Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

lol

Labor are funding their promises with billions in new taxes

And even then they won't be able to deliver a surplus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew #1 said:

Due to Labor tightening up on various tax concessions it seems to be the only party that will fully fund its election promises without raiding the sugar hit of unexpected company tax receipts and mining royalties. 

I’m not saying either party will deliver a surplus, but only one side is serious about repairing the long term damage to the recurrent budget done by the Howard-Costello tax give aways era ...

or the Rudd handouts during the GFC...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Prince said:

or the Rudd handouts during the GFC...

The ruddies (with the notable exception of the shift upwards in the way the aged pension is indexed) where wholly “one offs”, whereas Howard boobytrapped the recurrent budget with a series of ongoing and growing tax expenditure measures that were “funded” by the minining boom and not based on any ongoing revenue receipts outside the boom. 

Edited by Andrew #1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

Shhh

That's 'different'

Because it’s actually is, you nong. “One off” verses “recurrent” ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew #1 said:

Due to Labor tightening up on various tax concessions it seems to be the only party that will fully fund its election promises without raiding the sugar hit of unexpected company tax receipts and mining royalties. 

I’m not saying either party will deliver a surplus, but only one side is serious about repairing the long term damage to the recurrent budget done by the Howard-Costello tax give aways era ...

I dunno, Labor are pretty good at giving away money-the state Labor guvnut gave away $1BILLION dollars to NOT build a tunnel. Wasn't that a great use of tax payers money....and then there was all the pinkbats and school buildings, oh and how about the cash handout everyone got to buy new TV's etc lol....amazing.

 

If they make the same mistake over and over does that make it recurrent?

Edited by more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Andrew #1 said:

The ruddies (with the notable exception of the shift upwards in the way the aged pension is indexed) where wholly “one offs”, whereas Howard boobytrapped the recurrent budget with a series of ongoing and growing tax expenditure measures that were “funded” by the minining boom and not based on any ongoing revenue receipts outside the boom. 

The NDIS and Gonski are ongoing and growing tax expenditures which were introduced by Labor and not funded at all

And they have the hide to complain about the deficit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

The NDIS and Gonski are ongoing and growing tax expenditures which were introduced by Labor and not funded at all

And they have the hide to complain about the deficit...

Bait and switch. A low speed, low flier. Piss poor effort mate. Others will have noticed your con - I was rebutting Prince’s shot about GFC handouts. Stop being gormless (hah, I know - a bit like complaining about the tide coming in, of course you’ll be gormless). 

Edited by Andrew #1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Andrew #1 said:

Bait and switch. A low speed, low flier. Piss poor effort mate. Others will have noticed your con - I was rebutting Prince’s shot about GFC handouts. Stop being gormless (hah, I know - a bit like complaining about the tide coming in, of course you’ll be gormless). 

You appear to want to disagree but are unable to formulate an argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Jimbo’s “bait and switch” effort is even more stupid upon re-reading. Neither the NDIS or Gonski are “tax expenditures”. If you are going to troll, do better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

You appear to want to disagree but are unable to formulate an argument

You do a good job of rebutting yourself through pig headedness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Andrew #1 said:

You do a good job of rebutting yourself through pig headedness. 

I don't find your name calling to be a convincing argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

I don't find your name calling to be a convincing argument

Thankfully I don’t give a flying frack what you think. You are not for turning. Your myopic hypocracy is risible.

I’m partisan. No doubt about that. But i dont think Labor is perfect. I dont know what I was thinking, seeking to engage after a couple fo year’s break. You cant stay on topic when snookered, or defend your position with integrity.

It’s a shame actually. More honesty on your part could lead to an actual worthwhile debate rather than the recycling of dross and LNP-SkyNoos talking points. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Andrew #1 said:

Thankfully I don’t give a flying frack what you think. You are not for turning. Your myopic hypocracy is risible.

I’m partisan. No doubt about that. But i dont think Labor is perfect. I dont know what I was thinking, seeking to engage after a couple fo year’s break. You cant stay on topic when snookered, or defend your position with integrity.

