What can we expect from the new Shorten government

[Maggie5]

This cartoon is ironic yeah? The left are pretty good at the me me me thing.

 

[Taylor]

Easiest way in the world to become one of Sloppy Joe's mythical leaners, non net taxpayers is breed. Unprotected sex sees you showered with all kinds of benefits.

That's true.

The average taxpayer should really sit just above our average income, not the top ten percent paying 50% of tax. That stat is an artifact of our middle incomes not paying enough tax in comparison to the higher, or the higher paying too much in comparison to the middle who aren't paying any net tax.

Ideally we would lift services, raise taxes on the middle and everyone has a better lifestyle.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Se

"Labor has slammed the use of tax rules on property and share dividends to offer "welfare for the wealthy" in a sign it will not back down on plans to raise more than $80 billion despite the Morrison government's escalating attacks on the proposed changes. "

Its almost impossible to think of a bigger moron and less appropriate person to be treasurer than Wayne "connect 4 is beyond me" Swan

Until now.

Unbelievable.

"reform" - seriously start following Footscray, Hawthorn isnt for you.

Seriously?

International economists with no skin in the Australian game say his response to the GFC was pitch perfect.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the...-growth-won-t-fix-itself-20190203-p50vcx.html

Wages stagnation is probably the single biggest economic issue facing Australia right now.

You can tell people that they’re getting richer, as the Libs keep doing, but people know they haven’t had a decent wage rise in years, and after a while the penny drops that the Libs have been talking horseshit.

Labor’s response may not be sufficient by itself, but they're sure as shit at least going to tackle the issue.

 

[Father Jack]

Se
Seriously?

International economists with no skin in the Australian game say his response to the GFC was pitch perfect.

When the facts don't fit your theory, you have to change your facts.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Oh and:

<<<New Zealand to upgrade fibre in Auckland and Wellington to 10Gbps

If you wanted another reason to move to New Zealand and burn your Australian passport, they will start rolling out 10Gbps internet to "residential and small and medium-sized businesses with fibre connections in Auckland and Wellington" in March. The chief customer officer of Chorus (kinda like their Telstra, but less bloated) said that this "reinforces the ability to easily upgrade the world-class fibre infrastructure we have been building as the latest technologies become available... when Chorus' fibre plans first launched in 2012, the top speed then available was 100Mbps. We were then the first to make gigabit fibre broadband available in 2014, and today this is the fastest-growing plan on our network with more than 44,000 customers". To further rub salt in our NBN wound, "Chorus in November announced that it would be bringing down its wholesale pricing for residential gigabit services from NZ$65 to NZ$60 by mid-2019, and then down to NZ$56 in mid-2020". 100/40 NBN is $65/month, which is ~NZ$68 and there's no price decreases on the horizon.>>>

Stoopid fibre


Just change the ends and you have the next generation

As opposed to spending tens of billions on each generation....

Do you even read your own links? When you say 'start rolling out' it's a trial involving 30 residential customers.

You also probably missed that Chorus is working with Nokia on upgrading its copper broadband implementing VSDL2 vectoring technology to enable speeds of up to 130Mbps. Something that Labor's NBN plan prohibited because of their impractical and uncosted commitment to fibre to every property.

 

[kranky al]

Do you even read your own links? When you say 'start rolling out' it's a trial involving 30 residential customers.

You also probably missed that Chorus is working with Nokia on upgrading its copper broadband implementing VSDL2 vectoring technology to enable speeds of up to 130Mbps. Something that Labor's NBN plan prohibited because of their impractical and uncosted commitment to fibre to every property.

Its the fact that they can do it - because its end to end fibre

Every upgrade to fibre is a matter of changing the equipment at each end.

As for 130Mbps - so fkxn what - i get 100 now off fibre - the technology exists now to upgrade australias fttp to nokias NG-PON2 tech which will allow 10 gigabits per second and you are jerking off over 130 meg.

