View Full Version : tHANK YOU mR hOWARD
Just in case Mr Howard forgets to mention it Australia had
23, 907 Bankrupt applications year 2000/2001, a 69% increase from 1995/96
Ahhh the good old days;)
Briedis
31 Oct 2001, 14:10
Yes, but they've been able to balance the books!:rolleyes:
I wonder if the introduction of the GST had anything to do with the increase.:mad:
So a Labour government propped up inefficient businesses...big deal. Such bankruptcies would have an effect on growth wouldn't they? That same growth that has been at high levels under Liberal and is now one of the best in the world.
So Liberal means good for business.
And when did Labour supporters ever care about the businessman.........hypocrites!
Oh..and do mention the GST blatherskite, that thing which labour wants to keep 97% of.............hypocrites!
Yassar Arafat
1 Nov 2001, 12:47
GST does not cause bankruptcies, poor businessmen usually do. I know. I bankrupt people.
You can have your fat bag of wind Beazley, because he is basically an idiot. He wanted to sell Telstra in 95 now he says he doesnt only b/c he thinks it gives him an advantage, not for any other noble reason. Who the fcuk sold of the Cmwth Bank Beazo you fcukwit.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
[B]GST does not cause bankruptcies, poor businessmen usually do. I know. I bankrupt people.
If you bankrupt them you must be busy. Howard must be good for business then?;)
Shinboners
1 Nov 2001, 13:57
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
thinks it gives him an advantage, not for any other noble reason. Who the fcuk sold of the Cmwth Bank Beazo you fcukwit.
The same people who sold off Qantas and the C.S.L. perhaps?
Originally posted by Frodo
So a Labour government propped up inefficient businesses...big deal. Such bankruptcies would have an effect on growth wouldn't they? That same growth that has been at high levels under Liberal and is now one of the best in the world.
So Liberal means good for business.
And when did Labour supporters ever care about the businessman.........hypocrites!
Oh..and do mention the GST blatherskite, that thing which labour wants to keep 97% of.............hypocrites!
Its Labor Frodo old boy - Not Labour
Liberals love small buisness - hence the GST which they all hate
You are a little blinkered here
nice compassionate call about bankrupt businesses
But of course - conservatives have no compassion - I forget
Who deregulated the economy by the way???
I think his name was Bob Hawke and his mate Paul Keating
sigscotty
1 Nov 2001, 15:10
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
GST does not cause bankruptcies, poor businessmen usually do. I know. I bankrupt people.
You can have your fat bag of wind Beazley, because he is basically an idiot. He wanted to sell Telstra in 95 now he says he doesnt only b/c he thinks it gives him an advantage, not for any other noble reason. Who the fcuk sold of the Cmwth Bank Beazo you fcukwit.
So this is different to when Howard swore he would never bring in the GST how???? Let me guess, that was for noble reasons, not to win votes.
Yassar Arafat
2 Nov 2001, 09:24
Originally posted by sigscotty
So this is different to when Howard swore he would never bring in the GST how???? Let me guess, that was for noble reasons, not to win votes.
Hey idiot, Howard went to an election in 98 with a policy of introducing a GST, and he won, so the people supported it at that time.
Dont be fooled by the typical Labor crap in their ads. They have mislead the Aussies ever since Gough said he had a good team. Was that ever a joke!
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
Hey idiot, Howard went to an election in 98 with a policy of introducing a GST, and he won, so the people supported it at that time.
Dont be fooled by the typical Labor crap in their ads. They have mislead the Aussies ever since Gough said he had a good team. Was that ever a joke!
Fancy you calling someone else an idiot!
The people did not support the GST at the last election, in fact Labor actually got more votes than the Libs. The swing against the Libs was more indicative of not wanting the GST. The swing to Labor just wasn't enough to give them victory!
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
Hey idiot, Howard went to an election in 98 with a policy of introducing a GST, and he won, so the people supported it at that time.
