Bill Shorten - how long?

[Run n Spread]

You should come join us on this Planet...its not a bad place really

The planet were Labor shat it in 02 +06 only for a fed Lib Gov to be returned in the following years.
Or in 2010 were Labor

Way to put a negative spin on possibly the smartest single bit of political reform in years. The ragged individualists in the Coalition can only dream of having a stability-bringing party rule like that in place.

Who cares if Shorten is not Mr Charisma? He runs a tight ship, and that’s EVERYTHING right now. Voters have woken up to the fact that they’ve been distracted by a soapie for the last decade, and now they want policies and action.

Agree. And it is democratic in that the members pick the leader.

But if he couldn't beat Abbot/Hockey last time he'll never win anything. Let alone be PM.

But good for them. We don't really need Political Parties anyway. Or PMs. Not how our system is designed to work.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Just like when the Labor barrackers on here are all cool with Mr Shorten taking dividend refunds from the pockets of battlers that have bothered to invest.

I have bothered to invest but I’m f***** if I can understand why I should be rewarded for doing it. I get regular dividends, my portfolio goes up in value long-term... and you’re saying the government should PAY me for that?

 

[Run n Spread]

LNP or ALP in power, we will still be great. Being poor now is good for me to have ALP ideas being put in place but ultimately the two parties aren't that far apart.

The structures, departments and checks and balances make us great. Decentralised power makes us great. LNP and ALP???????????Serious?

 

[Taylor]

The structures, departments and checks and balances make us great. Decentralised power makes us great. LNP and ALP???????????Serious?

The two realistic possible outcomes in government.

 

[Run n Spread]

The two realistic possible outcomes in government.

True but small gov>Big Gov. I for one don't want to be governed.

 

[DaRick]

The planet were Labor shat it in 02 +06 only for a fed Lib Gov to be returned in the following years.
Or in 2010 were Labor


Agree. And it is democratic in that the members pick the leader.

But if he couldn't beat Abbot/Hockey last time he'll never win anything. Let alone be PM.

But good for them. We don't really need Political Parties anyway. Or PMs. Not how our system is designed to work.

He never faced them in an election.

 

[pazza]

Same thing will happen to this watchdog. This is like putting a bandaid on someone’s forehead to fix their amputated leg.

Royal Commission the s**t out of the system is the only way to find out where all the holes are.

Not sure an RC will actually work.

 

[JackOutback]

I'm not going all through all this a 3rd time with you, plus (and sorry if I'm wrong) you were the poster that once made the quite ridiculous assertion that low income people don't invest in the market so...

Don’t recall that, however low income earners generally don’t invest in the market (outside of super). Having been low income, I don’t recall my mum choosing those Telstra shares over whether we ate that week. So unless you’re redefining low income to just one big screen TV, one tablet and only one trip to Bali each year...

 

[Kram]

Don’t recall that, however low income earners generally don’t invest in the market (outside of super). Having been low income, I don’t recall my mum choosing those Telstra shares over whether we ate that week. So unless you’re redefining low income to just one big screen TV, one tablet and only one trip to Bali each year...

Nah the old man was mainly just a poorly paid shearer and he was always buying them, as was his mate he worked with for years. Also worked with a couple of apprentices that started buying albeit likely in tiny quantities. Just because someone isn't earning a heap of money doesn't automatically mean they are only worthy of 'investing' any of their money down at the TAB..

Again I think I'm repeating myself with you here as well.

 

[RupieDupie]

Not sure an RC will actually work.

Depends on the goal.

From an Australian citizen perspective;
A) In the way that everyone would want it to work, a Royal Commission will not work.
B) But the way that will help them the most and give them value, a Royal Commission will work. The truth will set people free.

From the Gubmint’s perspective;
C) A Gubmint would want a watchdog because it is a tokenistic gesture that they can use to pretend they are doing the right thing. Ergo, our watchdogs haven’t pulled us up on anything, therefore we are doing the right thing.
D) The Gubmint does not want a Royal Commission into their corruption. Therefore a Royal Commission has the intended effect (because they really really really do not want a Royal Commission).

A watchdog will make people appear like they have achieved A) without actually doing so C).

A Royal Commission achieves B) and D).

 

[RupieDupie]

Depends on the goal.

From an Australian citizen perspective;
A) In the way that everyone would want it to work, a Royal Commission will not work.
B) But the way that will help them the most and give them value, a Royal Commission will work. The truth will set people free.

From the Gubmint’s perspective;
C) A Gubmint would want a watchdog because it is a tokenistic gesture that they can use to pretend they are doing the right thing. Ergo, our watchdogs haven’t pulled us up on anything, therefore we are doing the right thing.
D) The Gubmint does not want a Royal Commission into their corruption. Therefore a Royal Commission has the intended effect (because they really really really do not want a Royal Commission).

A watchdog will make people appear like they have achieved A) without actually doing so C).

A Royal Commission achieves B) and D).