It’s a shame actually. More honesty on your part could lead to an actual worthwhile debate rather than the recycling of dross and LNP-SkyNoos talking points. 

You do realise that all of the accusations in your post could very easily be levied at yourself, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, we all know we are going to have many disagreements in this thread, and sure it's gonna get heated at times.  But can we settle just a little bit.  Not completely, but just a little?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, goughy said:

You know, we all know we are going to have many disagreements in this thread, and sure it's gonna get heated at times.  But can we settle just a little bit.  Not completely, but just a little?

He started it...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly there must be something in the sugar baby scandal.  Yesterday it breaks, and not hearing any denials yet etc, but day one he resigned his position and day two and he's not going to contest the election in his safe as seat!  If it's true ScoMo only found out about it all yesterday then he must be spewing.  Lack of communication between coalition parties.  I guess it's a case of practise what you preach.  If you're gonna take a high moral standing, even criticising others of your own party, better make sure there's nothing can bite you on the arse!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, goughy said:

Clearly there must be something in the sugar baby scandal.  Yesterday it breaks, and not hearing any denials yet etc, but day one he resigned his position and day two and he's not going to contest the election in his safe as seat!  If it's true ScoMo only found out about it all yesterday then he must be spewing.  Lack of communication between coalition parties.  I guess it's a case of practise what you preach.  If you're gonna take a high moral standing, even criticising others of your own party, better make sure there's nothing can bite you on the arse!

Seems it wasn't as legit as they first made out too when he said he paid for the trip himself. 

He paid for the international component, but has just now gone back and repaid the Australian Taxpayers for the domestic component of the trip to Hong Kong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be more to come with him resigning so quickly. I bet it's not the first time he's visited that website... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, -H- said:

There must be more to come with him resigning so quickly. I bet it's not the first time he's visited that website... 

Apparently there are already 3 more women making contact with National Party officials over inappropriate behavior by Broad. 

It could get interesting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Andrew #1 said:

Could have done yourself a favour and stopped posting at that point ... ;)

Wow what a zinger...U comedic talents are wasted chasing ambulances, or is it scavenging off divorces?

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Apparently there are already 3 more women making contact with National Party officials over inappropriate behavior by Broad. 

It could get interesting.

For his own sake, hope one of them doesn't have the initials SH-Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Andrew #1 said:

I’m partisan. No doubt about that. But i dont think Labor is perfect.

Fck mate, anyone that even thinks either party over the last 15+ years deserves a pass mark should not be entering into the debate...

Got to say, giving life membership to Rudd and Gillard on the weekend really took the shine off giving it to Keating at the same time.  The other two aren't even eligible to lick his shoes.  Hopefully this is not a sign of the decisions to come over the next 6 years.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cottoneyes said:

Fck mate, anyone that even thinks either party over the last 15+ years deserves a pass mark should not be entering into the debate...

Got to say, giving life membership to Rudd and Gillard on the weekend really took the shine off giving it to Keating at the same time.  The other two aren't even eligible to lick his shoes.  Hopefully this is not a sign of the decisions to come over the next 6 years.

Agreed, both sides are an absolute disgrace. It's mind boggling how people like Andrew treat it like a footy team, loyally supporting one or the other blindly no matter how incompetent they are.

The only people politicians care about these days are themselves and keeping their job 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, more said:

Wow what a zinger...U comedic talents are wasted chasing ambulances, or is it scavenging off divorces?

Putting sex offenders and drug kingpins in prison actually. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Andrew #1 said:

Putting sex offenders and drug kingpins in prison actually. 

At least u work for the right team

Edited by more
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something I have an issue with.  One Vic pollie has quit the Hinch party to sit as an independent, and she hasn't even been sworn in yet!

Now, I'm the first to say that when we vote we're technically voting for the individual etc.  But part of what that individual is standing for is the policies etc of their party.  I don't think they should be allowed to do this!  A few years ago the person who won my local seat for the LNP immediately defected to the Katter Party.  You just shouldn't be able to do that!  And at the next election he was flogged, even independents beat him.  Typically our seat is a safe lnp seat and has been held by the nats/lnp for like ever.

