The SA Politics Thread

[BradJC]

I suppose the big banks still need to compete with the smaller (untaxed) ones, limiting at least some of their potential trickery?

[Goodsy]

Looks like Jay's next target is Rupert Murdoch himself

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-23/s ... rs/8644050

[Waewick]

Lets be honest here. If this wasnt an election year, we'd be paying higher ESL. But they can't do that because they want votes.

They have gone after a soft target, like we've seen here no one will really care. The problem is we have a lot to lose if the Banks (rightly so) make an example out of us. There are call centres here which for little cost could be moved elsewhere.

I heard on the radio that there are 3400 Bank jobs in the State, you imagine if we lose 50% of those (guess on my behalf).

I acknowledge that we have had big infrastructure investment but I'm yet to see investment in anything that will grow sustainable jobs. I would also be interested to see what regional investment has been.

[SRW]

Thanks to the government being reliant on Geoff Brock, and before him both Rory McEwen and Karlene Maywald, the regions have still done pretty well out of a Labor administration.

It'll be interesting to see how the bank levy proceeds from a legal standpoint, but I think in the court of public opinion the case is closed. The banks won't be able to come down hard on SA without reopening their argument with the Commonwealth, which they've pretty soundly lost.

And tbh, I would prefer the state to follow the ACT's lead (as once proposed) and reorient our revenue raising towards to the sounder footing of a broad-based property/land tax. But I'm not mad that they've found a mostly inoffensive place to raise funds within the state's limited fiscal toolset.

[crawf]

In no surprise, the libs have rejected Labor's proposed bank levy tax

Thoughts?

[SRW]

They opposed the car park levy. They opposed land tax reform. They're now opposing the big bank levy. I guess I'm interested to hear how the Liberals plan to fund the public investments needed in this state, beyond bullshit claims of getting a better deal out of their capricious federal colleagues. Unless they're instead just planning a return to the do-nothing days of 90s, they have to have alternatives.

[Waewick]

They really had to. 1st time in along time we actually get some debate.

Hopefully that means the Libs start showing their colours.

[rubberman]

Of course, if the Liberals can block supply, there might be an early election. Then all bets are off.

Unlikely. The tenders have already been signed.

I wish I were that optimistic.

It was considered "unlikely" that any SA Opposition would vote against Supply Bills. But they say they will. The Andrews ALP in Victoria cancelled the Contracts for the East-West Tunnel. That too was considered "unlikely". The Federal Coalition dumped a whole lot of the original NBN for no good technical or economic reason.

The point is that if the Opposition wants to forego a source of revenue, AND reduce the deficit, they will have to kill a lot of spending projects.

If they want to kill spending projects, why would this not be on the list? Is the Opposition so enthusiastic about trams that it's safe?

Of course, I hope you are right, but my observation is that once the political process starts, anything can be a victim.

Also, can you remember back to the days of NEAPTR? Some contracts were cancelled by the incoming Liberal government. I cannot remember whether any of the cancellations were major, or just minor preliminary stuff. Can you remember any detail.

[monotonehell]

Interestingly the state Libs weren't concerned either way with the bank levy, until they received a delegation from the banks. Have to keep an eye on the donations register or other back scratching reporting.

[claybro]

Saw the State opposition leader on TV the other night.. what an uninspiring wet fish. Is this the best they can do? At least Jay shows some passion. not that I agree with some of the populist bull, but at least he has a pulse!

[Ben]

I agree if they had of got rid of Marshall the libs would be a shoe in next year. Their problem was they had no one to replace him and I think that's still the case. the talent is seriously lacking.

[monotonehell]

I agree if they had of got rid of Marshall the libs would be a shoe in next year. Their problem was they had no one to replace him and I think that's still the case. the talent is seriously lacking.

They'd have to get rid of pretty much the lot of them. The state libs are a bunch of self interested 'business people' with no aspirations for the state, just protectionistic mentalities for what they already have. As bad as Labor are, they shine when put against that lot. The Libs should have won the past two elections.

[citywatcher]

Guess we got more southern expressways retractable lights rerouted tapleys hills roads etc to look fwd too then.

Sent from my GT-S7275T using Tapatalk

[rev]

The problem is that "politicians" are in politics as a career, not for the benefit of their constituents, but their own personal benefit and gain.
They are also "on the take" in a manner of speaking, since they are very prone to being swayed and influenced by influential(read $$$$$$$) lobby groups.
A prime example is Stephen Marshall who after getting a visit from the banks, changed his tune. You can bet your house on the banks having offered him support for the coming state election if he opposed the state governments bank tax.

Politicians should have their salaries slashed to whatever the average is for each state/nationally. In South Australia the average is $52,318. That's what our politicians should get paid. As it rises, or decreases, that's what they should be paid. No more no less. They are there to do a job, to serve the people of their state/country, not to enrich them selves and land a cushy job in some corporation or lobby group after politics because they looked after their mates while in office.
Donations of any kind to political parties and politicians should simply be made illegal.
Some of the money saved, and it will be MILLIONS, from not over paying these grubs, can go towards providing equal funding for election campaigns.
Lobby groups should also be banned.

The fact they are so vehemently opposed to such a minimal, insignificant tax, should remind everyone how greedy they are. Not that most people needed this to realize how greedy the banks are.
0.015%. A paltry 300 or so million over four years. From institutions which are raking in multiple billions in profit every single year.
I mean, what's it going to cost them annually each? 20 million?
The government would have used this money to fund infrastructure, which it would still need to borrow money for anyway. And who would they borrow that money from? The big banks. So whatever minimal tax the banks would have had to pay, they would have made many times that in return from infrastructure borrowing by the state government.

Seriously, if the government told us that we would be paying 0.015% extra in tax, would we care? Average income in SA is 52,318, that's like $7.
That's how little this tax is.

How come they are going so hard against the state government, but not the federal government? The tax rate the Feds are hitting them with is the same.

Commonwealth Bank has revenue of $24 billion, profit of $9 billion
Westpac has revenue of $21 billion profit of $8 billion (BANK SA is part of Westpac)
ANZ has revenue of $21 billion profit of $7 billion
NAB has revenue of $10 billion revenue of $6 billion
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank has revenue of $1.5 billion

They have annual profits of over $27 billion...

This tax, which is aiming to raise 370 million over FOUR YEARS...will cost these five banking groups, a whopping total of $18.5 million a year.

Just think, how will the CEO's fund their over the top bonuses now. Those poor souls, might have to actually end up homeless for real instead of just playing homeless once in a while for half a night when it's that time of year to do some public relations work.
My heart truly bleeds for them.

[SRW]

It'd still be very high risk for Labor to go to an early election on this, as unprepared as the Liberals are. The banks would no doubt bankroll vigorous advertising during the campaign as did the miners against the Nationals in WA recently and as they did against federal Labor in 2013.