The SA Politics Thread

[[Shuz]]

Seems like a good idea at first, but I think it needs to be given a bit more thought. There's potential for unforeseen repurcussions.

[Waewick]

wow, talk about the nanny state, that is amazing.

[Wayno]

Seems like a good idea at first, but I think it needs to be given a bit more thought. There's potential for unforeseen repurcussions.

An interesting article on this very situation.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/05 ... t-uk-land/

Earlier this month, I posted an article arguing strongly that Australia’s state and territory governments should look to replace stamp duties on property transfers with a broad-based land values tax, levied on all properties:

Broad-based land value taxes (LVT) would… assist in the provision of new housing via two channels. First, an LVT would help make infrastructure investments self-funding for governments, since any land value uplift brought about through increased infrastructure investment (e.g. new roads, trains, etc) would be partly captured by the government via increased LVT receipts. Accordingly, governments would be more likely to facilitate development, rather than act to restrict it in a bid to save on infrastructure costs. Second, an LVT would penalise land banking and vagrancy, effectively increasing the supply of land in the process and bringing new homes to market more quickly.

Overnight, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its preliminary Article IV consultation recommendations for the UK economy, which recommends that the government does away with demand-side housing stimulus and instead introduces land taxes on vacant land in order to improve effective housing supply and fund infrastructure spending (my emphasis):

Bringing forward planned capital investment where possible, which would help catalyze private investment and spur much-needed growth…

Further modifying the composition of [fiscal] consolidation to boost growth. This could include growth-friendly measures, such as reducing marginal effective corporate tax rates to bring investment forward, and introducing tax allowances for raising equity. To offset the budgetary impact of these measures over the medium term, the government could undertake a reform of property taxes and consider broadening the VAT base.

The 2013 Budget announced a new scheme, Help To Buy, aimed at boosting activity in the housing market. This measure may temporarily help boost confidence in the housing market, but there is a risk that, in the absence of an adequate supply response, the result would ultimately be mostly house price increases that would work against the aim of boosting access to housing. To mitigate this risk and engineer a supply response, the government should consider fiscal disincentives for holding land without development.

Government investment in supply-side measures to boost growth will enhance rather than damage credibility… [A]lthough supply measures are often thought to have only long-run benefits, they could bring immediate reassurance to purchasers of UK debt.

While not as comprehensive as a broad-based land tax levied on all property, the IMF’s recommendation is a step in the right direction. However, in order for it to work properly, there would need to be a mechanism whereby the local authorities share directly in the revenue.

One of the key roadblocks to housing supply in the UK is its centralised fiscal system, whereby local authorities – which are the primary decision makers on development and have statutory obligations to provide services for new houses – receive very little revenue from increased population and housing. As such, these local authorities tend to be biased against development. This nexus, therefore, would need to be broken.

[Llessur2002]

Does anyone know what time the state budget will be announced today? I wonder if there will be any infrastructure announcements. Even something small. A token gesture. Maybe a bus stop?

[Nathan]

Does anyone know what time the state budget will be announced today? I wonder if there will be any infrastructure announcements. Even something small. A token gesture. Maybe a bus stop?

I think I saw InDaily saying they'll have coverage from 3pm.

[Norman]

Yep, the budget lockout is in force until 3pm.

[Smithy85]

Expecting a surplus, but nothing sexy/exciting.

[SouthAussie94]

No major infrastructure spending..

http://abc.net.au/news/2015-06-18/busin ... et/6553692

[Smithy85]

If the state wasn't in such dire trouble, it would actually be funny how poor this budget is... and I'm a Labor voter.

One-off savings on stamp duty on commercial property (and lets face it, many businesses don't own their premises) is not going to translate into jobs. "Oh wow, we just saved $60,000 - I'm going to hire 10 people now."

*Edit: $2m for a 'food hub' in the North.. Plenty of comfort for the approx. 10,000 workers affected by the Holden closure. $2m

This is more just 'status quo' stuff that is why we are in the position we are in.

Don't know why I even got my hopes up that today would lead us anywhere.