Don't know what the answer is, bielection maybe, though costly.  But I bet the individuals would get their arses kicked as people would be pissed off so I'm time might curb the habit.

I have to admit though, I enjoy every time a One Nation member quits.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, goughy said:

Now, I'm the first to say that when we vote we're technically voting for the individual etc.  But part of what that individual is standing for is the policies etc of their party.  I don't think they should be allowed to do this!  A few years ago the person who won my local seat for the LNP immediately defected to the Katter Party.  You just shouldn't be able to do that!  And at the next election he was flogged, even independents beat him.  Typically our seat is a safe lnp seat and has been held by the nats/lnp for like ever.

You can imagine how the constituents of New England felt after the 2010 poll then, when their former Nationals member backed a party which had received 9% of the vote...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, goughy said:

This is something I have an issue with.  One Vic pollie has quit the Hinch party to sit as an independent, and she hasn't even been sworn in yet!

Now, I'm the first to say that when we vote we're technically voting for the individual etc.  But part of what that individual is standing for is the policies etc of their party.  I don't think they should be allowed to do this!  A few years ago the person who won my local seat for the LNP immediately defected to the Katter Party.  You just shouldn't be able to do that!  And at the next election he was flogged, even independents beat him.  Typically our seat is a safe lnp seat and has been held by the nats/lnp for like ever.

Don't know what the answer is, bielection maybe, though costly.  But I bet the individuals would get their arses kicked as people would be pissed off so I'm time might curb the habit.

I have to admit though, I enjoy every time a One Nation member quits.....

:lol:  Old Tranny "Sputnik" (Glenn Druery)  gets an honorable mention 

 

She told the ABC she was quitting because she did not win the vote to lead the party, despite having more than two decades of political experience in local government.

She also said she did not want to be associated with the so-called "preference whisperer", Glenn Druery, who is the subject of a complaint to police about his dealings with political parties and the harvesting of votes.

"I realised I can't work with Glenn Druery,'' she said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another bites the dust.  Leynhelm, NSW can have you!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/12/2018 at 3:22 AM, roxii said:

:lol:  Old Tranny "Sputnik" (Glenn Druery)  gets an honorable mention 

 

She told the ABC she was quitting because she did not win the vote to lead the party, despite having more than two decades of political experience in local government.

She also said she did not want to be associated with the so-called "preference whisperer", Glenn Druery, who is the subject of a complaint to police about his dealings with political parties and the harvesting of votes.

"I realised I can't work with Glenn Druery,'' she said.

Not even with a crash helmet on?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So leynhelm got into politics by being part of a party known as the Liberal Democrats, which I gather is neither truly liberal or democratic but extreme right wing??  Now it's Fraser Annings turn.....

Apparently he's starting a "Conservative Nationals" party.  Try and trick people into voting for him.  He's from Queensland, it might work! At least the parties name is a closer representation of the truth......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More big issue stuff from The Libs this weekend. You MUST have a citizenship ceremony on Australia Day. NO boardies and things allowed. What a crock. What a petty issue for a federal govt to be focused on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see Labor finally came to their senses and jettisoned Dastiari into a remote jungle, then some stupid TV show is talking about bringing him back in a few weeks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Cottoneyes said:

Good to see Labor finally came to their senses and jettisoned Dastiari into a remote jungle, then some stupid TV show is talking about bringing him back in a few weeks...

After tonight I thankfully won't be in the country to see it!

And speaking of Labor - are they really thinking of:

- Increasing the tax rates to 49% if you earn over 200K

- increasing Super tax to 30% from 15% if you earn over 200K

- Getting rid of negative gearing

- death tax (has been mentioned)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/01/2019 at 6:26 PM, IronmanFoz said:

After tonight I thankfully won't be in the country to see it!

And speaking of Labor - are they really thinking of:

- Increasing the tax rates to 49% if you earn over 200K

- increasing Super tax to 30% from 15% if you earn over 200K

- Getting rid of negative gearing

- death tax (has been mentioned)

“Facts” hey, who needs them.