Dont be fooled by the typical Labor crap in their ads. They have mislead the Aussies ever since Gough said he had a good team. Was that ever a joke!
I see you must be a young Liberal to be so blinded by Party Politics
If you want to talk about being fooled
How did Menzies do it for ovet twenty years?
This country went nowhere when he was in charage and Howard now wants to go back to those days.
You Liberals are a joke
At least Malcolm Fraser has become a great Australian SINCE he quit politics.
magpie_joffa
2 Nov 2001, 09:53
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
Hey idiot, Howard went to an election in 98 with a policy of introducing a GST, and he won, so the people supported it at that time.
Dont be fooled by the typical Labor crap in their ads. They have mislead the Aussies ever since Gough said he had a good team. Was that ever a joke!
What thucken b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t
hey moron labour won the popular vote with something between 51 and 53 percent.
But due to our inadequate simplistic voting it gave the little racist power.
yeah get real australians did not want a GST, what planet do you live on???????????
Originally posted by magpie_joffa
What thucken b.u.l.l.s.h.i.t
hey moron labour won the popular vote with something between 51 and 53 percent.
But due to our inadequate simplistic voting it gave the little racist power.
yeah get real australians did not want a GST, what planet do you live on???????????
How can this be so ..... I keep agreeing with Joffa. ..
*faint*
Good stuff mate
Where is this that Labor wanted to sell Telstra. I do not remember this, please find some documentation on it, or unless someone else can confirm.
Labor won primary vote at the last election
They WERE the most voted PARTY in the country, like it or not.
Howard got through because of preferences and, not quite enough swing going in Labor's favour.
Bloodstained Angel
2 Nov 2001, 10:23
ummm actually Bee and Masey
its a bit more complicated than that ...
The ALP got a big swing at the 98 election. This was due to people who are traditional ALP voters coming back to the ALP after voting for Howard in 96.
The so-called "Howards battlers" phenomonem.
This was shown in polling for traditional ALP safe seats, where the ALP vote was restored to its usual levels in these seats.
Throughout the rest of the country, results for the ALP are a little more uneven.
They picked up a couple of marginals here and there, but nowhere near what they needed to win.
So you could say the ALP got heaps of votes - precisely where they DIDN't need them (in their safe seats)
Notably, the ALP almost completely failed in New South Wales. They failed miserably in critical marginal seats like Lindsay (penrith), Robertson (Central Coast), and Eden - Monaro (Cooma), Richmond (tweed - Ballina).
They did pick up Lowe - but that was the extent of the ALP gain in NSW.
Why did they fail in NSW ? - I have my own theories on that but I won't go into it here.
The ALP also failed in Meakin and Adelaide in South Australia, critical marginals that they should have won if the had any hope of forming government.
So, in conclusion, the ALP got plenty of swing - just not in the places that really mattered.
cheers
Originally posted by TheMase
Where is this that Labor wanted to sell Telstra. I do not remember this, please find some documentation on it, or unless someone else can confirm.
Labor won primary vote at the last election
They WERE the most voted PARTY in the country, like it or not.
Howard got through because of preferences and, not quite enough swing going in Labor's favour.
That maybe so - but that is the voting system and if you dont like it you should try and change it - rather htan whinge about the result afterwards
The Democrats have always wanted proportional representation but neither of the major parties will allow it because it will erode their power based and bring real democracy.
Shinboners
2 Nov 2001, 12:25
Originally posted by Bee
The people did not support the GST at the last election, in fact Labor actually got more votes than the Libs. The swing against the Libs was more indicative of not wanting the GST. The swing to Labor just wasn't enough to give them victory!
The ALP got the swing, but not in the marginal seats. The Liberals did very well in NSW and that allowed them to hold onto power.
But the ALP shouldn't go sooking over getting the higher vote....in one election, Andrew Peacock also got a higher vote than Bob Hawke, but like Beazley to Howard, didn't win the vote in the right seats.