The existing cabling in the ground is waterlogged and in most suburbs almost dead.

Thats why they say UP to 130.

The existing cabling copper cabling to most peoples house is untwisted single or at best - 2 pair line.

To give you a better idea of how limp that is - cat 6 is 4 pairs of cables - 8 vs 2 - twisted in lairs and then the pairs are twisted around each other to stop alien crosstalk. certified to 1 gig per second at runs 90 metres or under. This is dependent on the terminations being perfect with twist rates being maintained right up to the point of termination - you cant even cable tie cat 6 as pinch points cause crosstalk which slows speeds down.

You blathering on about using corroded old soaked copper pair tech with the “amazing capacity of up to 130Mbs is indicative of how piss poor you - and the party you so blindly support just dont get communications.

130Mbs is a STARTING POINT - not a finishing point - and by worldwide standards its not even a good one.

1 gigabit per second is what we should be looking at by 2020 - 10 gigabits by 2025.

*shakes head.

 

[Kram]

Its the fact that they can do it - because its end to end fibre

Every upgrade to fibre is a matter of changing the equipment at each end.

As for 130Mbps - so fkxn what - i get 100 now off fibre - the technology exists now to upgrade australias fttp to nokias NG-PON2 tech which will allow 10 gigabits per second and you are jerking off over 130 meg.

The existing cabling in the ground is waterlogged and in most suburbs almost dead.

Thats why they say UP to 130.

The existing cabling copper cabling to most peoples house is untwisted single or at best - 2 pair line.

To give you a better idea of how limp that is - cat 6 is 4 pairs of cables - 8 vs 2 - twisted in lairs and then the pairs are twisted around each other to stop alien crosstalk. certified to 1 gig per second at runs 90 metres or under. This is dependent on the terminations being perfect with twist rates being maintained right up to the point of termination - you cant even cable tie cat 6 as pinch points cause crosstalk which slows speeds down.

You blathering on about using corroded old soaked copper pair tech with the “amazing capacity of up to 130Mbs is indicative of how piss poor you - and the party you so blindly support just dont get communications.

130Mbs is a STARTING POINT - not a finishing point - and by worldwide standards its not even a good one.

1 gigabit per second is what we should be looking at by 2020 - 10 gigabits by 2025.

*shakes head.

 

[Benny78]

That's true.

The average taxpayer should really sit just above our average income, not the top ten percent paying 50% of tax. That stat is an artifact of our middle incomes not paying enough tax in comparison to the higher, or the higher paying too much in comparison to the middle who aren't paying any net tax.

Ideally we would lift services, raise taxes on the middle and everyone has a better lifestyle.

The problem with that logic is if one person owned everything in the world he would complain about being the only person in the world paying tax. The more tax an individual pays symbolizes how far above their game they really are as an individual, and how many other people they use and need to make their wealth for them. Whoever is better at exploiting these people gets more rich. It should trickle down to these people more but doesn't. Clear problem and therefore the top 10% should probably pay more than 50% tax along with higher wages.

 

[kranky al]

The problem with that logic is if one person owned everything in the world he would complain about being the only person in the world paying tax. The more tax an individual pays symbolizes how far above their game they really are as an individual, and how many other people they use and need to make their wealth for them. Whoever is better at exploiting these people gets more rich. It should trickle down to these people more but doesn't. Clear problem and therefore the top 10% should probably pay more than 50% tax along with higher wages.

This breaks down the fallacy so well.

 

[kranky al]

 

[QuietB]

When you realise that the money spent by the federal government on health and education is entirely buying votes you'll be a bit more cynical about it.

They are literally using children and the ill to get into power.

..and the reason I'm so keen to get into ALP government is because they will give me heaps of stuff because I'm poor. I just think it's irresponsible.

No. Irresponsible is giving rich people heaps of stuff

 

[Frank Bunn]

Its the fact that they can do it - because its end to end fibre

Every upgrade to fibre is a matter of changing the equipment at each end.

