Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Saturnalia]

I do enjoy the people who continually claim that the country is broke because there is a deficit.

I'd say an investment in an economics book or a calculator, or learning to count might be a good step in understanding how federal budgets work. :unamused:

 

[southerntiger]

I do enjoy the people who continually claim that the country is broke because there is a deficit.

I'd say an investment in an economics book or a calculator, or learning to count might be a good step in understanding how federal budgets work. :unamused:

Yep.

If Australia is broke then there must be a few bankrupt countries out there.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

 

[Tiger_Watto]

I do enjoy the people who continually claim that the country is broke because there is a deficit.

I'd say an investment in an economics book or a calculator, or learning to count might be a good step in understanding how federal budgets work. :unamused:

Yep.

If Australia is broke then there must be a few bankrupt countries out there.

_Posted using RoarFEED 4.2.0_

Broke and Bankrupt are two different things… I was broke last week because my wife spent too much on shoes.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Cultured Bogan I have another question for you regarding corporate welfare.

Let's say a company conducts an analysis of a project and finds that the project has a risk adjusted loss of $10 million. All things being equal, based on those numbers the project is rejected. However, what if this venture was going to employ 20 000 people directly and indirectly provide jobs for another 80 000 in associated industries.

Should the Government provide a $10 million subsidy, an act of corporate welfare?

No. I've already made my position clear on this. It's discriminatory policy.

I'd rather the 10 million go into the CSIRO which can fund research the government can make revenue from.

Do you think it's fair that Holden has drawn over $2b, Ford $1.1b and Toyota $1.2b over the period from 2001-2012, only for them to spit the dummy and piss off anyway while thousands of small businesses have routinely gone to the wall over that same period? How many jobs have been lost via small businesses going belly up?

 

[mremedy]

Cultured Bogan I have another question for you regarding corporate welfare.

Let's say a company conducts an analysis of a project and finds that the project has a risk adjusted loss of $10 million. All things being equal, based on those numbers the project is rejected. However, what if this venture was going to employ 20 000 people directly and indirectly provide jobs for another 80 000 in associated industries.

Should the Government provide a $10 million subsidy, an act of corporate welfare?

No. I've already made my position clear on this. It's discriminatory policy.

I'd rather the 10 million go into the CSIRO which can fund research the government can make revenue from.

Do you think it's fair that Holden has drawn over $2b, Ford $1.1b and Toyota $1.2b over the period from 2001-2012, only for them to spit the dummy and piss off anyway while thousands of small businesses have routinely gone to the wall over that same period? How many jobs have been lost via small businesses going belly up?

But this subsidy is a revenue making proposition for the Government. If we assume that these new jobs aren't crowding out other jobs, then if each new position attracted the average wage of $70,000, tax revenue from wages would be around $1.5 billion in the first year alone. Depending on the life of the project the present value amount could be over 10 times the first year tax receipts.

That is a $15 billion return on a $10 million investment. This figure only counts the income tax receipts and does not include the corporate tax receipts. How is this a bad investment from the Australian tax payer?

I am also interested to know why an investment in industry is discriminatory whilst an investment in the CSIRO is not? Is a dollar made from generating income tax not the same a dollar made from a Government agency?

In regards to the subsidies to the car industry, the question is not whether it is 'fair', but rather whether the economy was benefited by a multiple of the original investment. It has been recorded in the press that each job created in the car industry led to 5 jobs in associated industries. As I have not seen the numbers I can only speculate on this.

It does seem however that the car subsidies may have been politically motivated with the ALP arguing strongly for them and the LNP arguing strongly against them.

Small businesses are also the recipient of Government subsidies, I am not sure of the total pool of funds as they come under multiple headings in the budget, but I know that there is financial help for small businesses wanting to expand. The hard part about subsidising small business is being able to generate the high ROI that has been described above.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Cultured Bogan I have another question for you regarding corporate welfare.

Let's say a company conducts an analysis of a project and finds that the project has a risk adjusted loss of $10 million. All things being equal, based on those numbers the project is rejected. However, what if this venture was going to employ 20 000 people directly and indirectly provide jobs for another 80 000 in associated industries.