Furthermore, shortly after I came on this site, I had an interesting discussion with another poster, who had read pretty much every history book ever written, and had more than a cursory understanding of micro- and macro- economics.

And he took me aside and told me that the banks did this because of that, and that because of this, conditional on that, before he gave me the links to 15 peer-reviewed journal articles, and then drew a graph with an inflection point, probably based on time series analysis. And concluded his post by stating that I needed to be more nuanced in my understanding of the financial sector.

But, as some posters on here can attest, I gave my usual coarse and undiplomatic response, where I changed the spelling of money from m-o-n-e-y to m-u-n-n-y and then told him that the banks are all just a pack of greedy assholes, then I probably quoted myself a few times (like I’m doing now - I don’t even know who I’m talking to). And probably left this other poster quite bemused and confused.

If any rational observer came upon this conversation, back then, they would have most likely awarded the argument to the other poster and congratulated him on his fine and well referenced argument.

But now that we’ve had the Royal Commission into the banking sector and it turns out that bankers are just a pack of greedy assholes. Their behaviour was as nuanced and refined as a morbidly obese person stuffing their face with an 80kg lemon meringue pie. There was as much grandiose economic ideology in their financial dealings as two chimpanzees flinging s**t at each other.

But if, instead of having a Royal Commission into the banking sector, we created another more powerful federally and Interpol backed watchdog, this watchdog will be right now doing one of two things;
a) nothing
b) complaining to the media, with fake crocodile tears and with false outrage, how bad the banks are behaving, and if they had more power what they would be doing to them

And me and the other guy would still be wondering whether the banks are only behaving according to subtle Keynesian fluctuations in a bear market or are just a pack of jerks.

But instead, this poster, who I haven’t seen on here for a while, is probably on the path. They’re probably halfway up The Impossible Mountain by now, on the road to Nirvana.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

tbh I can see the some of the logic in cutting it, it costs a fortune but don't like the myth that only 'rich' people will be affected and that people on the lower end of society don't invest in the market.

You do understand the history of dividend imputation don’t you? I’m not convinced you’re abreast of it.

Dividend imputation was introduced because it was recognised that a listed company is nothing but its shareholders. So, if the company has paid its taxes (not always guaranteed, as we’ve seen, but for argument’s sake), it’s hardly fair that those shareholders should then pay tax too.

So that unfair anomaly was set right. Fully franked dividends, as such earnings were called, were deemed tax-free.

But then Howard/Costello, proving yet again they weren’t half the responsible economic managers they wanted us to believe, decided in a blatant attempt to win the vote of the well-heeled retiree, that fully franked dividends should actually earn a tax REFUND. There is NO economic justification whatsoever for such a move. It was vote-buying, nothing more. And Labor is proposing to return it to the sensible arrangement that existed from the mid 80s until Howard and Costello went silly.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[Kram]

You do understand the history of dividend imputation don’t you? I’m not convinced you’re abreast of it.

Dividend imputation was introduced because it was recognised that a listed company is nothing but its shareholders. So, if the company has paid its taxes (not always guaranteed, as we’ve seen, but for argument’s sake), it’s hardly fair that those shareholders should then pay tax too.

So that unfair anomaly was set right. Fully franked dividends, as such earnings were called, were deemed tax-free.

But then Howard/Costello, proving yet again they weren’t half the responsible economic managers they wanted us to believe, decided in a blatant attempt to win the vote of the well-held retiree, that fully franked dividends should actually earn a tax REFUND. There is NO economic justification whatsoever for such a move. It was vote-buying, nothing more. And Labor is proposing to return it to the sensible arrangement that existed from the mid 80s until Howard and Costello went silly. Here endeth the lesson.

Yes I do understand.

Yes a Liberal government brought the highlighted in but you do also realise that Labor also supported this move at the time?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yes I do understand.

Yes a Liberal government brought the highlighted in but you do also realise that Labor also supported this move at the time?

No, I wasn’t aware of that. The Libs must have successfully wedged them on it, because you’d have to say, paying people money for owning shares that pay dividends is hardly text-book Labor policy.

I guess the moral of the story is that one party is capable of admitting its past error and willing to rectify it, and the other goes into hysterical overdrive about raiding pensioners’ savings.

 

[its free real estate]

Given Shorten is a renowned pants man, I too ask this question.

 

[Father Jack]

No, I wasn’t aware of that. The Libs must have successfully wedged them on it, because you’d have to say, paying people money for owning shares that pay dividends is hardly text-book Labor policy.

I guess the moral of the story is that one party is capable of admitting its past error and willing to rectify it, and the other goes into hysterical overdrive about raiding pensioners’ savings.

It's really weird to consider that the party of government is the one doing all the opposing of the policies of the party of opposition without muc bothering with policies of their own

 

[Run n Spread]

The planet were Labor shat it in 99 +02 only for a fed Lib Gov to be returned in the following years.
Or in 2010 were Labor


Agree. And it is democratic in that the members pick the leader.

But if he couldn't beat Abbot/Hockey last time he'll never win anything. Let alone be PM.

