Re: Aus Federal Politics thread (III)

[Bradman]

Er, did I have a time frame on his demise? I said we won't be safe until the farker has his balance of power removed. I realise it will take a DD to do that. Again Q, you must read posts more carefully before firing your angry torpedos.

So you happily have that goose making the final important decisions on this country's future. I thought you had more brains.

What part of he was slapped down don't you understand. He's made a lot of noise over gay marriage and coal mines but no-one's ammended the marriage act and when I was driving back from Emerald last week I lost track of the number of coal trains.

[Zat]

Er, did I have a time frame on his demise? I said we won't be safe until the farker has his balance of power removed. I realise it will take a DD to do that.

Skulls, be very careful wishing for a DD for two reasons.

1: It makes you sound like one of the lunatic truckies, Abbott's mates, in the convoy of no consequence.

And 2: In a DD the quota for Senate seats comes down to 7 percent from the 14 percent required in a half-senate election.* That would mean, in all likelihood, even more Greens and Fielding- or Xenophon-types in the upper house. Even Rudd, who may well have been the biggest egomaniac to get the top job in this country realised that, and neve pulled the DD trigger.

* Approximate figures, based on me not bothering to round out, and the almost inexplicably complicated distribution of preferences in the senate, which mean a quota can also be garnered by getting almost no primary votes, but a lot of tenth- or worse preferences.

[Bradman]

Er, did I have a time frame on his demise? I said we won't be safe until the farker has his balance of power removed. I realise it will take a DD to do that.

Skulls, be very careful wishing for a DD for two reasons.

1: It makes you sound like one of the lunatic truckies, Abbott's mates, in the convoy of no consequence.

And 2: In a DD the quota for Senate seats comes down to 7 percent from the 14 percent required in a half-senate election.* That would mean, in all likelihood, even more Greens and Fielding- or Xenophon-types in the upper house. Even Rudd, who may well have been the biggest egomaniac to get the top job in this country realised that, and neve pulled the DD trigger.

* Approximate figures, based on me not bothering to round out, and the almost inexplicably complicated distribution of preferences in the senate, which mean a quota can also be garnered by getting almost no primary votes, but a lot of tenth- or worse preferences.

Well I wish he'd pulled the trigger last February. Though your right about the 'law of unintended consequences". Peter Garrett back in his ND days mentioned he had a degree in constitutional law and even he couldn't work out senate electoral procedures.

[Zat]

Ironically, if Rudd had gone the DD early in 2010, he may well have pulled it off.

[Bradman]

It would've been a massacre. Even after the Copenhagen farkup.

[Leo]

Speaking of tax, was interested to hear today that the rich of France essentially volunteered to take a 3% tax increase (for those earning over $750,000 per annum. Many have suggested (including Warrne Buffet) that the Yanks should do the same.

What about Aus? Or do our rich hide their earnings too well, leaving the middle income earners like me and Zog to keep the country financially propped up?
And cheers for your take on the outcome of Dobell falling, Z.

I'm sick of subsidising the poor qunts who don't want to work and the rich qunts who don't have to work...

Damn garquen straight, Z. As you've said previously, we are not poor, but we certainly ain't rich, yet we rarely seem to see any real gains from tax changes.

So without knowing your incomes its hard to be exact, but (for example) my quick calculations (ignoring tax deductions, which I can't really work in without knowing a lot of individual detail) the income tax cuts between 2003 and 2011 delivered the following reductions in tax for what could broadly be called 'middle incomes':

$50,000 per annum: tax cut of $3,530 per annum, or $136 per fortnight.
$70,000 per annum: tax cut of $5,730 per annum, or $220 per fortnight.
$95,000 per annum: tax cut of $8,930 per annum, or $343 per fortnight.
$120,000 per annum: tax cut of $11,430 per annum, or $440 per fortnight.

