Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here
- Thread starter Kul
- Start date
- Status
@Yossarian said:
Yes she does, but to earn a good salary means you have sacrificed a hell of a lot. You have spent tens of thousands on education, work massive hours and pay a lot of tax. There is nothing disgraceful about this person getting a fair go. Does 'fair go" only apply to low wage earners in your mind?
The high salary earner (doctors, lawyers, business executives etc…) are important commidities and giving them the incentive to start a family as well as continue to work (i.e. not quit their jobs and become full time mothers) is beneficial to this country and far from a disgrace.
The OAP is an entirely different matter.
Tiger_Watto
New member
yep… I remember when the ad came on with the old bag complaining about it.
My first reaction was to tell her to stop whining... the worker on $100k is paying for her pension!
Should the pensions be raised... hell yes. But its a different scheme and shouldn't be addressed as part of the forum of better work entitlements!
My first reaction was to tell her to stop whining... the worker on $100k is paying for her pension!
Should the pensions be raised... hell yes. But its a different scheme and shouldn't be addressed as part of the forum of better work entitlements!
hammertime
Well-known member
@Yossarian said:
I know you've probably been in busines Yoss and I'm sure you know how hard it would be to negotiate maternity leave into a package. Especially in areas like Law or Banking where they effectively want to own every waking hour of your day. It's only further promotes the glass celing.
These people pay almost 50% of their wages at the top bracket to help pay for others and almost all across the board. I think you'll find they have made a lot of sacrifices and continue to make sacrifices to lift Australia's GDP to obviously benefit them, but also you and me. Nearly every policy is also means tested which means they get none of that back. Even environmental measures like Solar Panels were at some point.
In the future, as we see more jobs moved to China/India, these high level intelectual jobs will be what maintains Australias competitiveness and in turn, our fantastic lifestyle.
Our best and brightest shouldn't be counted out of a policy like this.
southerntiger
New member
@stryker said:
They still have a caucus whether you call it that or not. Calling a dog a cat doesnt make it one.
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
dazza65
Well-known member
What do you think this mighty mythical "caucus" is southern?
A caucus is merely a meeting of supporters or members of a specific political party or movement. Hardly unique or specific to Labor.
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
A caucus is merely a meeting of supporters or members of a specific political party or movement. Hardly unique or specific to Labor.
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
southerntiger
New member
@dazza65 said:
Im agreeing with you buddy. A meeting of the parliamentary members is a caucus. The Libs have a caucus they just dont call it a caucus.
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
TurnStyle
Well-known member
i thought caucus was when you were denied freedom of speech?
\
\
\
\
\
…get it? caucus? boo ya!!
\
\
\
\
\
…get it? caucus? boo ya!!
TurnStyle
Well-known member
@hammertime said:
exactly!!! very well said. youve got my vote!!
TurnStyle
Well-known member
@Tiger Watto said:
:roll
@stryker said:
A fair go? For people on 150k+ a year? Please… You shouldn't need bribery as an incentive to start a family and government subsidies should be to cover the actual costs of things. Raising a baby is fundamentally the same costs for a poor family as a rich one. IMO it is a disgraceful policy. It's worse than middle-class welfare - it's upper class welfare.
And the idea that a person's worth to this country is linked to their wage is something I cannot possibly agree on either. The people you mention are remunerated very generously without needing government assistance.
@hammertime said:
It's a society. As I've said before government is in many ways about the redistibution of income. The fundamental reasoning behind tax in this country has always been that those with the ability to contribute the most do so. Everyone who works makes sacrifices and contributes as fitting to their personal circumstances. I strongly doubt that the absence of a paid paternity scheme along Abbott's lines is contributing to a brain drain.
hammertime
Well-known member
@Yossarian said:
Firstly, raising a baby is not the same between incomes. The biggest impact is having a partner absent from paying the mortgage bill. The size of which is usually relative to your income levels.
Secondly, It's all funded by a levy from the top firms. It's not welfare. All it does is ensure that companies act with less prejudice towards women because they won't have to directly fund leave.
… but you are right, a persons worth is not linked to their wage. There are amazing people in every industry! Especially in the charities and health care. But, on average, the people who have tasted success, will have done so through traits that will definitely help the country..... if they get a chance to bestow those traits to their kids.
Always enjoy debating with you Yoss by the way ... and thanks for the kind words Turnstyle!
TurnStyle
Well-known member
okay, so last financial year a good looking, intelligent and witty guy, not saying who, earned 150k +.
then recently due to rio tinto, (hypothetically :wink: ) halting all progress on major projects that allowed said, anonymous guy to earn said wage he is retrenched due to downsizing…. and being too funny.
so this guy, lets call him... t... forget the name TurnStyle!!... pays taxes relative to earnings and then when he is jobless he is only eligible for the same amount of newstart allowance as someone who has never worked or applied themselves to succeed in the system we have?
yes, it may sound harsh, but the facts are we live in a society where your worth to it is based on how you contribute to it, be it professionally, community and charitable undertakings, etc. it is exactly the same as sport:
if you dont have athletic talent and wont do the work to get there, you will never earn 150k+.
if you simply dont have the intelligence and wont do the hard work to get anywhere in your career then you will never earn the big bucks. thats life!
a persons career choice should be purely theirs but the fact is that if you absolutely love to collect trolleys then you accept you are not going to earn as much money as someone who loves to perform brain surgery. if you would like to be a brain surgeon, anyone can do so given they possess a genius brain and an aptitude for insane amounts of work leading to and involving it!
i will say i have seen this $75k incentive and do think that is pretty wrong. my point is government assistance for people who need it should include a consideration of how much you yourself have contributed. sort of like insurance from the taxes paid.