Should the Government provide a $10 million subsidy, an act of corporate welfare?

No. I've already made my position clear on this. It's discriminatory policy.

I'd rather the 10 million go into the CSIRO which can fund research the government can make revenue from.

Do you think it's fair that Holden has drawn over $2b, Ford $1.1b and Toyota $1.2b over the period from 2001-2012, only for them to spit the dummy and piss off anyway while thousands of small businesses have routinely gone to the wall over that same period? How many jobs have been lost via small businesses going belly up?

But this subsidy is a revenue making proposition for the Government. If we assume that these new jobs aren't crowding out other jobs, then if each new position attracted the average wage of $70,000, tax revenue from wages would be around $1.5 billion in the first year alone. Depending on the life of the project the present value amount could be over 10 times the first year tax receipts.

That is a $15 billion return on a $10 million investment. This figure only counts the income tax receipts and does not include the corporate tax receipts. How is this a bad investment from the Australian tax payer?

I am also interested to know why an investment in industry is discriminatory whilst an investment in the CSIRO is not? Is a dollar made from generating income tax not the same a dollar made from a Government agency?

In regards to the subsidies to the car industry, the question is not whether it is 'fair', but rather whether the economy was benefited by a multiple of the original investment. It has been recorded in the press that each job created in the car industry led to 5 jobs in associated industries. As I have not seen the numbers I can only speculate on this.

It does seem however that the car subsidies may have been politically motivated with the ALP arguing strongly for them and the LNP arguing strongly against them.

Small businesses are also the recipient of Government subsidies, I am not sure of the total pool of funds as they come under multiple headings in the budget, but I know that there is financial help for small businesses wanting to expand. The hard part about subsidising small business is being able to generate the high ROI that has been described above.

I most definitely see the sense in what you're saying, especially with the arbitrary values you've mentioned in your example, it is just my belief that government should not be involved in private enterprise.

 

[mremedy]

Cultured Bogan I have another question for you regarding corporate welfare.

Let's say a company conducts an analysis of a project and finds that the project has a risk adjusted loss of $10 million. All things being equal, based on those numbers the project is rejected. However, what if this venture was going to employ 20 000 people directly and indirectly provide jobs for another 80 000 in associated industries.

Should the Government provide a $10 million subsidy, an act of corporate welfare?

No. I've already made my position clear on this. It's discriminatory policy.

I'd rather the 10 million go into the CSIRO which can fund research the government can make revenue from.

Do you think it's fair that Holden has drawn over $2b, Ford $1.1b and Toyota $1.2b over the period from 2001-2012, only for them to spit the dummy and piss off anyway while thousands of small businesses have routinely gone to the wall over that same period? How many jobs have been lost via small businesses going belly up?

But this subsidy is a revenue making proposition for the Government. If we assume that these new jobs aren't crowding out other jobs, then if each new position attracted the average wage of $70,000, tax revenue from wages would be around $1.5 billion in the first year alone. Depending on the life of the project the present value amount could be over 10 times the first year tax receipts.

That is a $15 billion return on a $10 million investment. This figure only counts the income tax receipts and does not include the corporate tax receipts. How is this a bad investment from the Australian tax payer?

I am also interested to know why an investment in industry is discriminatory whilst an investment in the CSIRO is not? Is a dollar made from generating income tax not the same a dollar made from a Government agency?

In regards to the subsidies to the car industry, the question is not whether it is 'fair', but rather whether the economy was benefited by a multiple of the original investment. It has been recorded in the press that each job created in the car industry led to 5 jobs in associated industries. As I have not seen the numbers I can only speculate on this.

It does seem however that the car subsidies may have been politically motivated with the ALP arguing strongly for them and the LNP arguing strongly against them.

Small businesses are also the recipient of Government subsidies, I am not sure of the total pool of funds as they come under multiple headings in the budget, but I know that there is financial help for small businesses wanting to expand. The hard part about subsidising small business is being able to generate the high ROI that has been described above.

I most definitely see the sense in what you're saying, especially with the arbitrary values you've mentioned in your example, it is just my belief that government should not be involved in private enterprise.