But good for them. We don't really need Political Parties anyway. Or PMs. Not how our system is designed to work.

 

[GreyCrow]

Given Shorten is a renowned pants man, I too ask this question.

I have a hard time believing this but then I look at all the ugly rock and roll stars shagging models

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It's really weird to consider that the party of government is the one doing all the opposing of the policies of the party of opposition without muc bothering with policies of their own

Yes. Welcome to Absurdistan.

I guess it’s what you get when a government realises the wheel has totally fallen off and they have no chance whatsoever of holding on to power.

 

[Maggie5]

Given Shorten is a renowned pants man, I too ask this question.

More information? I didn't know this.

 

[RupieDupie]

Bill is getting a bit suspicious that Morrison magically needs to skip work (even though he doesn’t want kids to skip school) or be elsewhere so he cannot be grilled or held accountable. Segue.

Yet Bill could call for a Royal Commission to open up and put to scrutiny exactly what has been happening with the people who are being paid to “govern” this “democratic” country. Put it in the spotlight.

Because to be fair and totally honest, we are witnessing exactly what happens when watchdogs are supposed to be governing/policing an industry (the financial sector), and they have been proven beyond doubt to not work. So Bill’s suggestion of creating a federal watchdog due to the levels of corruption witnessed by the public and right under the noses of the current watchdog doesn’t even make any sense, and can even be read somewhat suspiciously...

If watchdogs had any competency at all there would be four big banks without financial licenses, but instead the watchdogs are making the big four banks victims pay for their crimes.

Bill should do the smart and honourable thing and call for a Royal Commission, even for the selfish reason that “what” plagued Rudd and Turnbull can still plague him. On the other hand if watchdogs want to be proven to be effective and relevant in a modern democratic society, now more than ever, is the time to prove it. Four big banks sans financial licenses would be proof.

 

[RupieDupie]

Yes. Welcome to Absurdistan.

I guess it’s what you get when a government realises the wheel has totally fallen off and they have no chance whatsoever of holding on to power.

They’re already acting their part, seems like they’ve admitted defeat... except for Morrison, which isn’t surprising that a person who belongs to a deluded cult will not be able to face reality.

He should just call an election, why is he wasting everyone’s time and taxpayer money? The corrupt Liberal Party cannot even self govern yet alone govern a country.

 

[RupieDupie]

Bill is getting a bit suspicious that Morrison magically needs to skip work (even though he doesn’t want kids to skip school) or be elsewhere so he cannot be grilled or held accountable. Segue.

Yet Bill could call for a Royal Commission to open up and put to scrutiny exactly what has been happening with the people who are being paid to “govern” this “democratic” country. Put it in the spotlight.

Because to be fair and totally honest, we are witnessing exactly what happens when watchdogs are supposed to be governing/policing an industry (the financial sector), and they have been proven beyond doubt to not work. So Bill’s suggestion of creating a federal watchdog due to the levels of corruption witnessed by the public and right under the noses of the current watchdog doesn’t even make any sense, and can even be read somewhat suspiciously...

If watchdogs had any competency at all there would be four big banks without financial licenses, but instead the watchdogs are making the big four banks victims pay for their crimes.

Bill should do the smart and honourable thing and call for a Royal Commission, even for the selfish reason that “what” plagued Rudd and Turnbull can still plague him. On the other hand if watchdogs want to be proven to be effective and relevant in a modern democratic society, now more than ever, is the time to prove it. Four big banks sans financial licenses would be proof.

Furthermore, some people will read “Four big banks sans financial licenses would be proof” and will instantly think ‘but what about the economy?’ Or ‘this will only make things worse’ or some other pleb argument, but in doing so prove exactly my point.

A watchdog will never be big enough to take on, or have powers to nullify the big banks, because they are too big to fail, let alone the government. The sham should stop, and Bill should consider a Royal Commission.

 

[Kram]

Did laugh the other day when they asked the NAB boss about how they are going to improved banking ethics or something and he just sat there like a stunned mullet for a few seconds before thinking of some BS.

 

[Pessimistic]

You do understand the history of dividend imputation don’t you? I’m not convinced you’re abreast of it.

Dividend imputation was introduced because it was recognised that a listed company is nothing but its shareholders. So, if the company has paid its taxes (not always guaranteed, as we’ve seen, but for argument’s sake), it’s hardly fair that those shareholders should then pay tax too.

So that unfair anomaly was set right. Fully franked dividends, as such earnings were called, were deemed tax-free.

But then Howard/Costello, proving yet again they weren’t half the responsible economic managers they wanted us to believe, decided in a blatant attempt to win the vote of the well-heeled retiree, that fully franked dividends should actually earn a tax REFUND. There is NO economic justification whatsoever for such a move. It was vote-buying, nothing more. And Labor is proposing to return it to the sensible arrangement that existed from the mid 80s until Howard and Costello went silly.

Here endeth the lesson.

It’s taxpayers money Jan. shouldn’t be just given away