Bloodstained Angel
2 Nov 2001, 13:11
Expanding it further -
Arthur Calwell would have won in 1958, and 1961
Gough Whitlam would have won in 1969
Billy Sneddon would have won in 1974
Bill Hayden would have won in 1980
Andrew Peacock would have won in 1990
Kim Beazley would have won in 1998.
quite clearly, its not how many votes you get, but its where you get them.
cheers
BrisGirl
3 Nov 2001, 12:24
I can only think that the businesses that are going bankrupt could be the ones that haven't been paying their rightful tax for years and now that there is such a tight system in place they can not get away with it anymore.
The person in the street pays his fair share of tax and if someone gets caught out not paying their fair share of tax then that was the purpose of this new tax in the first place.
And, please let us not forget, Paul Keating wanted to bring in the GST for years, first when he was the Treasurer and when he was Prime Minister. He was knocked down by all the factions in the Labor party, except the right-wing side of the Party.
Even Keating new Australia needed a new tax system and let's face it, people in general, hate being taxed. It takes guts to introduce a new tax system because the chances are great the people won't like it, but Howard did it and still won.
Like it or not, GST is here to stay and there is no way on earth Beasley and Labor are ever going to get rid of it.
Beasley has been table thumping on the roll-back for years, now he is in the position where he can say out-right, 'I will abolish GST' and all we get is 'no GST on Caravan site rentals' that might come in to affect in 2003. That, folks, is not a roll-back.
Beasley tells us how bad GST is and how it has ruined our life but what is he going to do about it?
Abolish it or support it.
You can not sit on the fence and be vague, that is being misleading.
They are just as bad as each other.
I say, 'Better the Devil you know'.
Thats a key point,Brisgirl, and Labour supporters here just wont see it.
We've had years of Beazley abusing the GST, blaming everything on the GST. Now he has the chance to put forward his alternative vision, one that makes a fair tax system without the red tape sufferred by business etc,. But what do we get as a policy. NO GST ON CARAVAN PARKS in two years time and THE REST stays EXACTLY THE SAME.
What a joke of a Leader and party who tells how bad something is for years then makes keeping it part of theitr policy. What it means is that Keating was right when he wantd a GST, they know it, they know the old tax sysem was a recipe for rorts and tax evasion and despite teething problems the GST is a huge improvement. And so they are keeping it an proving that Labour is all about negativity and no substance.
Dippers Donuts
3 Nov 2001, 17:54
hey frodo, 97% of a vile policy is better for the masses than 100% isn't it...
as for beazley's rollback, it would have been far more if your cronies in the liberal party hadn't blown the surplus on their multitudinous backflips...talk about hypocrites.
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
hey frodo, 97% of a vile policy is better for the masses than 100% isn't it...
But 100% of a good policy is better than 97%. And GST's have been increased in many countries, including Labour controlled UK, and none have got rid of them. Open your eyes, everyone knows that a consumption tax is right and that our old tax system was wrong....even ask Paul Keating who suggested it for Australia first.
Dippers Donuts
3 Nov 2001, 23:18
Originally posted by Frodo
But 100% of a good policy is better than 97%. And GST's have been increased in many countries, including Labour controlled UK, and none have got rid of them. Open your eyes, everyone knows that a consumption tax is right and that our old tax system was wrong....even ask Paul Keating who suggested it for Australia first.
And what rate is the USA's GST Frodo?:rolleyes:
As for getting rid of a GST, it is very difficult to unscramble an omelette.
Much easier to make it fairer...a la rollback;)
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
As for getting rid of a GST, it is very difficult to unscramble an omelette.
Much easier to make it fairer...a la rollback;)
yes, it takes courage and strength of character to replace a tax system. Liberals did it though didn't they?
But Labour blame everything on the gST but want to keep 97% of the omelette........because labour are rotten eggs!
Dippers Donuts
4 Nov 2001, 13:16
Originally posted by Frodo
yes, it takes courage and strength of character to replace a tax system. Liberals did it though didn't they?
