- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Posts
- 17,805
- Reaction score
- 3,527
- Location
- Party time all the time
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Just what we need: more hard line religious types in politics
Dan Sullivan = ____ing joke
- Thread starter Dont be a lemon
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Just what we need: more hard line religious types in politics
Just what we need: more hard line religious types in politics
Far less idiotic than the balatrons hamming it up in the Greens.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2006
- Posts
- 17,805
- Reaction score
- 3,527
- Location
- Party time all the time
- AFL Club
- Essendon
If you keep telling yourself that eventually you'll believe it 
If you keep telling yourself that eventually you'll believe it
I dont need to tell myself the Greens are very open with their muppetry
And to think you want to compare that to:
"WA Family First-dot-com will campaign to repeal the government's new prostitution legislation, stop trading hours being deregulated, introduce tougher sentences for serious crimes and allow drug sniffer dogs into WA schools and nightclubs"
http://greens.org.au/about/policy/policy.php?policy_id=47
Measures
The Australian Greens will:
Taxation
reduce inequities in the current personal income tax system by:
reducing tax breaks for high income earners;.
removing Fringe Benefits Tax concessions which promote increased use of motor vehicles;
removing the concessional arrangements for Capital Gains Tax;
only allowing losses from an investment to be offset against income from the same investment;.
abolishing the 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate in order to increase funding for public hospitals;
taxing family trusts in the same way as companies; and,
eliminating high rates of effective marginal taxation for those on welfare benefits.
conduct an inquiry with a view to implementing changes to the tax system that address the negative impacts of the GST on:
income distribution
environmental sustainability
and business administration costs
oppose any increase or extension to the GST.
implement a gradual and long term shift in the tax system from work-based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution including:
a carbon tax levied on generators of mains-supplied electricity or gas;
a national carbon trading scheme; and.
other ecological taxes and charges at a level sufficient so that their prices reflect the full environmental cost of their production, use or disposal.
introduce a system of minimum personal and corporate tax legislation to reduce the opportunities for individuals and companies to use loopholes to minimise their tax obligations.
re-introduce an inheritance tax with full exemption for the family farm and exemption for the family home and other assets up to a total value of $2 million .
conduct a full review of the superannuation system with the aim of reducing its complexity and establishing progressive rates of superannuation taxation.
return the company tax rate to 33% and broaden the company tax base by reducing tax concessions.
end subsidies and tax concessions to environmentally harmful industries.
Economic governance and industry development
implement triple bottom line accounting measures at all levels of government to incorporate social, environmental and financial impacts into policy development and assessment.
introduce broad measures of genuine national progress to supplement the current measures of GDP, including the production of a comprehensive national balance sheet that reflects this.
require all listed companies to report on standardised social and environmental indicators in their annual reports.
provide the ACCC with enhanced powers to prevent the formation of monopolies through ‘creeping acquisitions’ and to divest monopolies and oligopolies of assets if they are abusing their market power.
direct industry assistance towards the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries.
require major proposals to be subject to climate change impact assessment with the aim of reducing greenhouse gases.
Investment and overseas relations
strengthen the regulatory framework for banks and financial institutions to ensure that consumers and investors are better protected.
ensure that natural monopolies and other essential public services are under public ownership.
reduce Australia’s foreign debt and foreign ownership through use of trade, financial and regulatory measures to ensure more productive use of foreign capital and strengthening of Australian manufacturing, recognising the need to support economies in developing countries.
require the Foreign Investment Review Board to broaden its assessment of the national interest to explicitly include Australia’s long run energy security.
revoke sections of the National Competition Policy that seek to impose market values in public, social and environmental areas of Australian life.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Posts
- 30,967
- Reaction score
- 18,548
- Location
- Perth
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Royals & Subi
I agree with some things that the Greens say. Ill never agree with these idiots.
how can banging on about shop hours and gay marriage be worse than the economic vandalism the greens preach?
annoying GBs vs permanent recession
Its not a tough choice.
they want to do far more than that ie increase taxes and reduce deductions = huge tax rise.
They would be far more irresponsible than Gough
Even if one were to embrace a centre left democratic socialism ideal the Greens arent the ones to carry it out.