That's a fair response CB. I believe the problem with debates in politics is that people defend their ideologies as if it is a competition and try and win at all costs.

I proposed the discussion above because it challenges my ideology. I'm like you and would prefer the market to decide what we do or do not want to consume and I would prefer the Government not to pick winners and distort the market.

However, this view has been challenged by the Government's involvement in the solar industry. I have recently read a press release from SunEdison that they can now supply solar energy cheaper than fossil fuels without any subsidies or incentives. This could not have happened without previous government support to allow the solar industry to gain economies of scale.

I believe the above is an example of how society has benefited from the involvement of government. In this case my ideology has given way to pragmatism. I think political discussion would be more enriching if more of this was displayed.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I don't mind people saying they don't agree with me, I enjoy debate and don't mind conceding when initiatives that are contrary to my opinion are successful.

I cannot argue against the success of the solar scheme despite it conflicting with my personal opinion, but I believe that the government could have achieved a similar outcome by making solar power a part of BASIX (and whatever relevant requirements in the other states,) for new homes. It adds to the cost of a new home, but economies of scale could be realised with project homes in particular and it would be like any other consumer market product where it would result in a competitive market flooded with plenty of suppliers.

 

[happy_tiger]

Labour has won the state election in Qld with the help of one certain independent by the name of Wellington

Just wondering , is it all media talk or will we see a challenge for Abbotts job next week ??

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The LNP pride themselves on not replacing serving PM's, but I can't see how his position is tenable. Turnbull is far more universally liked by the electorate. Seems the only people that cannot stand him are those from the far right in his own party.

The only problem I have with Turnbull is that as communications minister he has supported this piss poor NBN alternative. Understood that he was CEO of Ozemail and probably wasn't as technically involved in the business, but having spent a decade in the industry and directing Ozemail through it's best days and seeing the reliance on communications grow exponentially would suggest he has some understanding of how important proper communications infrastructure is which leads me to believe he is just towing the party line or he is terribly misguided in a policy he should qualified enough to understand the importance of.

If the LNP carry Abbott to the next election, they're deader than the dodo. He'll gaffe his way over the next 18 months and make them completely unelectable.

 

[happy_tiger]

The LNP pride themselves on not replacing serving PM's, but I can't see how his position is tenable. Turnbull is far more universally liked by the electorate. Seems the only people that cannot stand him are those from the far right in his own party.

The only problem I have with Turnbull is that as communications minister he has supported this piss poor NBN alternative. Understood that he was CEO of Ozemail and probably wasn't as technically involved in the business, but having spent a decade in the industry and directing Ozemail through it's best days and seeing the reliance on communications grow exponentially would suggest he has some understanding of how important proper communications infrastructure is which leads me to believe he is just towing the party line or he is terribly misguided in a policy he should qualified enough to understand the importance of.

If the LNP carry Abbott to the next election, they're deader than the dodo. He'll gaffe his way over the next 18 months and make them completely unelectable.

Supposedly Turnbull is prepared to flip on his ETS stance

That will possibly put him back in favour with the powerful right of the LNP

 

[TrueTiger]

Discussing politics isnt my forte,I believe they look after themselves rather than the electorate after being installed..

However I would like to say if the LNP end up in a RUDD/GILLARD scenario as has been touted,then we are all in trouble,Bishop is very smart but not the leader type,Abbott is a leader but has worn thin within his own party,Turnbull could be a leader but is on the nose from within…,

So who is left that can do the job,,who knows and who really cares..as I said before once their in they look after themselves,not the people who pay them...... :frowning:

 

[Newtown]

Abbott will remain leader and keep a much cherished stability of government in Australia. The nervous nellies in the government backbench and the media, primarily the ABC who have an axe to grind, can then get back to their boring mundane daily routine.

 

[Geo]


 

[Yossarian]

Abbott will remain leader and keep a much cherished stability of government in Australia. The nervous nellies in the government backbench and the media, primarily the ABC who have an axe to grind, can then get back to their boring mundane daily routine.

