Renewable Energy Target.

[Gough]

Aside from being in the pockets of mining companies, can anyone give me a good reason that the government is looking to scrap this? By any measure it has been a success providing investment, employment within the renewables sector as well as increasing our production of renewable energy.
Did I answer my own question in the first sentence?

 

[pokerspiv]

Because the government taking taxpayer's money to invest in whatever industry is in political favour at the time is a terrible way to run a country.

20 years ago it was manufacturing, now it's renewable energy.

Here's an idea: Let businesses succeed and fail on their own merit.

 

[awaremind]

Because the government taking taxpayer's money to invest in whatever industry is in political favour at the time is a terrible way to run a country.

20 years ago it was manufacturing, now it's renewable energy.

Here's an idea: Let businesses succeed and fail on their own merit.

Well then why don't we stop pandering to greedy mining bosses whims? /major structural changes in industrial policy erode confidence and work against long term planning. Two word slogan - Disaster Government!

 

[noddy]

Because the government taking taxpayer's money to invest in whatever industry is in political favour at the time is a terrible way to run a country.

20 years ago it was manufacturing, now it's renewable energy.

Here's an idea: Let businesses succeed and fail on their own merit.

Does that include mining, farming & general land industries?

 

[Gough]

Because the government taking taxpayer's money to invest in whatever industry is in political favour at the time is a terrible way to run a country.

20 years ago it was manufacturing, now it's renewable energy.

Here's an idea: Let businesses succeed and fail on their own merit.

You might think Milton Friedman makes sound sense but a look at the South American cone in the 1970s and 80s suggests that to achieve his Valhalla little things, like basic human rights need to be given up. Your libertarian style economics makes no more sense than Pol Pot and his year zero centrally planned economy.

 

[Floor Pie]

Aside from being in the pockets of mining companies, can anyone give me a good reason that the government is looking to scrap this? By any measure it has been a success providing investment, employment within the renewables sector as well as increasing our production of renewable energy.
Did I answer my own question in the first sentence?

Basically, we all know that renewable energy is a dying trade! Look at the failure of Tasmania!

What are we going to do when the air and sun runs out?

 

[pokerspiv]

You might think Milton Friedman makes sound sense but a look at the South American cone in the 1970s and 80s suggests that to achieve his Valhalla little things, like basic human rights need to be given up. Your libertarian style economics makes no more sense than Pol Pot and his year zero centrally planned economy.

Really, you need to give up basic human rights to stop corporate welfare? The world must seem like a really dark place to you.

 

[pokerspiv]

Does that include mining, farming & general land industries?

Is this about the fuel excise rebate again?

 

[noddy]

Is this about the fuel excise rebate again?

Fuel Rebate, tax breaks, handouts for weather extremes the list goes on.

What you should do Poker is put down in writing just what you would like to see done to make this country your utopia where you & those like you would feel comfortable with your life's.

 

[Gough]

Fuel Rebate, tax breaks, handouts for weather extremes the list goes on.

What you should do Poker is put down in writing just what you would like to see done to make this country your utopia where you & those like you would feel comfortable with your life's.

Never stand between a miner and hand out Nods.

 

[pokerspiv]

Fuel Rebate, tax breaks, handouts for weather extremes the list goes on.

What you should do Poker is put down in writing just what you would like to see done to make this country your utopia where you & those like you would feel comfortable with your life's.

Mining and Agricultural companies do not get any tax breaks that other companies do not.

I agree with you on drought relief and subsidisation of irrigation. Both are bad ideas.

 

[Floor Pie]

Fuel Rebate, tax breaks, handouts for weather extremes the list goes on.

What you should do Poker is put down in writing just what you would like to see done to make this country your utopia where you & those like you would feel comfortable with your life's.

He has said he thinks that international companies, like McDonalds, should be able to pay Australian's at a rate much lower than the minimum wage, and have the Government pay for the rest of the wage.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...r-than-in-the-us.1072313/page-6#post-34733969

 

[noddy]

Mining and Agricultural companies do not get any tax breaks that other companies do not.

I agree with you on drought relief and subsidisation of irrigation. Both are bad ideas.

Don't get me wrong in that i would like handouts to those in dire need like drought ass or extreme weather events stopped.

 

[noddy]

He has said he thinks that international companies, like McDonalds, should be able to pay Australian's at a rate much lower than the minimum wage, and have the Government pay for the rest of the wage.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...r-than-in-the-us.1072313/page-6#post-34733969

Maccas short of a quid !! surely Pokerspiv is just taking the proverbial.

 

[pokerspiv]

Maccas short of a quid !! surely Pokerspiv is just taking the proverbial.

You're aware that 80% of individual McDonalds stores are franchises, effectively small businesses no? They are just as affected by wage rates as any other small businesses.