Looked at another way:

$50,000 per annum: after tax disposable income increased by 9.2 per cent.
$70,000 per annum: after tax disposable income increased by 11.8 per cent.
$95,000 per annum: after tax disposable income increased by 14.5 per cent.
$120,000 per annum: after tax disposable income increased by 15.4 per cent.

Given wages growth is about CPI + 1-2 percentage points (typically), then 'middle Australia' has made plenty of 'real' gains out of tax cuts in the last few years.

If I were boss of the universe, these tax cuts would have been bigger at 50 and 70 K, and smaller at 95 and 120 K, but I'm inclined to suggest that if you are anywhere in this sort of band, it might be more a matter of you not realising how much you've gained from tax cuts, rather than you not gaining anything. And people either side of this made substantial gains too.

Not trying to be offensive to people - I understand that the prices of essentials have been going up a lot, and housing values have been flat lately, so things don't feel as good for most people as the broad economic statistics might indicate - just putting some facts on the table. Tax policy has done a lot for middle income households since 2003. It has done more for high income taxpayers and less for the lower and middle groups than I personally would have preferred, but that is a bipartisan thing, with the Liberals arguably a bit more guilty than Labor in that respect.

[Zat]

Thanks for underlining the exact point Leo.

Given the rises in costs of basic essential items, tax cuts for your average Joe have been eaten away, meaning there's been no real benefit to many people from the cuts.

Meanwhile, people on 90K plus have had much mre benefit from the tax cuts in both dollar terms (which makes sense, because 1% of 90K is bigger than 1% of 50K) and in percentage terms. Which is just out-and-out f*cked.

The bigger percentage cuts should have been at the lower end of the scale.

A pox on both the Houses of Parliament.

[Leo]

Don't disagree about the distribution of the tax cuts. Suspect it is partially a result of pollies, senior policy advisers and key journos all being on those $120 K plus salaries.

But I guess I would argue that tax policy is something to add on to whats happening in the labour market - so if wages are going up at CPI or a bit above, then the tax cuts are delivering increases in real living standards above and beyond wages growth.

Whereas I think you are seeing it as the tax cuts not being big enough to keep up with inflation at any particular point in the distribution?

Suppose that is fair enough. Particular given that in quite a few industries (the ones that had lower pay to start with, mainly) real wage growth has been less than 1 per cent per annum over the last decade.

PS - I made a small mistake with the Medicare levy in the original post, have since fixed. Doesn't change the underlying story.

[skully]

Er, did I have a time frame on his demise? I said we won't be safe until the farker has his balance of power removed. I realise it will take a DD to do that.

Skulls, be very careful wishing for a DD for two reasons.

1: It makes you sound like one of the lunatic truckies, Abbott's mates, in the convoy of no consequence.

And 2: In a DD the quota for Senate seats comes down to 7 percent from the 14 percent required in a half-senate election.* That would mean, in all likelihood, even more Greens and Fielding- or Xenophon-types in the upper house. Even Rudd, who may well have been the biggest egomaniac to get the top job in this country realised that, and neve pulled the DD trigger.

* Approximate figures, based on me not bothering to round out, and the almost inexplicably complicated distribution of preferences in the senate, which mean a quota can also be garnered by getting almost no primary votes, but a lot of tenth- or worse preferences.

As always, cheers for the electoral rules lesson, Z. I actually was aware of that as you had previously filled us in on those details. However, am I right in assuming a DD is the ONLY way of watering down Brown's current power i.e. people made an effort on their Senate tickets to undermine farkers like the Greens? Forgive me if that is an impossibility. Cos doing nothing just means Brown can continue to stand out the front of Parliament House smirking at the general population who he knows full well hate his guts.

I reckon one things for sure, there will be no Green member in the Lower House next time around. So Brown will lose some oomph with that.

