Where to for Tony ?

[HiEquity]

Once, just once, I'd love to see the Greens get into power.

Let's see Christine Milne balance the budget and reduce the growing debt being imposed on unassuming and lost younger generations. It's amazing how the Greens target themselves at younger generations, and these naives don't get that Greens grandiose and moral superiority will be funded by their toil.

BTW, it's so cliche for smug North Shore types, who have never raised an unpaid volunteer's finger for the public good, keep bashing conservative politicians. Nevertheless, I suppose it helps affirm their identity and membership of the intellectual elite.

Clearly you don't understand the appeal of the Greens to the younger generation. Re-read their policies. Their spending increases are more than offset by their tax increases, particularly on the rich and corporations. They would likely balance the budget pretty quick if they got what they wanted on the tax front.

The young are mostly not rich and would be largely unaffected by the tax increases in the short term but would benefit from all the increased social services (free education, better health care without co-payments, etc etc etc). The debt would be paid off by the time they got older.

Of course, this would all come courtesy of tax increases on the older and wealthier, which explains the acute unpopularity of the Greens in that demographic.

It seems we are, after all is said and done, still only asking what our country can do for us...

(BTW I'm no supporter either - I reckon the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" could have been made for the Greens. Just trying to reconcile the obvious appeal variations among different demographics...)

 

[Beanie Girl]

A fellow passenger on a tram on Friday was sharing with me that mature age people she knows who have been unemployed for 12-14 months have been told that if they don't apply for 40 jobs a month, they will be cut off benefits.

I think the thread should be renamed 'Where to for....Australia?'

We no longer have a car industry, Hockey admitted that the car industry was sacrificed in exchange for free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China.
They wanted Australia to drop tarriffs for importation of their cars. In exchange they would let us have more access to their markets for primary produce and mineral resource. But the price was our car industry
And China, Korea and Japan would sell us back their value-added goods they manufactured.

No NBN (fibre to the home), no renewable energy sector, cuts in scientific research, cuts to CSIRO numbers (no IP, brain drain), submarine building sent offshore (Japan), decimation of manufacturing industry, Joint Strike Fighter manufacturing base is in UK, not Australia, deep cuts to public service (means supporting industries go down with it - cafes, services, groceries spending, taxes from public servants etc)

It doesn't matter if politicans are conservative or non-conservative, the important thing is to have sound economic policy -
not just cut, cut, cut spending but GROW the economy/increase revenue

Debt should never be measured as an absolute number, debt is measured as a percentage of GDP. US's deficit in absolute numbers has not changed very much BUT as a percentage of GDP, it has dropped like a stone since 2008. The same absolute dollar value of debt is a much smaller percentage of GDP because the US's economy is growing very strongly

Grow Australia's economy, nurture innovative industries and scientific research, retain some manufacturing capability, grow our capabilities, tax big multinationals correctly, not just cut, cut, cut mindlessly...

 

[WattleIdo]

It doesn't matter if politicans are conservative or non-conservative, the important thing is to have sound economic policy -
not just cut, cut, cut spending but GROW the economy/increase revenue

...

Agree, never seen this undoing before. A waste of time and energy, a huge step backwards and nothing on the horizon.

 

[property_girl]

Departmental secretaries can though (but my understanding is that they're a special case in the APS).

That's why I said 'for the most part'. From what I've seen, senior public servants who are known to be politically aligned with the government that's just lost power get moved on.

 

[D.T.]

BG -

I agree with your friend on the tram. Finding a job should be a full time job. If you're going to half *** it you don't deserve benefits.

Car industry was running on governments dime as a liability. Cutting that loose is great for the economy and for the govt's coffers. I hope they can put that to good use.

The rest of your stuff listed here is just whinging. Industries come and go, take some responsibility to keep up with the times.

 

[Rolf Latham]

It doesn't matter if politicans are conservative or non-conservative, the important thing is to have sound economic policy -
not just cut, cut, cut spending but GROW the economy/increase revenue

the last bit, I expect if you can find a way to do all 3, you'd very quickly have various govs chasing you for paid advice

ta

rolf

 

[Sylvester]

Clearly you don't understand the appeal of the Greens to the younger generation. Re-read their policies. Their spending increases are more than offset by their tax increases, particularly on the rich and corporations. They would likely balance the budget pretty quick if they got what they wanted on the tax front.

Ask the younger generations what the Greens tax policies would do to the cost of (business) credit, foreign investment, and GDP.

The appeal of the Greens will be apparent in their answer.

Anyway, this is all getting a bit too heady. As long as lenders keep growing housing credit faster than GDP, what erudite property investor could give a stuff!

 

[HiEquity]

the last bit, I expect if you can find a way to do all 3, you'd very quickly have various govs chasing you for paid advice

ta

rolf

I look on it a lot like basic research. You can spend a lot of money over a long time and come up with nothing worthwhile. But then one day you chance upon a discovery (e.g. antibiotics) that saves hundreds of millions of lives or dollars or both.

Unfortunately this is the stuff that both sides of politics ends up cutting. Liberals overtly (e.g. CSIRO staff cuts) and Labor covertly (demanding each bit of research have a measurable outcome which means the research that ends up getting done isn't proper basic research from first principles - it just proves what we already knew because coming up with nothing isn't deemed to be acceptable and that is the most likely outcome if you are really doing research into stuff you don't know yet).

That no-one has the intestinal fortitude to back something so simple is indicative of where we are as a society. We will never know what could have been... and we don't seem to care about that.

 

[HiEquity]

Ask the younger generations what the Greens tax policies would do to the cost of (business) credit, foreign investment, and GDP.

And then ask them if they care? I suggest not... for the majority at least.