But Labour blame everything on the gST but want to keep 97% of the omelette........because labour are rotten eggs!
Treasury costings indicate that it would be prohibitive to return to the previous tax system, so Labor understanding this are being responsible by living with it and making it fairer.
As I said earlier, due to Howards desperate pork barelling earlier this year the cupboard is largely bare. The libs have raided the surplus and labor, being the responsible chaps they are, are being measured and realistic with their rollback promises.
Howards eggs aint just rotten - they're stinking!
Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
Treasury costings indicate that it would be prohibitive to return to the previous tax system, so Labor understanding this are being responsible by living with it and making it fairer.
Where do I find these estimates? Treasury never gives political opinion.
The fact is that you're playing the spin doctor, mate.
The fact is that every politician knows that the GST is better than the previous system, despite it's teething problems.
And yes, Howard won government on the back of a win on the policy of a GST. Open, honest and up front.
Now a majority may have voted Labour but that is our system. If Labour doesn't like that fact why aren't they campaigning for a change in electoral system? At least it would be one policy with substance :rolleyes:
Dippers Donuts
4 Nov 2001, 22:55
Originally posted by Frodo
Where do I find these estimates? Treasury never gives political opinion.
The fact is that you're playing the spin doctor, mate.
The fact is that every politician knows that the GST is better than the previous system, despite it's teething problems.
And yes, Howard won government on the back of a win on the policy of a GST. Open, honest and up front.
Now a majority may have voted Labour but that is our system. If Labour doesn't like that fact why aren't they campaigning for a change in electoral system? At least it would be one policy with substance :rolleyes:
Wrong again - Treasury can and will, on the request of either party produce estimates/costings on a range of issues (not opinions). They have produced a number of papers in the last 12 months on the cost of implementing the gst and the cost of removing it.
Bottom line is that to remove the gst and go back to the old wst would cost in the vicinity of $400m. Money the country can ill afford given honest johnny's recent backflips.
no spin doctoring mate, just facts.
Pessimistic
5 Nov 2001, 08:25
You can't blame labour for the GST. No amount of twisting words can do that.
Yassar Arafat
5 Nov 2001, 09:14
I see the looney left is alive and well.
Criticising the Libs for having a surplus? The pork barrelling Labor did in 96 ended up with Beazley's $10 billion black hole.
Labor wouldnt even know what a surplus was.
As for pork barelling, I think Beazer ate all the pork!
Complaining about the voting system? Whingers. "We didnt lose the election.....we just didnt win!" LMFAO big time.
When was our election system first past the post?? Labor was in power for 13 long hard pork barreling years (ask the arts community) why didnt they change the system the piss weak looneys?
Ah, the looney left, if it wasnt for them, we would have nothing to laugh about.
Pinochet and Stalin would know what to do with the Laurie Brereton's of this world! (And is his mouth like that b/c he sucked off Keating for so long?)
Same Old's
8 Nov 2001, 22:32
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
quite clearly, its not how many votes you get, but its where you get them.
Yes, there's democracy for you.:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Yassar Arafat
GST does not cause bankruptcies, poor businessmen usually do. I know. I bankrupt people.
.
Just read in the Australian that Bankruptcy figures have risen by 30% over the last twelve months and houshold debt is at a record high of $72.5 Billion. Mr Arafat you are surely a very happy man. These bankrupts are 99% personal debt so there goes the Poor businessmen theory.
Originally posted by 1AD
Just read in the Australian that Bankruptcy figures have risen by 30% over the last twelve months and houshold debt is at a record high of $72.5 Billion. Mr Arafat you are surely a very happy man. These bankrupts are 99% personal debt so there goes the Poor businessmen theory.
The current GST (before election) is a tainted version and has never been able to work as it intended to.
The reason for this is that Labor and the Democrats have blocked it's effectiveness in the senate. The best option for the GST is to go ahead without these restrictions and then it would work.