But actually the point is that high minimum wages result in unemployment. The point of lowering the minimum wage is to get people jobs, not to benefit McDonalds. McDonalds and many other fast food outlets are starting to replace cashiers with touchscreen terminals to save on wage expenditure. How is the minimum wage helping there?

It's better to have no minimum wage and to supplement the wages of low income earners than it is to have a high minimum wage and keep people trapped in welfare for generations. Having a job - even a poorly paid one - helps the worker acquire skills and experience, making them more attractive to potential employers and increasing the chances of getting a better job.

 

[Floor Pie]

You're aware that 80% of individual McDonalds stores are franchises, effectively small businesses no? They are just as affected by wage rates as any other small businesses.

But actually the point is that high minimum wages result in unemployment. The point of lowering the minimum wage is to get people jobs, not to benefit McDonalds. McDonalds and many other fast food outlets are starting to replace cashiers with touchscreen terminals to save on wage expenditure. How is the minimum wage helping there?

It's true. If the minimum wage was lower, there is no way McDonalds would still be looking for ways to maximize profit!

80% of Mcds stores in Australia are franchises? I didn't know that, and I can't find that info for Australia after a quick google. Do you have a link?

Also, end game of franchises is that McDonalds still makes the money. And you can own more than one franchise. So how small is small business in your opinion? Local corner store or 4 franchises around Australia?

 

[pokerspiv]

80% of Mcds stores in Australia are franchises? I didn't know that, and I can't find that info for Australia after a quick google. Do you have a link?

80% of McDonalds stores in the world are franchises. Typically the big inner-city ones in prime locations are corporate-owned, the smaller ones are franchises. Same goes for most fast food joints.

 

[Floor Pie]

It's better to have no minimum wage and to supplement the wages of low income earners

Here's an idea: Let businesses succeed and fail on their own merit.

You're starting to confuse me here poker.
So you want to let businesses succeed and fail on their own merit. But you would support the tax payers subsidising McDonalds?

 

[pokerspiv]

It's true. If the minimum wage was lower, there is no way McDonalds would still be looking for ways to maximize profit!

It's pretty telling that your primary concern is how much profit McDonalds are making rather than what is best for poor people. Everything the left does is based on envy.

 

[pokerspiv]

You're starting to confuse me here poker.
So you want to let businesses succeed and fail on their own merit. But you would support the tax payers subsidising McDonalds?

How is topping up the wages of low income earners subsidising McDonalds? The money is not paid to McDonalds, it's paid to the individual. McDonalds would still have to compete with all other businesses to employ those people.

 

[Floor Pie]

It's pretty telling that your primary concern is how much profit McDonalds are making rather than what is best for poor people. Everything the left does is based on envy.

Hey, I'm on your original side in this thread mate! Let's cut corporate welfare!
Pretty telling how you can change your mind on something, based on your ideology.

How is topping up the wages of low income earners subsidising McDonalds? The money is not paid to McDonalds, it's paid to the individual. McDonalds would still have to compete with all other businesses to employ those people.

Right. So McDonalds currently pays minimum wage to the youngest people it can employ.
You want us to let them drop the wage even lower, and have us pay to make up the rest.

 

[pokerspiv]

Right. So McDonalds currently pays minimum wage to the youngest people it can employ.
You want us to let them drop the wage even lower, and have us pay to make up the rest.

Do you think paying a portion of the dole to part-time workers is subsidising corporations too?

 

[Floor Pie]

Do you think paying a portion of the dole to part-time workers is subsidising corporations too?

Down the rabbit hole we go...

People on austudy and newstart are paid a certain amount per fortnight. They can also earn a certain amount.

If they start to earn above a set amount, their welfare payment is reduced by the same amount.


You want a system that encourages business to pay people less, and have it covered by tax.
If you think we have a problem with welfare at the moment, you will s**t yourself when you see the debt that kind of thing would rack up.

 

[pokerspiv]

Down the rabbit hole we go...

People on austudy and newstart are paid a certain amount per fortnight. They can also earn a certain amount.

If they start to earn above a set amount, their welfare payment is reduced by the same amount.


You want a system that encourages business to pay people less, and have it covered by tax.

No, I want a system exactly as you described, except more generous to the person, so they can earn more before cutting their welfare payments. And so that the loss in payments is linear, rather than being completely cut above a certain threshold (which discourages people to move from part time to full time work).

It's really not what you imagine at all.

 

[Max zero]

Aside from being in the pockets of mining companies, can anyone give me a good reason that the government is looking to scrap this? By any measure it has been a success providing investment, employment within the renewables sector as well as increasing our production of renewable energy.
Did I answer my own question in the first sentence?

Can you give some specific examples to what you talking about?