A new party: What key policies (if any) would win you over?
- Thread starter Smiling Buddha
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Any TAFE or technical school or whathaveyou that acts as a dumping ground for kids 'not interested' in school would be a waste of time and money.
Also, there are lot more kids out there 'not interested in school' than there are actively seeking a trade qualification - IMO. What percentage of kids are 'interested' in learning algebra, or spelling and grammar, or that the capital city of Turkey is Ankara, not Istanbul?
If you want to go and become a plumber or an electrician or a cabinet maker or whatever at 16 you are free to do so. To the best of my knowledge there is no law forcing every kid in Australia to finish year 12.
The reality is a good portion of teenagers (which is what high school kids are) don't have a clue what they want to do with their lives. IMO you're better off sticking with school unless you have a clear pathway leading somewhere.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
lol yeah, just like the GOP i'm sure.
Gus Poyet
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 1, 2012
- 9,253
- 4,056
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Brighton & HA, Boston Celtics
- Banned
- #54
Any party who has supporters who aren't historically stupid.
For example.
Left wing idiots wearing masks of Guy Fawkes, a Catholic Conservative Radical.
Liberal voters who oppose all immigration when it was the Liberals who disbanded the White Australia policy.
You know historically stupid people.
For example.
Left wing idiots wearing masks of Guy Fawkes, a Catholic Conservative Radical.
Liberal voters who oppose all immigration when it was the Liberals who disbanded the White Australia policy.
You know historically stupid people.
Terrible idea. Taxing people who save and invest is one of the worst ways to build wealth across the country. It would do the exact opposite of what we want and would end up with a even more investment from overseas being required.
thats not what a wealth tax, as compared to a income tax does. it actually encourages more and better investment and saving by giving more income to hard workers and people with ideas, as compared to re-distributing income based on heriditary lines.
IIRC, that is only because company profits were so high. If you look at the introduction they did of family tax benefits and the series of tax cuts, individual taxpayers were a lot better off than the decade prior.
No it doesn't, it encourages people to work for someone else and take a salary, instead of saving, investing and building up their own business. Why take a risk when the government will just tax any wealth you build up?
And what is wrong with people inheriting assets built up from the good decisions and investments of their parents?? This isn't communist Russia.
I agree there should be some taxes on certain components of wealth, namely property tax instead of stamp duty, however to tax all wealth unilaterally is just asinine.
What do you mean? It turned out fine, the budget was always in surplus and people had a good standard of living.
The Labor government then ****ed it up increasing spending but not having appropriate matching revenues. Now, to "fix" this Abbott has gone on a rampage and missed the mark with what needed cutting IMO.
On the topic of the thread, here are some policies I like:
- Mining tax coming in at 2025 over a 20 year period to 2045 (2% per year - total 40% of profits when fully in place). Revenues to be shared 50% between the state the resources are in and the federal government. Fed revenue to all go into the Future Fund.
- Increase exploration incentives to balance the mining tax.
- Negative gearing to be abolished. All losses incurred on a property are carried forward and offset against the value of the property on sale.
- Remove 15% tax on super and replace it with a tax at 50% of your marginal rate. This will encourage more saving by those on lower incomes and limit the benefit to those on higher incomes, while still providing an incentive to save. Cap contributions at 50kpa.
I have more, but need to run to a meeting.
- Mining tax coming in at 2025 over a 20 year period to 2045 (2% per year - total 40% of profits when fully in place). Revenues to be shared 50% between the state the resources are in and the federal government. Fed revenue to all go into the Future Fund.
- Increase exploration incentives to balance the mining tax.
- Negative gearing to be abolished. All losses incurred on a property are carried forward and offset against the value of the property on sale.
- Remove 15% tax on super and replace it with a tax at 50% of your marginal rate. This will encourage more saving by those on lower incomes and limit the benefit to those on higher incomes, while still providing an incentive to save. Cap contributions at 50kpa.
I have more, but need to run to a meeting.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
to be fair no government on the planet was increasing revenues during the GFC.
GFC ended about 5 years ago for us. Since then, tens of billions in new commitments were made, unrelated to the GFC (higher health funding, Gonski, NDIS, etc). However nothing was done on the revenue side of the equation and no compensating cutbacks were made to match these higher commitments.
It is like when Swanny whinged about how revenues were less than expected, so his surplus evaporated. We actually ended up with an 8% increase in revenues, but they needed somewhere around 12% to make up for the massive increases in expenditure.
- Oct 30, 2010
- 5,547
- 4,365
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
this is true, but the lion's share of debt was accrued in the midst of and after, the GFC. i disagree with the "5 years ago" assertion, given that following the GFC we had the euro crisis etc. lots of panic around the world and obviously this impacted AU:
i agree that the ALP need to take responsibility for the spending versus revenue "problem", but an 8% increase isn't necessarily the greatest thing ever, given the lows it may have come from.
I largely agree with what you're saying. Most of the debt would still be there regardless of who was in power, though Labor didn't help with some of their largesse. It is more of an issue with the forward estimates that is driving the cuts.
- Banned
- #67
Taxing churches and religious organisations.
I actually like the idea of a technocracy. Not sure in what capacity, but think of it this way. You have the best people in each field running a portfolio with all groups liaising with each other. The idea is that you have professionals making the right or best decisions NOT based on vote getting. This is one of the major problems with our political system in that they pretty much splash out in vote getting exercises. Quite often the 'right' and tough decisions aren't made because of public opinion. Quite often politicians ignore good advice anyway.
These groups could have targets to meet to satisfy reemployment after a given term. fail you're out! I guess I like the idea of having the best decisions made for the country based on actual research and knowledge as opposed to the bullshit we face at the moment.
Lester Burnham
Cancelled
- Jul 9, 2013
- 4,492
- 4,406
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Isn't this thread about policy? Thought you would be happy that Leyonhjelm is introducing his same-sex marriage bill to Parliament today.
On a state or local level, someone who will wage war on confected fines and tricky charges, from both government and corporations
I dont see why they need to be seperated at an early age, tradies can appreciate arts and literature and professionals can brush up on some practical skills, theres plenty of time left to specialise
Similar threads
