The Federal Politics Thread

[Dog]

Lol

[[Shuz]]

In case it isn't blatantly obvious but Malcolm Turnbull and most of the small l liberals / moderates would prefer Labor's NBN over the Conservatives NBN. If the Coalition do win on Sept 7, I can only pray to God one of Abbotts gaffes will see him removed as PM by the Liberal Party caucus and Turnbull takes the reigns.

[Dog]

-

[Waewick]

love it, the things the liberals spend less on are inferior. but the things they spend more on is a "rolls royce"

I really love seeing political fanbois posting things, makes my day all that more enjoyable when their party loses.

[monotonehell]

love it, the things the liberals spend less on are inferior. but the things they spend more on is a "rolls royce"

I really love seeing political fanbois posting things, makes my day all that more enjoyable when their party loses.

Normally I'd agree with you, but this bit...

... an inferior NBN, they obviously used the same planing tools to come up with their inferior Eduction policy, inferior Superannuation Policy, inferior climate change policy, inferior marine parks, and the Indonesian boat buy back and on and on............

Their only Rolls Royce policy is the PPL scheme, and at $5.5bn a year, is so over the top that for the same estimated $100bn spent over 18years Australia could land one of these woman on the moon and safely return her to earth from scratch or build two fibre to the home NBN's or lots of other nation building projects.

...taken out of context... Dog kinda has a point.

[claybro]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the current government already have a form of PPL? Isn't some of the cost of the new scheme offset by the cost of the system it is replacing? Isn't the new scheme available to all wage earning mothers, and not just the supposed obscenely wealthy mothers that dare to earn a decent salary? Wont the recipients of PPL still pay tax in the form of GST on all the extra goodies they are buying their new babies? Isn't the PPL scheme designed to encourage Australians to create many more taxpayers for the future, born to mothers who by definition have got off their collective arse to earn a living in the beginning, rather than rewarding those who sit home and give rise to another welfare generation? Isn't it more cost effective to create our own domestic born future taxpaying generation, than import population with questionable skills, require huge handouts to settle and with no guarantee of future allegiance to our society? I agree the new scheme is overly generous, but I do not believe it its the economic black hole some are making it out to be, and it rewards those who have already shown a willingness to help themselves.

[Dog]

-

[rhino]

Wow. Long post. But interesting, thank you. Now we get to sit back and wait for Aiden to pull it apart line by line

[Maximus]

Wow. Long post. But interesting, thank you. Now we get to sit back and wait for Aiden to pull it apart line by line

At least we know he'll agree with the low interest rates part of Dog's post.

[Waewick]

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/art ... astructure

Tony Abbott declared last night that if he became prime minister he wanted to be known as “Mr Infrastructure”.

[rhino]

Prime Minister Tony Infrastructure. It'll never catch on.

[zippySA]

Gotta give credit to Dog, in one post Dog gives more clarity on core positions (agree or not) than any political party I've seen to date.

Of course the devil is in the detail for some of the huge plans outlined, but would be interesting if as part of an election, each party was limited to a set amount of words to outline their core policy position - and all other forms of media (core-flutes, crappy letter box drops, multi-media adverts etc) were mutually banned - this would save another couple of hundred million to put somewhere more useful (sorry for any readers who are in the print / media space who no doubt get a great mini-stimulus during elections).

Clive Palmers would be an interesting read too.

[sydneysider]

The burden of smoking on taxpayers is inflated to whatever figure sounds scary enough to justify increasing excise further. Smokers are enormous contributors to tax revenue.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/c ... 6689781351

[Aidan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the current government already have a form of PPL?

Yes, IIRC they replaced the baby bonus with PPL earlier this year.

Isn't some of the cost of the new scheme offset by the cost of the system it is replacing?

Yes, a small (and declining) proportion.

Isn't the new scheme available to all wage earning mothers, and not just the supposed obscenely wealthy mothers that dare to earn a decent salary?

Open, yes, but they're discriminated against. The opposition consider keeping the rich in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed more important than providing decent financial help to those who need it.

Wont the recipients of PPL still pay tax in the form of GST on all the extra goodies they are buying their new babies?

Probably, though as the GST's so easy to dodge by buying online, there's no guarantee.

Isn't the PPL scheme designed to encourage Australians to create many more taxpayers for the future, born to mothers who by definition have got off their collective arse to earn a living in the beginning, rather than rewarding those who sit home and give rise to another welfare generation?

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the policy was designed around that myth. But the truth is it's more to do with age - the rich mothers are usually the ones who delay having children.

Isn't it more cost effective to create our own domestic born future taxpaying generation, than import population with questionable skills, require huge handouts to settle and with no guarantee of future allegiance to our society?

Again you're spouting rightwing myths. there are n huge handouts. And we're already creating our own domestic born future taxpaying generation.

I agree the new scheme is overly generous, but I do not believe it its the economic black hole some are making it out to be, and it rewards those who have already shown a willingness to help themselves.

While it's not the biggest problem with the Liberals' budget (that dubious honour would go to the company tax cut) the Liberals haven't even attempted to deny that it's ultra expensive. And do you really think those who've already shown a willingness to help themselves aren't already adequately rewarded by the money they get when they do so?

[Aidan]

Struth, Dog, your policies are terrible! Worse than Abbott's, worse than Katter's... probably even worse than Palmer's!

The GST is easily dodged (by buying online) as it is so expensive to collect that they're not even bothering for most private imports. It also disproportionately disadvantages low income earners.

I don't see why less cigarette tax should be paid on packs bought from retailers with a low markup. Likewise with alcohol.

This stuff sbout shifting unemployed layabouts to where the work is sounds like you'd rather depopulate SA than fix its problems. The work should come to the people!

Considering how many people already have more super than they need, I don't think there's much advantage in increasing it further - the long term tax burden's already low.

Increasing compulsory super contributions won't be a very effective way of controlling inflation because the money gets returned to the economy through share purchases (and through the ripoff fees). Why not adjust taxes instead?

Don't you think there are some welfare benefits that should apply to every Australian equally, regardless of income? ISTR some things are claimable on tax but might be more efficiently administrable through Centrelink instead.

Do you have any idea what teachers actually do in the non contact time?

The diesel fuel rebate tecnically isn't a subsidy - I think there's more about it in another thread, or maybe earlier in this one.

And should someone who lives in a single storey house at's shaded by trees really be forced to install solar rooftop panels if they want air conditioning? Wouldn't it be better to let the markets decide where the solar panels go?

As for who aspires to live in "affordable" housing, presumably it's the people who can't yet afford houses!