Here are some actual, ascertainable, factoids:

1. The 49% rate is the sum of 1. The 45% rate plus the 2% Medicare levy (which the Libs tried to move up to 2.5% before backing down last budget) and the 2% budget pair levy which ... the liberals introduced in the 2014 budget and which they only scrapped for the current financial year. The point of difference between labor and the liberals is that labor opposed scrapping the liberals air levy until the budget is back in surplus;

2. Super tax (whether it be at 15% or 30% for high income earners) is already a concessional rate of tax from what would otherwise be paid as tax on income. At the moment the concessional rate of 30% applies to taxable incomes of over $300,000. Labor proposes reducing that threshold to $250,000 - not the $200,000 you state;

3. Labor is not “getting rid of” negative gearing. Existing arrangements are grandfathered. For future property investments, Negative gearing will still apply to the purchases of new builds; and

4. Death taxes “already mentioned”. Lols.

Edited by Andrew #1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/12/2018 at 11:34 AM, Prince said:

or the Rudd handouts during the GFC...

The handouts were part of a two pronged attack on the effects of the GFC, one being  financial stability measures (lowering interest rates and supporting the banks) and the second being a 2 part financial stimulus package.

The first of these was $10.4 billion (which for Australia is around 1 per cent of GDP.)  comprised of $8.7 billion that would flow to pensioners and low-income families in the form of cash bonuses, $1.5 billion to support housing construction, and $187 million for new training places.

The second was a $42 billion stimulus package titled the Nation Building and Jobs Plan predominantly centered on fast tracking infrastructure projects.

Australia's handling of the GFC was considered to be very good financial management (not some loony left free-for-all hand-out) and we got through it far better than the major players UK and USA.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pete said:

 

Australia's handling of the GFC was considered to be very good financial management (not some loony left free-for-all hand-out) and we got through it far better than the major players UK and USA.

yeah....pity it has taken only 10 years to pay back....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Pete said:

Australia's handling of the GFC was considered to be very good financial management (not some loony left free-for-all hand-out) and we got through it far better than the major players UK and USA.

We got through it better because we went in better

Sending cheques to dead people and replacing perfectly adequate school halls did little other than create the debt and deficit issue which continues to this day as Prince correctly points out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We got through the GFC better because most of our good conditions were from industries tied to China, who also got through the GFC virtually unscathed.  Our trade with China grew almost 16% in the space of a couple of years after the GFC and it was already our largest trading partner.  Our second largest, Japan, also continued to grow pretty much throughout the period too as they had learned a lot of lessons from the Asian crisis of the 90s.  It had little to do with the surplus we had built up, the stimulus package or good economic management by us.  It was primarily good luck and good circumstances.  Neither side of politics deserves too much praise.

China also stimulated the f*@k out of their economy but did so with major infrastructure projects which they continue to benefit from, arguably negating the oft-made justification that the Australian government had to throw cash around on short-term objectives because time was of the essence.  Would we have fallen into a hole without this?  Well I guess it's possible but considering that around 25% of our international trade was with China and Japan then at very least the blow would have been greatly softened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pete said:

The second was a $42 billion stimulus package titled the Nation Building and Jobs Plan predominantly centered on fast tracking infrastructure projects.

Pity we weren't looking at an NBN back then. We'd all have fibre to our homes by now instead of the fustercluck that is now happening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palmer is releasing a video game he thinks will attract younger voters to his party.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife just got this text message from PUP

 

IMG_20190117_110659.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got one too, and on the other day from 'CliveUAP' talking about fast trains for Sydney

A better effort than Mediscare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I guess the number had to change cause people like my wife blocked the last one.

Maybe we should get a hashtag trending #putUAPlast

The election hasn't even been called yet, it's only gonna get worse! We're not gonna cop it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, goughy said:

The election hasn't even been called yet, it's only gonna get worse! We're not gonna cop it!

My council has just amended their rules for political advertising (council/State & Federal), drastically reducing the number of signs a candidate is allowed, and where they can put them.

I wonder which of the political parties will challenge it in court. (It was the Lib's last time)

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good idea, although it doesn't take Labor and the Greens into account

#putUAPthirdlast perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...