[rev]

So while Stumpjumper bitches and moans about hospital cost blowouts, ICAC, he remains silent, as always when it comes to the negatives re the Liberal party.

For example, this week the Liberals, in cooperation with the fruit cakes of Family First, have blocked planning reforms which would have seen an urban growth boundary defined, and urban sprawl contained. Pandering to their developer mates who will no doubt be making even bigger campaign donations next election year. Expect to see a bigger more slick advertising campaign from the Liberals and Steven Marshall the failed businessman as his businessmen pals prop up his ailing opposition leadership.


Steven Marshall, Liberal opposition leader, once bitched and moaned about the number of sitting days in SA parliament.

Well, yesterday Steven Marshall and his Liberal party had the opportunity to extend the number of sitting days for the year in our states parliament, but didn't.

They opted to walk away and go on holiday.
Paid hundreds of thousands of tax payers dollars, and instead of sitting for a few more days or weeks, to discuss legislation that is important to the states and city's future in ways which will affect ALL South Australian's lives, the state Liberal party instead refuses to sit for even another day because they want to go on holiday at our expense.


SA Liberal party member/staffer Stumpjumper wont open a thread to complain about these failings of his colleagues though.

[Vee]

InDaily report on Steven Marshall's reshuffle

Several questions present themselves in the wake of Steven Marshall’s reshuffle today, a reshuffle so cosmetic as to be better described as a “reallocation”.

Liberal Opposition Leader, Marshall (not faring well in recent polls as Opp Leader) has announced a 'reshuffle' - of sorts.

Surely it's time for the old, tired faces - Lucas, Chapman to move on?
Time to promote some (more) fresh faces?
At least Wingard has been shifted out of Transport. I found his almost daily negativity irritating.

InDaily:
http://indaily.com.au/opinion/2016/01/1 ... -marshall/

[rev]

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics ... in-sa.html


They'll have my vote if they have a candidate in my area.
Not so much sick of Labor, but sick of the Liberals. They provide no alternative. They just criticize and complain and try and throw mud hoping some will one day stick.
This state deserves a second main party that is capable of providing an alternative and holding the government of the day to account. The Liberal party is not that party any more. And if they aren't able to function as an effective opposition, then how are they going to function as a government?

Time to move on from the no hope out of ideas and fresh faces Liberal party and onto something new.

And even if Xenophons party doesn't win an election, at least they'll put the government under constant pressure.
At least the government will feel the pressure of the people, knowing that their opponents are popular enough to be able to pose a threat to their dominance in SA politics for over a decade.
And in the end, that can only have positive outcomes for our state and future.

[monotonehell]

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics ... in-sa.html
They'll have my vote if they have a candidate in my area.
Not so much sick of Labor, but sick of the Liberals. They provide no alternative. They just criticize and complain and try and throw mud hoping some will one day stick.
This state deserves a second main party that is capable of providing an alternative and holding the government of the day to account. The Liberal party is not that party any more. And if they aren't able to function as an effective opposition, then how are they going to function as a government?

Time to move on from the no hope out of ideas and fresh faces Liberal party and onto something new.

And even if Xenophons party doesn't win an election, at least they'll put the government under constant pressure.
At least the government will feel the pressure of the people, knowing that their opponents are popular enough to be able to pose a threat to their dominance in SA politics for over a decade.
And in the end, that can only have positive outcomes for our state and future.

Agree, Rev. The state Liberals are just a disorganised rabble of self interest. Labor are ticking forward, but could be doing better. (Let's not even talk about the Federal situation.)

Have you considered that the Greens are the party you are looking for? They have reasoned policies based on evidence, MPs and senators who are switched on and not beholden to any ideology or masters, and are well established. Xenophon's party, while they seem to be on the right ideas, are not established.

Having said that, Xenophon's candidates will be getting my preferences above Labor and Liberal and just below the Greens.

[rev]

I'd rather put my trust in a hooker on grand junction road telling me that I can slam her safely without a rubber, then put any trust in the Greens by voting for them.

[Wayno]

Rev, that's a contender for best post of the year. Lol...