PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   War in Australia (any Oz Politics): the Original (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/477678-war-australia-any-oz-politics-original.html)

parabellum 29th May 2014 05:01


I understand he took lessons from Abbott, et. al., when Abbott was in opposition.

and



Shorten saying No and doing what Abbott did when he was in Opposition

The major difference being Abbott was saying "No" to the ALP's remorseless destruction of the Australian economy and Shorten is saying "No" to the LNP government's efforts clear up the mess left behind by the ALP and to rebuild the economy.

Clare Prop 29th May 2014 05:21

Indeed. That's why I mentioned pots and kettles. He isn't very original.

He is also opposing abolishing things that Rudd said they were going to abolish so he is just saying no for the sake of saying no, wheras Abbot, who was a lot better in opposition than his current role IMO, was saying no to things that were going to come to a sticky end that he was going to have to sort out.

rh200 29th May 2014 05:52

The old saying that there is only two things certain in this world should be modified to ,"death,Taxes and politicians being predictable.

I have no surprise or disgust at any of it, because its predictable, hence vote for the party you think will do the best for long term stability.

Hempy 29th May 2014 06:05


Originally Posted by rh200 (Post 8497707)
hence vote for the party you think will do the best for long term stability.

You didn't take your original premise far enough I reckon. What do you do when none of the parties seemingly give a flying fcuk about 'long term stability'?

Politics in Aus is a bloody popularity contest. No one looks past the next election, let alone anything like say a 'long range plan'. These days are all about KEEPING power, not the best way to use it. Predictable.

david1300 29th May 2014 06:31


Originally Posted by Hempy (Post 8497714)
...Politics in Aus is a bloody popularity contest. No one looks past the next election, let alone anything like say a 'long range plan'. These days are all about KEEPING power, not the best way to use it. Predictable.

As long as we have 3-year election terms with teh government of the day able to call an election whenever it pleases it will be about popularity. As a politician they need to be as popular as they can every day/week/month just in case an election looms. Bugger policy, long-term planning, national interest, etc. Really, we get what we deserve while we accept the status quo.

Really, look at what the government are doing. They aren't implementing their policy for 'revenge on the masses' or something similar; but when a country is spending more on welfare than on education, more on welfare than on health, more on welfare than on defence, doesn't that flash big caution lights about long-term sustainability? And look how unpopular they are as a result, and mostly the media just fuels the popularity fire.

I saw a table recently (I'll try and find the source) that showed that a family with 2 children earning $50k (it might have been $80k) a year actually get more from the government in terms of 'welfare' of different sorts (family benefit, child care allowance, medical, etc) than they pay in taxes. I could understand if that was at a $20k or possibly $30k figure, but how can a country pay for what it is providing when so many people are taking out (ratehr than putting in?)

chuboy 29th May 2014 07:34


Originally Posted by david1300 (Post 8497730)
Really, look at what the government are doing. They aren't implementing their policy for 'revenge on the masses' or something similar; but when a country is spending more on welfare than on education, more on welfare than on health, more on welfare than on defence, doesn't that flash big caution lights about long-term sustainability? And look how unpopular they are as a result, and mostly the media just fuels the popularity fire.

Presumably you are referring to the unpopularity of the proposed changes to Newstart?

I suggest you go back to wherever you read those statistics about welfare spending and have a look at what percentage of welfare spending is on unemployment benefits.

On that note of media fuelling the fire, going back a few dozen pages in this thread many posters here correctly observed the current government's vice-grip over what political news ended up on the front page. Controlling the 24-hour news cycle, as it were.

It's interesting to see how spectacularly they have lost control in recent weeks. The rapid-fire publication of political news and speculation is just as it rife as it was before the Coalition were elected.

No Hoper 29th May 2014 08:03

As a student of history, I was enthralled by the writing of Marx and Engels of the mid 1800s.
Contrary to opinions expressed here, Marxism, Scientific Socialism would have caused the death of no one. They were a body of ideas that formed the theoretical basis for working class to attain their own ethic separate from the ruling(capitalist) class. This higher form of society is socialism.

Marx commented/predicted that the political party purporting to be of the working class would eventually become a reflection of the capitalist ethos, and subjugate their own supporters to the capitalist greed.

rh200 30th May 2014 00:24


Politics in Aus is a bloody popularity contest. No one looks past the next election, let alone anything like say a 'long range plan'. These days are all about KEEPING power, not the best way to use it. Predictable.
:hmm::hmm: Not sure how the current suite of policy's that the government has just rolled out and are trying to get through fits into that argument?:p

Fubaar 30th May 2014 02:17

History has consistently shown they the political memory of the average Australian voter is about the same as that of a gold fish. Hence the very real possibility that Labor will be re-elected in less than three from now.

If reports currently being made in News Limited newspapers are true, there are welfare recipients out there pulling $55k per annum tax free. (I strongly suspect there'd be very few on that much.) If tax was factored into that, that would represent a "wage" of well over $70k. Far too many see this as their right, and it will be almost impossible to convince them that this cannot continue, particularly when the other Pardee tells them it IS their "right".

alisoncc 30th May 2014 03:08


If reports currently being made in News Limited newspapers are true, there are welfare recipients out there pulling $55k per annum tax free.
And there are some CEO's pulling more than two million a week, but that doesn't mean they all are. I would even suggest remarkably few.

So to with welfare recipients on $55K. Most probably a fictitious family with two dozen kids and both parents on disability or similar. It's easy to work out any combination of payments using the booklets put out by "Centrelink". Imagine the horror if they had thirty kids, that would put them well over $60k pa. But likely - think not.