Alright then… I take it you haven't seen The Oz or the Daily Tele lately? Even AJ and Bolts are going him

 

[Yossarian]

The LNP pride themselves on not replacing serving PM's, but I can't see how his position is tenable. Turnbull is far more universally liked by the electorate. Seems the only people that cannot stand him are those from the far right in his own party.

The only problem I have with Turnbull is that as communications minister he has supported this piss poor NBN alternative. Understood that he was CEO of Ozemail and probably wasn't as technically involved in the business, but having spent a decade in the industry and directing Ozemail through it's best days and seeing the reliance on communications grow exponentially would suggest he has some understanding of how important proper communications infrastructure is which leads me to believe he is just towing the party line or he is terribly misguided in a policy he should qualified enough to understand the importance of.

If the LNP carry Abbott to the next election, they're deader than the dodo. He'll gaffe his way over the next 18 months and make them completely unelectable.

Supposedly Turnbull is prepared to flip on his ETS stance

That will possibly put him back in favour with the powerful right of the LNP

What's the point then? If it's just more of the same with a different face?

 

[Yossarian]

The LNP pride themselves on not replacing serving PM's, but I can't see how his position is tenable.

John Gorton would be interested to hear that… If he was alive that is...

 

[happy_tiger]

The LNP pride themselves on not replacing serving PM's, but I can't see how his position is tenable. Turnbull is far more universally liked by the electorate. Seems the only people that cannot stand him are those from the far right in his own party.

The only problem I have with Turnbull is that as communications minister he has supported this piss poor NBN alternative. Understood that he was CEO of Ozemail and probably wasn't as technically involved in the business, but having spent a decade in the industry and directing Ozemail through it's best days and seeing the reliance on communications grow exponentially would suggest he has some understanding of how important proper communications infrastructure is which leads me to believe he is just towing the party line or he is terribly misguided in a policy he should qualified enough to understand the importance of.

If the LNP carry Abbott to the next election, they're deader than the dodo. He'll gaffe his way over the next 18 months and make them completely unelectable.

Supposedly Turnbull is prepared to flip on his ETS stance

That will possibly put him back in favour with the powerful right of the LNP

What's the point then? If it's just more of the same with a different face?

Because Turnbull has pull with voters Yoss , they were running a poll and did comparisons with Bishop and Shorten and Turnbull and Shorten and it went from 45%-55% to Shorten to 60% - 40% Turnbull

If Turnbull is the PM at the next election he will walk it in

 

[Flippedy]

Abbott will remain leader and keep a much cherished stability of government in Australia. The nervous nellies in the government backbench and the media, primarily the ABC who have an axe to grind, can then get back to their boring mundane daily routine.

Ok Newtown, fess up, you're really Tony aren't you? :laughing:

 

[Flippedy]

The LNP pride themselves on not replacing serving PM's, but I can't see how his position is tenable. Turnbull is far more universally liked by the electorate. Seems the only people that cannot stand him are those from the far right in his own party.

The only problem I have with Turnbull is that as communications minister he has supported this piss poor NBN alternative. Understood that he was CEO of Ozemail and probably wasn't as technically involved in the business, but having spent a decade in the industry and directing Ozemail through it's best days and seeing the reliance on communications grow exponentially would suggest he has some understanding of how important proper communications infrastructure is which leads me to believe he is just towing the party line or he is terribly misguided in a policy he should qualified enough to understand the importance of.

If the LNP carry Abbott to the next election, they're deader than the dodo. He'll gaffe his way over the next 18 months and make them completely unelectable.

Supposedly Turnbull is prepared to flip on his ETS stance

That will possibly put him back in favour with the powerful right of the LNP

What's the point then? If it's just more of the same with a different face?

Because Turnbull has pull with voters Yoss , they were running a poll and did comparisons with Bishop and Shorten and Turnbull and Shorten and it went from 45%-55% to Shorten to 60% - 40% Turnbull

If Turnbull is the PM at the next election he will walk it in

Funny how me and everyone I've ever known have never, ever been included in any one of these mythical polls the media always produce at these times to spread their agenda. I take them with a grain of salt.