As for 130Mbps - so fkxn what - i get 100 now off fibre - the technology exists now to upgrade australias fttp to nokias NG-PON2 tech which will allow 10 gigabits per second and you are jerking off over 130 meg.

The existing cabling in the ground is waterlogged and in most suburbs almost dead.

Thats why they say UP to 130.

The existing cabling copper cabling to most peoples house is untwisted single or at best - 2 pair line.

To give you a better idea of how limp that is - cat 6 is 4 pairs of cables - 8 vs 2 - twisted in lairs and then the pairs are twisted around each other to stop alien crosstalk. certified to 1 gig per second at runs 90 metres or under. This is dependent on the terminations being perfect with twist rates being maintained right up to the point of termination - you cant even cable tie cat 6 as pinch points cause crosstalk which slows speeds down.

You blathering on about using corroded old soaked copper pair tech with the “amazing capacity of up to 130Mbs is indicative of how piss poor you - and the party you so blindly support just dont get communications.

130Mbs is a STARTING POINT - not a finishing point - and by worldwide standards its not even a good one.

1 gigabit per second is what we should be looking at by 2020 - 10 gigabits by 2025.

*shakes head.

Yet again, no acknowledge that what you posted was misleading. If your argument was sound you wouldn't need to post this shit. 'start rolling out' is a world away from the reality of a trial involving 30 residential customers.

And strangely no mention of the content in the link you posted where fast broadband in New Zealand is being achieved by VSDL2 vectoring technology. Something that Labor's NBN plan prohibited because of their impractical and uncosted commitment to fibre to every property.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Oh and:

<<<New Zealand to upgrade fibre in Auckland and Wellington to 10Gbps

If you wanted another reason to move to New Zealand and burn your Australian passport, they will start rolling out 10Gbps internet to "residential and small and medium-sized businesses with fibre connections in Auckland and Wellington" in March. The chief customer officer of Chorus (kinda like their Telstra, but less bloated) said that this "reinforces the ability to easily upgrade the world-class fibre infrastructure we have been building as the latest technologies become available... when Chorus' fibre plans first launched in 2012, the top speed then available was 100Mbps. We were then the first to make gigabit fibre broadband available in 2014, and today this is the fastest-growing plan on our network with more than 44,000 customers". To further rub salt in our NBN wound, "Chorus in November announced that it would be bringing down its wholesale pricing for residential gigabit services from NZ$65 to NZ$60 by mid-2019, and then down to NZ$56 in mid-2020". 100/40 NBN is $65/month, which is ~NZ$68 and there's no price decreases on the horizon.>>>

Stoopid fibre


Just change the ends and you have the next generation

As opposed to spending tens of billions on each generation....

The key message here is that NZ went through an established contractor knew what it took to build a network. Australia gave the responsibility to a bunch of ******s which call themselves "NBN Co", who ****ed up by building a system that cost far more than what it should and are now attempting to protect their promised margin by charging telcos a fortune for bandwidth.

Hopefully a royal commission is launched into this **** up too and the NBN Co execs are marched into the sea.

 

[kranky al]

Yet again, no acknowledge that what you posted was misleading. If your argument was sound you wouldn't need to post this shit. 'start rolling out' is a world away from the reality of a trial involving 30 residential customers.

And strangely no mention of the content in the link you posted where fast broadband in New Zealand is being achieved by VSDL2 vectoring technology. Something that Labor's NBN plan prohibited because of their impractical and uncosted commitment to fibre to every property.

Wait what?

You plonker - vsdl2 vectoring is a STOPGAP technology designed to get reasonable speeds to customers where fibre has not yet been rolled out. Nz is planning on rolling out fibre to the vast majority of its premesis by 2022. 1 gigabit per second fibre.

Nz’s stopgap is better than the coalitions final product.

Nz’s final product is somewhere between 10 and 50 times faster than the coalitions final product.