Labor would have seen to more banruptcy and economic non performance. They are good at looking after the average worker but they do not have the economic management to deliver economic performance.
wagstaff
31 Dec 2001, 22:57
What has always fascinated me about the issue of "economic management" is the assumed belief within parties and the media that because a government is considered a 'good economic manager' that it automatically means that the general popuation is better off.
For example, the oft-used comment about how important it is to keep the budget in surplus. But to do this usually means cuts to fundamental services like health, education and child care (although defence mysteriously avoids cuts) which badly affect the majority of the population.
In reality, good 'economic management' merely pleases big business and the international monetary markets.
Originally posted by wagstaff
What has always fascinated me about the issue of "economic management" is the assumed belief within parties and the media that because a government is considered a 'good economic manager' that it automatically means that the general popuation is better off.
For example, the oft-used comment about how important it is to keep the budget in surplus. But to do this usually means cuts to fundamental services like health, education and child care (although defence mysteriously avoids cuts) which badly affect the majority of the population.
In reality, good 'economic management' merely pleases big business and the international monetary markets.
Mmmmm......time factor matter.
We can borrow today and make people happy (labour policy) but two things happen. One...our children have to pay it back. Two.....international interest payments on our debt rises.
It's not much different to family life. You can borrow now, but you have to pay it back over time. If you invest what you borrow well, like in a house, then that assett adds to your equity. However, if you borrow for a holiday or a new PC then all you are left with is debt. Then if you ask to borrow more you become a bigger risk and the lenders ask for a higher rate.
So in the economy we can borrow for infrastructure that can help GDP grow and the resultant growth adds equity to the country. On the other hand we can borrow for tax breaks or handouts to minority groups which just leaves us with debt.
The big difference is that your loan is payable by you. Die and they take it out of your estate. But with governments the loan is just passed on...to the next government.....and to our children.
wagstaff
2 Jan 2002, 17:39
Look at the ever-increasing obsession with the stock market in today's news services. Again it is naturally assumed that an increasing All Ordnaries Index benefits the vast majority of society, when in reality the ones to benefit are obviously the major stock holders.
John Howard has tried to avoid this problem by creating a culture of 'Mums and Dads' shareholders with Telstra and the like; but the benefits are minimal.
An example of the increasing news obsession with the stock market is how news programmes like Channel 10 go every day to someone from Comsec to have a 2-minute discussion on the day's happenings in the market. I would dare say this part of the news is of interest only to the financial elite but the networks, themselves controlled by major stockholders, treat it as if its of vital significance to the general public.
Originally posted by wagstaff
Look at the ever-increasing obsession with the stock market in today's news services. Again it is naturally assumed that an increasing All Ordnaries Index benefits the vast majority of society, when in reality the ones to benefit are obviously the major stock holders.
John Howard has tried to avoid this problem by creating a culture of 'Mums and Dads' shareholders with Telstra and the like; but the benefits are minimal.
An example of the increasing news obsession with the stock market is how news programmes like Channel 10 go every day to someone from Comsec to have a 2-minute discussion on the day's happenings in the market. I would dare say this part of the news is of interest only to the financial elite but the networks, themselves controlled by major stockholders, treat it as if its of vital significance to the general public.
At least 8% of everyones wages (9% from July) goes to super. Most of that is invested in the stock market. Add the investments of our pensioners and you will find that joe public are the major stockhoders.
Originally posted by Frodo
And GST's have been increased in many countries, including Labour controlled UK, and none have got rid of them.
Canada did.
Originally posted by Frodo
At least 8% of everyones wages (9% from July) goes to super. Most of that is invested in the stock market. Add the investments of our pensioners and you will find that joe public are the major stockhoders.
Though less than 1% of the population owns over 95% of shares....
Originally posted by Dave
Though less than 1% of the population owns over 95% of shares....