Anyway, this is all getting a bit too heady. As long as lenders keep growing housing credit faster than GDP, what erudite property investor could give a stuff!

An erudite property investor would know that one day that will stop and likely overshoot and reverse - the only question is when. Best to be prepared for the event in any case, then at least it won't take you by surprise.

 

[property_girl]

Someone should make a comedy (or doomsday) feature film about the Greens getting into power.

If the Greens got into power, there'd be (probs) three major parties. Imagine the number crunching and the backroom deals to get through any legislation, and imagine how watered down that legislation would be once it was enacted. That's just to get it through the House of Reps. It would be even harder getting any legislation through the Senate. In the Senate, the Greens would have to do deals with any independent who held the balance of power. Ain't gonna work.

The Greens would probably be better off holding the balance of power in the Senate.

 

[datto]

The CIA would assassinate the Greens if they ever got in.

Think Castro, Che, Chile.

 

[HiEquity]

If the Greens got into power, there'd be (probs) three major parties. Imagine the number crunching and the backroom deals to get through any legislation, and imagine how watered down that legislation would be once it was enacted. That's just to get it through the House of Reps. It would be even harder getting any legislation through the Senate. In the Senate, the Greens would have to do deals with any independent who held the balance of power. Ain't gonna work.

The Greens would probably be better off holding the balance of power in the Senate.

I just wanted to point out the two party domination of our lower house is an international exception and far from the rule for international democracies. The vast majority of other democracies have many different parties in their legislatures and have to hastily bring together disparate coalitions in order to form government in some form.

Those countries still seem to be able to govern themselves regardless, although there are some who have clearly suffered as a result of the endemic political uncertainty (e.g. Italy).

 

[noobinvestor]

The Libs may have got the budget into surplus had they not repealed the mining tax and the carbon tax.

In Norway, companies drilling for oil in the North Sea pay a 78% tax rate on income (akin to a mining tax), compared with a corporate tax rate of 28%. Shell and BP have been drilling in the North Sea since the 1960s.

Norway invests its revenue from oil into a sovereign wealth fund in preparation for when the oil runs out or when it's no longer economically viable to drill in the north sea. Their sovereign wealth fund began in 1996 with USD 250 million and 18 years later, the fund is worth USD 750 billion!

It's the world's largest sovereign wealth fund.

p.s. Norway's population is a little over 5 million people.

If Australia had adopted Norway's strategy in the mining boom years, we'd be rolling in dough.

 

[property_girl]

IThat no-one has the intestinal fortitude to back something so simple is indicative of where we are as a society. We will never know what could have been... and we don't seem to care about that.

Most politicians don't think about making things better 10, 20 or 50 years down the track; they think about what will make things better in the short term so that they will get voted back into power.

Sometimes long-term policies are put into place, only to be abolished when the other side gets into power.

Some politicians are ideologues but realise it's about number crunching when they get to parliament.

 

[Sylvester]

And then ask them if they care? I suggest not... for the majority at least.

of course they wouldn't care, because they don't understand where taxes come from.

 

[Beanie Girl]

Car industry was running on governments dime as a liability. Cutting that loose is great for the economy and for the govt's coffers. I hope they can put that to good use.

D.T., there is no money left in the govt coffers from 'cutting the car industry loose'. For every car that was imported from Korea, Japan and China previously, Australia charged approx $2000 importation tariff tax (5%). It was revenue earned from this foreign car import tariff that the government used to subisidize our local manufacturing car industry.

With the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Korea, Japan and China, there is no more revenue earned from import tariffs of foreign made cars from these countries.

There is no money in the govt's coffers from killing the local car industry.
It's a zero-sum outcome for us. Great for Korea, Japan and China, not so great for Australia.

Hockey is ebullient enough however in this encounter to share one burst of frankness. He tells Fran Kelly's listeners that the Coalition would not have secured its recent free trade agreements if the government hadn't presided over the demise of local car manufacturing. (He's quite correct on that point, but I doubt Australian car workers currently in the process of being retrenched will appreciate the fact they have been sacrificed in order for Australia to lock down an FTA with China and Korea.) The treasurer was quite clear this morning that was the transaction - there would have been no free trade agreements if we hadn't made the hard decisions on industry assistance at the beginning of the year.

http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/2o07r3/hockey_admits_to_allowing_car_manufacturing_to/

Hockey, again, just now:
Ending the age of entitlement was a hard decision but it needed to be made - because as a result of that decision we were able to get free trade agreements with Korea, Japan and China.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...fta-deals-hockey/story-fn59niix-1227142569451

 

[D.T.]

That's good isn't it?

Not propping up car industry means less needless spending
FTA means we can get better priced products (not just cars)

Everyone wins?

 

[Sylvester]

If Australia had adopted Norway's strategy in the mining boom years, we'd be rolling in dough.

You think?
What's the ROI for Norway's fund?

As for Australia, you think our US95B future fund could not be better invested in R&D and local jobs, rather than foreign companies operating outside Australia and employing non Australians?

Our Future Fund is a classic example of government chasing short term returns.

China and UAE have larger sovereign wealth funds than Norway.

 

[datto]

This govt is interested in making it easier for big business at the expense of ordinary workers and welfare recipients. The govt uses the media to demonise the latter. That's why the govt got rid of the carbon tax, pays the polluters, tried to introduce the Medicare co-payment, cut the public service, cut pay rises.

 

[kathryn d]

Maybe Australia can look at the Canadian Parental Leave.
We have almost 12 months paid leave.

It is not funded by the government, but 50/50 by all employers/employees.
It is not as generous as the one outlined by Tony Abbott, as our is about 55% of our wages, up to a maximum (not sure of the maximum)

It can be shared with the father.