You just quickly google shit - skim read it, completely misunderstand it and then post here so you can look even more out of your depth with each successive post


Hahaha - stop hitting yourself

 

[Taylor]

The problem with that logic is if one person owned everything in the world he would complain about being the only person in the world paying tax. The more tax an individual pays symbolizes how far above their game they really are as an individual, and how many other people they use and need to make their wealth for them. Whoever is better at exploiting these people gets more rich. It should trickle down to these people more but doesn't. Clear problem and therefore the top 10% should probably pay more than 50% tax along with higher wages.

How do you think a nation with a heavy welfare bill will survive a downturn if the middle class are tax negative or neutral?

All I am saying is if our highest tax rate kicked in around our average income then we could have a lot more money to spend on social programs.

 

[kranky al]

The key message here is that NZ went through an established contractor knew what it took to build a network. Australia gave the responsibility to a bunch of ******s which call themselves "NBN Co", who ****** up by building a system that cost far more than what it should and are now attempting to protect their promised margin by charging telcos a fortune for bandwidth.

Hopefully a royal commission is launched into this **** up too and the NBN Co execs are marched into the sea.

The way labor set nbn co up was terrible.

My company was a subcontractor for a lot of the work in geraldton and ive never seen a more top heavy inefficient fxxx up of an organisation in my entire life.

You had

Nbn
service provider (telstra iinet etc)
Ericsson (nok)
Techlife/ bsa etc (parasite companies)
Subcontractors

Each with its own layer of bureaucracy and management - each can only talk to the level above or below.

So subcontractor sends email - cant do job y on fri because x - can i reschedule for mon

By the time thats filtered up the chain it is friggin monday.

I honestly hoped the liberals would have put a businessman (like malcolm) in charge and removed one or more layers of fat.

I envisaged a two tiered system like medicare vs private health.

Ie - everyone in suburbia gets fttp.

You can either wait and get it for free off the government - the government version is cheap and minimal - back to back install - ie where the fibre enters the house - on the other side of the wall goes the indoor unit ntd.

If you want it in another room you negotiate with the installation company at their rates (or you can get another company to quote it if their rates dont suit). This would have kept install costs to a minimum to the government.

The installation companies have to be certified nbn installers. They have to complete x amount of government installs per month to retain certification. Instead of the ridiculous levels of photo compliance and paperwork have a very simple system with random inspections with compulsory remediation works - too many poor installs and you lose certification and thus access to lucrative private work.

Then anyone with the money is able to contact an installation company directly and let the free market do its thing on that side. If you pay - you jump the queue - if you want the government install you wait your turn. Companies can compete on quality/ price / service as they see fit.

I reckon theres a healthy percentage of people who would pay to jump the queue - saving the government an absolute fuxxxtonne.


That was what i was hoping for from turnbull - changing nbn co from something top heavy and cumbersome dreamed up by lawyers whod never run so much as a chook raffle in their lives - to a market solution that still took care of those without the means to do so themselves.

Instead we got a 3rd rate solution that will require a huge amount of the work to be redone.

 

[kranky al]

Something that Labor's NBN plan prohibited because of their impractical and uncosted commitment to fibre to every property.

So impractical that almost every western nation is either doing it or has done it.

And the countries that have already gone down the fttn path said - before we had laid the first bit of fibre - that they regretted going down the fttn path as it was obsolete by the time they had finished and it was going to cost so much more than doing it right the first time

<<<news One of the UK’s foremost telecommunications experts, a former chief technology officer of British telco BT, has publicly stated that fibre to the node-style broadband is “one of the biggest mistakes humanity has made”, imposing huge bandwidth and unreliability problems on those who implement it, as the Coalition may do in Australia
The UK Parliament is currently holding an inquiry into ‘superfast’ broadband, as the nation struggles with many of the same issues which the Australian political system has in Australia over the development of the National Broadband Network initiative in this country. Fronting that enquiry in March, according to a transcript seen by Delimiter this week, was Peter Cochrane, one of the country’s most experienced telecommunications experts.>>>

Source: https://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/30/fttn-a-huge-mistake-says-ex-bt-cto/

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-economist-i-beg-to-differ#comment-125537418

What I've been banging on about.

