - immediately into the economy
2\. Short - medium term infrastructure - one to two years
3\. Long term infrastructure - five plus years

The infrastructure spending whilst having an effect on aggregate demand are examples of the budget investing in the supply side of the economy.

 

[pHyR3]

Yup, gotcha.

With the monetary policy point, you're right that it has quick implementation but long time to take effect (6-24months). But, i still reckon that having 0% interest rates doesn't do jack if you're economy is struggling badly. the US, UK etc. etc. have had 0% interest rates, pretty much, for ages. The US is only now recovering, but i doubt the low cash rate did much in the last few years. It would have done something, but not as much as a stimulus package.

That's why running deficits in a soft economy is crucial, rather than this idiotic move for surplus, mostly by the media and liberals (although labor would have and will do the same if liberals cant get to surplus). Simple keynseian economics.

 

[Tiger_Watto]

There seems to be a lot of smart people on here… Unfortunately, I'm a dumb arse when it comes to governments etc, but I have one MAJOR gripe:

Why cant we get a fairer tax system in Australia.... Why do I have to pay more tax than the guy in front of me? If there is a traffic jam on the national highways, shouldn't he move over for me because I pay more?

I have no problem paying more actual dollars than the other guy, but I still think my tax percentage should be the same contribution as everyone else. Why should I be forced to pay 33c in every dollar I earn because I worked hard to achieve the results I have, but old mate over there only pays 25c and he gets the same say as I do?

So, like you don't want a progressive tax system (where rich people pay more tax per dollar)?

Well, it simply just helps reduce inequality. Someone on 200k should be paying considerably more tax than someone on 30k. I cant be bothered to work it out exactly, but on 200k you'd pay around 60k tax. But because it's progressive, someone on 30k would pay just 2,000!!! Which is great for a struggling single parent.

If you had just a flat 30% tax rate, that person on 30k would pay 4k (no tax on first 18 thousand like it is now thanks to gillard :smiley: ). And the 200k person would pay 60k. So the exact same, but now poorer people are taxed more than before

Good, why shouldnt they… Now how do we implement this system?

It looks like we have just fixed a revenue shortage?!

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[pHyR3]

um… they do? if im on 200k i pay more tax as a percentage than if im on 30k

 

[Tiger_Watto]

um… they do? if im on 200k i pay more tax as a percentage than if im on 30k

I'm talking about the 30k bloke… He should pay his 30%!

 

[pHyR3]

um… they do? if im on 200k i pay more tax as a percentage than if im on 30k

I'm talking about the 30k bloke… He should pay his 30%!

Well, when i said 4k i was including the fact that gillard implemented an 18k tax free threshold. So removing that, that single parent on minimum wage is now paying 9k in taxes…. he/she has 21k left. that is hardly fair....