So what are the suggestions. All welfare recipients should be stoned to death outside a courthouse or raped and hung from a tree. I am sure many here see themselves as "Village Elders" in some third world country.

.

500N 30th May 2014 04:14

We knew that they would dismantle lefty towers.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison cuts funds to peak refugee body

Chief executive of the council Paul Power said he was shocked by the phone call.


''This decision is petty and vindictive and is symbolic of the minister's very poor relationship with the non-government sector,'' he said.


''While we, and other agencies, maintain constructive dialogue with other members of the government, it is clear that Mr Morrison has little interest in the ideas and concerns of non-government agencies which support refugees and asylum seekers.''



parabellum 30th May 2014 04:31

No doubt the human rights lawyers will be up in arms? Not because of the effect on refugees but because there won't be any money in the pot to pay their fees! :E


(I don't actually know if this body hired lawyers or not, maybe SHY will tell us all about it!).

Fubaar 30th May 2014 04:36

An analysis by Joe Hockey’s office has found some single parents are currently receiving $55,000 a year in tax-free benefits.

In other words, 3 taxpayers on average salaries pay $17,000 each a year in tax to cover the entitlements of one single parent.

The analysis by the Treasurer’s office was prompted by a complaint to Joe Hockey about the Budget from a single mother.

Following the complaint, staff investigated what benefits the woman was currently entitled to.

And it turns out she qualifies for $54,417 in Government payments

The woman would get:

$18,192 Single Parenting Payment
$305 Clean Energy Supplement
$8,979 Family Tax Benefit Part A
$175 Clean Energy Family Tax Benefit A supplement
$3,818 Family Tax Benefit Part B
$69 Clean Energy Family Tax Benefit B supplement
$3,818 Rent Assistance
$161 Pharmaceutical Allowance
$1,453 Family Tax Benefit Part A supplement
$354 Family Tax Benefit Part B supplement
$1,622 Pensioner Education Supplement
$214 Income Support Bonus
$157 Telephone Allowance
$15,120 Jobs Education Training Child Care Fee Assistance

david1300 30th May 2014 05:01


Originally Posted by david1300 (Post 8497730)
I saw a table recently (I'll try and find the source) that showed that a family with 2 children earning $50k (it might have been $80k) a year actually get more from the government in terms of 'welfare' of different sorts (family benefit, child care allowance, medical, etc) than they pay in taxes. I could understand if that was at a $20k or possibly $30k figure, but how can a country pay for what it is providing when so many people are taking out (rather than putting in?)

Here is the info I saw (without the table), and slightly edited to make it shorter:

HALF of Australian families receive more in welfare than they pay in income tax, new figures reveal.
“Most people rightly or wrongly think they pay too much tax and don’t receive enough benefits,” Mr Phillips said. “So people might be surprised to learn only about half of Australian families pay more tax than they receive back in benefits.”
For single parent families, as many as 85 per cent contribute no tax, once welfare benefits are deducted. Among single person households — mostly pensioners — 55 per cent pay no tax.
About half of couples with no kids pay no tax. For couples with children — where the adults are more likely to be working — one in four families pay no tax.
“I guess you have got to keep in mind that about 3.2 million of these 12.2 million families are not of working age, they’re either very young students or the vast majority would be aged pensioners and self-funded retirees — both those groups don’t pay tax,” Mr Phillips said.
However, a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, Stephen Kirchner, said it beggared belief that half of families needed to be net beneficiaries of government support.
“Traditionally the purpose of the welfare state was poverty alleviation and helping people who can’t help themselves,” Dr Kirchner said.
“Whereas now we seem to have shifted more to an entitlement mentality where a lot of government expenditure is designed to make life easier for people who can actually care for themselves.”
On average, Australian families will pay $12,935 in income tax this year, but receive $9,515 in benefits — leaving a net yearly contribution to the public purse of just $3424.
The figures include welfare paid in pensions, family benefits, jobless support and childcare support. They include all income taxes paid, but not indirect taxes, like cigarette excise and state-levied taxes such as the GST.
Both Dr Kirchner and Mr Phillips warned of significant waste from “fiscal churn” — where the government raises money in tax only to handed it back to the same people in benefits.
However, Mr Phillips said much welfare was well-targeted at those most in need. Single parents, for example, have to rely on only one income and find it harder to share the demands of childcare.
Of the four family types studied, single parents are the biggest recipients of government benefits, receiving $26,321 in support on average and paying only $4,415 in tax — a net benefit of almost $22,000.
Couples with children pay the highest amount of average tax at $35,369 and receive an average of $8,917 in government benefits a year.

Read the original here: Half of families pay no net tax if welfare benefits deducted, new figures reveal | News.com.au

CoodaShooda 30th May 2014 05:01

I wonder how much we could save in administrative costs if we converted all that into an indexed, flat rate support payment.

Fubaar 30th May 2014 05:10

And how many public servants such a move would put in the unemployed ranks.

500N 30th May 2014 05:16

Are the ABC overly sensitive ?

Warren Ryan and David Morrow suspended by ABC

parabellum 30th May 2014 05:22

Darky, Whitey, what is the problem? :confused:

500N 30th May 2014 05:27

IMHO, In the context he was using it, nothing

In fact, nothing in ANY context for me but the ABC is so PC.

Clare Prop 30th May 2014 05:39

This makes for interesting reading, re the Manus Island riots in February.

http://www.immi.gov.au/about/dept-in...rt-cornall.pdf

Interesting also that Ian Rintoul was given the opportunity to particpate and chose not to.


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:05.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.