If there is one single word in this article that isn't common bloody sense, do tell me.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-economist-i-beg-to-differ#comment-125537418

What I've been banging on about.

If there is one single word in this article that isn't common bloody sense, do tell me.

Both the author and ScoMo have points but they're at the opposite point of the spectrum. When disposable income goes down, the economy suffers. When public spending on government services goes down, the economy suffers. Where ScoMo is incorrect is his belief that all tax cuts profoundly affect disposable income which they don't, only tax cuts at the lower brackets do.

I'd explain further, but I'm finished my dump.

 

[kranky al]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...n-economist-i-beg-to-differ#comment-125537418

What I've been banging on about.

If there is one single word in this article that isn't common bloody sense, do tell me.

Great read


The other great fallacy is that tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate employment.

The single biggest thing that gets companies hiring is demand.

Demand comes from lots of people wanting to buy - not rich people reinvesting as a result of lower tax rates.

Give a minimum wage earner a pay rise in the morning - the same rich man as above will have that money in his hand by dinner - but at least its been through the economy once.

 

[Taylor]

The rich people getting tax cuts leading to employment is based around those wealthy people using their position of comfort to finance development of new production.

You can get around it if groups of people could invest $5 to $50 each to build up the millions to buy the factory to employ their mates to make the new object.

Demand itself is great for the existing suppliers, especially when the hurdle to get into being a supplier is so high as most businesses are.

There is also a theory that the most and best money is made being the first to sell a new product. Copying an existing idea doesn't get you as far and entering an already established market means you need to figure a way to provide your product cheaper than those who are already working with economies of scale.

That's where the line of thinking comes from, right or wrong, that's it.

 

[Taylor]

There are lots of products that are sold for far more than it costs to deliver and make them. Things like motorbikes, cars, mobile phones, powertools etc

There is obviously costs in development, and the reason why China steals so much intellectual property but to pump out one more unit isn't nearly as much as it's sold for.

So there is a market waiting to be seized by someone who will sell these products closer to the production cost, but they need $10,000,000 to buy the factory only to sell at a lower cost (and make less money) than their opponents.

That's the hurdle I'm talking about. Sometimes it's financial, sometimes it's regulation or red tape.

Most of the time it's too big for the average person working their job to get over even if they had an extra $50 a week after tax.

 

[Taylor]

So the recipe for employment growth is to make sure that $10,000,000 being invested in the new business is actually going to get there.

If there are avenues to make a better return on investment or a less risky investment then investors will steer clear of the employment option.

If you're going to get your 5% from shares or worse, cash in the bank, then nobody gets new jobs.

You could have negative interest rates where it costs money to keep it in an account, forcing investor money into a market but if that's perceived as short term policy then that money probably ends up in the stock market instead.

It has to be worthwhile for someone to build to employ and I do agree that you want to be selling to more people with more money to buy. It's the Gerald Ford method but that fell apart once the whole world became the market to sell in.

Your local costs became irrelevant to the overseas buyer, they want the best price so you have to make it as cheap as possible so paying your employees more to be able to buy your cars locally could make them too expensive to be sold competitively in a much larger global market.

This is why innovative new products need to be developed and that requires the spare change of billionaires investing at the ground level for percentage of a young business with a great idea and no means of bringing it to the world.

 

[medusala]

So impractical that almost every western nation is either doing it or has done it.

And the countries that have already gone down the fttn path said - before we had laid the first bit of fibre - that they regretted going down the fttn path as it was obsolete by the time they had finished and it was going to cost so much more than doing it right the first time

Non issue in the UK, works fine. BT and Virgin just want govt to line their pockets.