And forgive me, mate, but you come across as just a little pretentious and pompous in comparing me to the truckies. Are you bagging these poor folk? I have no problem being compared to some passionate guys who don't want to see their livelihood killed by an incompetent government puppeteered by a smirking lunatic green who couldn't give a fark about the country's economy, instead being way more concerned with reducing Aus's carbon footprint by a micro moot-hair (and having zero effect on world carbon emissions), and saving a few mangy bandicoots. Happy to be compared to a bunch of people who are so concerned with our future that they took the trouble to drive to Canberra to voice their disapproval. So exactly what was your point again? Oh, they are dumb because they don't know the rules of a DD. Forgive them and forgive me. As you know, I am always happy to ask your advice.

[skully]

Nice analysis, Leo. Thanks for doing it, but I think Zog makes a worthy point. Electricity alone has gone up over 100% in the period for which you crunched the number. Fuel has gone up over 50%. Those two factors alone and the effects they have on prices of everything else kill any disposable income gains easily. I think Z and I both feel way worse off as does the rest of middle Australia. I know I am not saving anywhere near the percentage of my monthly pay packet as I used to.

As Zog says, we middle income earners always get rogered up the clacker, while the dole-bludgers continue to moan, and the rich continue to snigger and point.

[Zat]

You mean the truckies, and the couple of hundred other assorted losers, who, when whipped into a frenzy by Alan Jones and some other qunt on 2GB were going to descend upon Canberra in their tens of thousands to demand 'a return to democracy'* but could only muster a few hundred trucks at best to join their demonstration for something impossible to grant?

You may notice I didnt say much, if anything, on the 'ditch the witch' mobs that have assembled in the past. But these convoy crews, who couldn't find their arses with both hands, and didn't really know what they were campaigning for, were basically representative of the stupid fringe, and deserve ridicule.

*when we funnily enough have the exact government voted in by the population

[Zat]

Mind you, nice to get a bite from you on that...

[skully]

Stupid fringe is a big call, mate, but you are entitled.

And more fool us for not having a decisive outcome in the Election. I still maintain if the Vulture hadn't have played her last minute carbon tax lie card, the Blues would've sh!t in.

[skully]

Mind you, nice to get a bite from you on that...

No need to play that card, mate. I was having a relatively inoffensive but polarised discussion with Q (no barbs thrown at each other). You didn't really have to wade in with fishy insults.

[Zat]

You seem to have more insight to them than I. What were they hoping to achieve? Their protest seemed very poorly organised, attracted less than ten percent of their desired (even promised) numbers, and had no clear message that could have been achieved, it just seemed to be 'give us what we want, nobody else's opinion can possibly be valid.'

Then, when their hero got up to address their number, he had to resort to lies, which were discovered very quickly by the press. Jonesey then resorted to abusing the journo who discovered the lies, and another who had the temerity to ask if he was being paid an appearance fee. Which further diluted any message they may have had.

And another note too, these protesters have managed to send a number of businesses in many small towns on their route to the brink, because they promised hundreds of visitors stopping over, and delivered one to many places. That is more than a touch hypocritical, isn't it?

[skully]

I didn't see any coverage of it (didn't know that Gloria was involved), but I imagine, like any protest group, they wanted to have their voices heard. These things are always largely symbolic and usually achieve nowt but to get some TV time and some presence in the pollies minds.

[Zat]

But that was it, skulls, when some of their number were asked by the hacks what exactly they wanted, most of them stuttered and stumbled, and had no clue about why they were there. I'll see if I can find a vid for you, it was cringeworthy, and quite sad.

To butcher a saying a little... I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, as long as you have something to say in the first place.

[skully]

Fair enough. All I had heard was that a truckies protest convoy had rumbled into town and next I know you were comparing me to them. I didn't quite see the linkage without your explaino.

[Paul Keating]

The thing about electricity going up 100% (not even sure if that is correct) is that you are making out it is the ALP's fault.

That is not true. The rise in electricity was going up regardless of who is in government.

It is going up because of essential investment in electricity infrastructure that was lacking for however many years.

We were told as far back as 2007 that electricity was going to skyrocket. This has nothing to do with the government's performance over the past 3.5 years.

On the other hand, you can make the argument that the carbon tax will make electricity go up further. Fair enough. But let's blame the carbon tax if and when it is introduced. For now, rising electricity prices are not the fault of the Vulture.