i think it should be that everyone is entitled to a minimum amount but also calculated on taxes paid so that if you are a brain surgeon who is out of work you are able to get by on a payment that is proportionate to your tax history.
still, this is the system we have so no use me whinging... any more than i have! :wink:
then recently due to rio tinto, (hypothetically :wink: ) halting all progress on major projects that allowed said, anonymous guy to earn said wage he is retrenched due to downsizing…. and being too funny.
so this guy, lets call him... t... forget the name TurnStyle!!... pays taxes relative to earnings and then when he is jobless he is only eligible for the same amount of newstart allowance as someone who has never worked or applied themselves to succeed in the system we have?
yes, it may sound harsh, but the facts are we live in a society where your worth to it is based on how you contribute to it, be it professionally, community and charitable undertakings, etc. it is exactly the same as sport:
if you dont have athletic talent and wont do the work to get there, you will never earn 150k+.
if you simply dont have the intelligence and wont do the hard work to get anywhere in your career then you will never earn the big bucks. thats life!
a persons career choice should be purely theirs but the fact is that if you absolutely love to collect trolleys then you accept you are not going to earn as much money as someone who loves to perform brain surgery. if you would like to be a brain surgeon, anyone can do so given they possess a genius brain and an aptitude for insane amounts of work leading to and involving it!
i will say i have seen this $75k incentive and do think that is pretty wrong. my point is government assistance for people who need it should include a consideration of how much you yourself have contributed. sort of like insurance from the taxes paid.
i think it should be that everyone is entitled to a minimum amount but also calculated on taxes paid so that if you are a brain surgeon who is out of work you are able to get by on a payment that is proportionate to your tax history.
still, this is the system we have so no use me whinging... any more than i have! :wink:
@hammertime said:
so you're saying this policy is designed to subsidise wealthy people so the can afford a larger and more expensive house than others?
This policy wouldn't irk me so much if it weren't for the Liberal hypocrisy it's promoted
'We deserve the very best PPL scheme we can have… but as for the NBN, we can get by with something cheaper... we're in a budget emergency don't you know!'
'this carbon tax is a great big tax on everything!... but our 1.5% levy for PPL is totally different'
\
\
\
not to mention the axe they've swung through the renewable energy sector
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/coalition-releases-new-energy-plan-burn-baby-burn-96327
if there is a budget emergency, then the PPL scheme we have now should be sufficient surely
hammertime
Well-known member
@Winnipeg said:
Not really, I'm saying that people have obligations which they set on their level of income. It's unfair to say that the people who work hard should have to sell their house because they can't get the same flexibility as someone who hasn't been as sucessful. Even if it is simply a bigger house.
The wealthy get excluded from most policies. This is just the one that makes sense.
On, the NBN. It's a MASSIVE expenditure and I have yet to hear a valid justification for it's economic return. It's just like the Tech bubbles pre-dating this. Everyone gets carried away with the technology itself, rather than the output. The main arguement I hear is 'You can't imagine the possiblities'. That is the worst business case ever and you would be booted out of a firm for that.
The Liberal option may cost more in the long run, but it's cautious and puts a $ figure per household on it. So people can pay the $4k if they really want it. Rather than using my taxes for fast torrenting.
Saturnalia
Well-known member
@hammertime said:
If you're still not sure how the NBN is funded then you're probably ignorant of many other issues and should refrain from voting.
Regarding benefits of super high speed broadband
How about
Online storage and backups
'Cloud' computing
Video on demand
IPTV
Voice over IP (carrier grade)
Telecommuting
High Definition videoconferencing
Smart metering (electricity, gas, etc)
Remote control of home appliances
RF feeds of TV (200+ channels)
Pay TV
e-learning
More scalable realtime screen-sharing.
Remote security monitoring (HD)
Mobile phone backhaul
Mobile phone femtocells
Teleradiology – Reading DICOM images of Computed Radiography (CR), Computed Tomography (CT), Positron Emission Tomography (PET), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) through a secure HTTP connection enabling a specialist radiologist the possibility to annotate and produce final reports on medical images in places other than a hospital. Web-based PACS facilities have existed for more than 5 years, but internet speeds to premises other than hospitals have been the only limiting factor. Has the potential to result in the more efficient delivery of health services by Australian state governments, thereby improving the quality of patient care.
GP teleconsultations – Ability of a GP to provide limited forms of Medicare-billed consultations from your home/workplace, possibly even provide secure scripts for the dispensation of pharmaceuticals, etc. Why wait up to 75 minutes for a simple GP visit when you could just visit online via videoconferencing? Also has great potential to result in the more efficient delivery of health services by Australian state governments.
Teleopthamology – Allow the provision of eye imaging for the diagnosis of eye diseases in remote communities.
Physiotherapists – Allowing Physiotherapists to consult and deliver via videolink to patients saving them travel and waiting room time.
Online Patient Records – Patients records become online allowing GP's and hospital staff access to previous medical records to speed up triage, treatment and recovery processes
hammertime
Well-known member
@Sataris said:
I also don't think that people with anger management issues should be posting on Internet forums either… But looks like I can't stop that.
I understand how it's funded. Back in the day, I used to work on the federal budget, so I do know just a little bit of stuff... But also, if you think the rates of return are realistic given the current rollout stats, you too need a lesson in how it's eventually going to be funded.
But kudos, that is the best list I have seen anyone produce. Now tell me, how are any of those not possible through the liberal network, albeit a bit slower? Or are not already happening? Negating those, the remainder of time difference and gdp production lost is what we need to quantify.
Oh wait, we haven't done any proper cost benefit analysis yet right?
hammertime
Well-known member
@Winnipeg said:
An opposition party doesn't have the resources to do that until they are in government.
- Status