That's a misleading statistic. The Super funds and managed funds are considered to be owned by the institutions and not the public as the shares are in the institutions name, but in fact they are owned by the public second hand.
Getting back to the original point.........if the sharemarket declined then milions of peoples investments would suffer. This was the case for many funds last year.
Originally posted by Dave
Canada did.
Well done Canada :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Frodo
At least 8% of everyones wages (9% from July) goes to super. Most of that is invested in the stock market. Add the investments of our pensioners and you will find that joe public are the major stockhoders.
We can thank Labor and the Unions for that can't we?
Originally posted by 1AD
We can thank Labor and the Unions for that can't we?
Maybe, but in reality it is a trade off for wages which had to happen whoever was in power because the pension burden on tax revenue was projected to be impossible to manage. If there had been any partisan feeling over this issue then I'm sure Liberals would have reversed it.
As it stands I don't think that those earning below say $20K should have super taken out of wages. Let them have the 8% in the wage packet until they can better afford to have it deducted. As it stands the 8% for these people if fritterred away in fund fees and the amount invested lags inflation.
Originally posted by Frodo
That's a misleading statistic. The Super funds and managed funds are considered to be owned by the institutions and not the public as the shares are in the institutions name, but in fact they are owned by the public second hand.
Not in the same manner as shares owned first hand. You cannot trade them, nor do we have access (thank you very much johhny) until 65. It is not the same thing as direct share ownership. And you know it. The stock market is just another means by which the rich get richer and the rest of us get to suck eggs.
Getting back to the original point.........if the sharemarket declined then milions of peoples investments would suffer. This was the case for many funds last year.
Getting back to the actual original point, I'd say that despite super, most of the general public couldn't give two ****s about the performance of the stock market. They'd be more concerned about whether they have a job, their kids future etc.
Originally posted by Frodo
Well done Canada :rolleyes:
Well they thought so, even if it did escape your attention :eek:
Originally posted by Dave
Well they thought so, even if it did escape your attention :eek:
It didn't because it wasn't realy scrapped!!!!!!!!
eg:-
The latest illustration is the prime minister's boast during the Commonwealth Conference that Canada's GST is working well. Of course, the Liberals fought vigorously against the introduction of the tax Canadians love to hate, because that's the way the Canadian system works. When you're in opposition, you criticize _everything_ regardless of what you really think of the idea, the proposed legislation or the words and actions of the government.
The hypocrisy is finally revealed when those nay-sayers come to power. The Liberals defeated the Tories with a promise to scrap the GST -- yes, they all used the word "scrap" even though the Red Book of campaign promises actually said "replace."
Of course, the GST never did get scrapped, and it wasn't even replaced as the Red Book promised, since only the Maritimes agreed to "harmonize" it with provincial sales taxes.
After about a week of trying to support that foolhardy position, Copps finally had to admit that her credibility had been completely destroyed by the effort. Even then, she didn't really "resign
funny how Labour is called Liberal in Canada eh! But the criticise regardless system seems similar to Australia
Pessimistic
16 Jan 2002, 09:10
Originally posted by Frodo
Mmmmm......time factor matter.
We can borrow today and make people happy (labour policy) but two things happen. One...our children have to pay it back. Two.....international interest payments on our debt rises.
It's not much different to family life. You can borrow now, but you have to pay it back over time. If you invest what you borrow well, like in a house, then that assett adds to your equity. However, if you borrow for a holiday or a new PC then all you are left with is debt. Then if you ask to borrow more you become a bigger risk and the lenders ask for a higher rate.
So in the economy we can borrow for infrastructure that can help GDP grow and the resultant growth adds equity to the country. On the other hand we can borrow for tax breaks or handouts to minority groups which just leaves us with debt.
The big difference is that your loan is payable by you. Die and they take it out of your estate. But with governments the loan is just passed on...to the next government.....and to our children.
Or we can sell our busisness, our Home, take the kids out of school, scrimp on health care. - and pay off out 'debt'
That should do it.