[skully]

The thing about electricity going up 100% (not even sure if that is correct) is that you are making out it is the ALP's fault.

That is not true. The rise in electricity was going up regardless of who is in government.

It is going up because of essential investment in electricity infrastructure that was lacking for however many years.

We were told as far back as 2007 that electricity was going to skyrocket. This has nothing to do with the government's performance over the past 3.5 years.

On the other hand, you can make the argument that the carbon tax will make electricity go up further. Fair enough. But let's blame the carbon tax if and when it is introduced. For now, rising electricity prices are not the fault of the Vulture.

What?? I never said anything of the sort, Ponts. Fark you're touchy, and confirm what a pack of sooks pinkos can be.

Zog made the point that the gains calculated by Leo had been more than gobbled up by price of living rises. I merely singled out a couple of obvious examples, and made absolutely no reference to anyone's fault. Go back and read my post again and reconsider your statement, please. You'll see I made no mention of the carbon tax in that post either.

[Paul Keating]

I am touchy because the ALP are toxic and gone at the next election. Disappearing into oblivion for minimum three terms. That is why I am touchy.

Apologies, that I have misunderstood your posts. You did not suggest it was the ALP's fault.

[Zat]

The thing about electricity going up 100% (not even sure if that is correct) is that you are making out it is the ALP's fault.

It's pretty close to correct. But I don't see anyone blaming any party.

That is not true. The rise in electricity was going up regardless of who is in government.

It is going up because of essential investment in electricity infrastructure that was lacking for however many years.

We were told as far back as 2007 that electricity was going to skyrocket. This has nothing to do with the government's performance over the past 3.5 years.

Yep, it's a black mark on both sides of politics AT STATE LEVEL that they haven't done the requisite work, and in some cases sold off theinfrastructure so as to avoid responsibility for the upgrades not happening.

Of course, this all comes down to some genius deciding that dgovernment debt, in all forms, at all times, is a bad thing and should never be tolerated. An attitude which, had it applied in the growth days of this country, would have meant no Sydney Harbour Bridge, no Snowy Mountains Scheme, and I'm pretty sure no Indian Pacific Railway.

It's also why thousands of people have died needllessly on the Hume and Pacific Highways, because any government that has thought about going into a bit of debt to complete these projects quickly, or thought about building a fast train service between Sydney and Melbourne (all of which would improve the productivity of the nation) has been howled down about 'saddling the taxpayers with debt...'

Politicians with vision? Don't make me garquin larf.

On the other hand, you can make the argument that the carbon tax will make electricity go up further. Fair enough. But let's blame the carbon tax if and when it is introduced. For now, rising electricity prices are not the fault of the Vulture.

True. For now.

[skully]

Fair enough, Ponts. Apology graciously accepted. And as Z confirms 100% is about right. In 2003 the average cost per KWh for households was 10 cents. In 2011 it is now 20 cents. The scary thing is - God knows where it will end up.

[Big Dog]

And like Abbott wouldn't be trou down and bent over his desk (as a wannabe Catholic priest he's at least used to it) for the chance to really screw the country. But as you (or someone else?) mentioned the other day it will be a couple of years.

The fact is we won't know how Abbott will perform until he ges his chance. On the other hand, we DO know how Rudd/ Gillard/Brown performed & they have really screwed the pooch.

[Zat]

And like Abbott wouldn't be trou down and bent over his desk (as a wannabe Catholic priest he's at least used to it) for the chance to really screw the country. But as you (or someone else?) mentioned the other day it will be a couple of years.

The fact is we won't know how Abbott will perform until he ges his chance. On the other hand, we DO know how Rudd/ Gillard/Brown performed & they have really screwed the pooch.

Although Abbott, in the past, seemingly tried to screwed everything with a skirt and a pulse. And didn't know who all his children were. Or might have been.

Sorry, someone had to throw it in.

[Sponsored content]