They are out and out lunatics, however they can afford to be because they will never get in power and their supporters are economically illiterate.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2002
- Posts
- 16,124
- Reaction score
- 22
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
You are caricaturing the Greens. In some respects they're actually more bold and sensible than the major parties, since they don't have to pander to certain voting groups.
Here's how John Quiggin sees it:
http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/news/2004-07-29-AFR.htm
The Greens economic policy is one of the most coherent and intellectually-defensible documents of its kind ever put forward by an Australian political party (at the opposite end of the political spectrum, the 1992 Fightback! program was similarly coherent and substantially more detailed). At the level of broad principles, it begins with the recognition that economic policy must be financially, as well as environmentally and socially, sustainable.
Far from seeking cheap popularity by arguing for both tax cuts and increased public expenditure, the Greens have insisted that new public expenditure must be financed by higher taxes. In addition, they observe that public sector debt should be matched by adequate capacity to service debt, and that dubious financial expedients like the use of privatisation to reduce measured debt should be avoided. There is even a commitment to a consistent application of accrual accounting, something that the major parties have promised, but not delivered.
As the example of Fightback! shows, the fact that a policy is coherent and well-argued does not mean that it will commend itself to everyone. In fact, precisely because the Greens have ducked the usual soft options and evasive formulas, it is easier to find points on which to disagree.
Supporters of market-oriented policies and unfettered competition will reject the policy outright. It is a traditional social-democratic policy, based on values of equality and community, of the kind that Labor might have put forward before it became more concerned about aspirational swinging voters than about its core supporters.
On the other hand, radical Green supporters will be disappointed to find that there’s no hint the view that growth in the production and consumption of goods and services is undesirable in itself, a view put forward most recently by Clive Hamilton in Growth Fetish. The stated objective of the Greens policy is ‘to maintain and enhance the collective net wealth of the nation, including non-monetary economic and social assets’, which implies support for economic growth, correctly measured to take account of environmental and social assets.
My own main point of criticism relates to the policy on foreign investment, which is couched largely in terms of old-fashioned economic nationalism. What is needed here is a more sophisticated analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of global capital markets, to back up the case for policies such as a Tobin tax.
In most electorates, a vote for the Greens will have purely symbolic significance, and it will be the allocation of second preferences between Liberal and Labor candidates that really counts. Moreover, it is doubtful that many Green voters will be motivated primarily by concerns about economic policy. Nevertheless, anyone who decides to vote for the Greens on the strength of their support for the environment and opposition to war should be encouraged to know that they are also choosing a party with a policy that is economically as well as socially responsible. If only the major parties could claim as much.
John Quiggin is an ARC Federation Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland.
Here's how John Quiggin sees it:
http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/news/2004-07-29-AFR.htm
The Greens economic policy is one of the most coherent and intellectually-defensible documents of its kind ever put forward by an Australian political party (at the opposite end of the political spectrum, the 1992 Fightback! program was similarly coherent and substantially more detailed). At the level of broad principles, it begins with the recognition that economic policy must be financially, as well as environmentally and socially, sustainable.
Far from seeking cheap popularity by arguing for both tax cuts and increased public expenditure, the Greens have insisted that new public expenditure must be financed by higher taxes. In addition, they observe that public sector debt should be matched by adequate capacity to service debt, and that dubious financial expedients like the use of privatisation to reduce measured debt should be avoided. There is even a commitment to a consistent application of accrual accounting, something that the major parties have promised, but not delivered.
As the example of Fightback! shows, the fact that a policy is coherent and well-argued does not mean that it will commend itself to everyone. In fact, precisely because the Greens have ducked the usual soft options and evasive formulas, it is easier to find points on which to disagree.
Supporters of market-oriented policies and unfettered competition will reject the policy outright. It is a traditional social-democratic policy, based on values of equality and community, of the kind that Labor might have put forward before it became more concerned about aspirational swinging voters than about its core supporters.
On the other hand, radical Green supporters will be disappointed to find that there’s no hint the view that growth in the production and consumption of goods and services is undesirable in itself, a view put forward most recently by Clive Hamilton in Growth Fetish. The stated objective of the Greens policy is ‘to maintain and enhance the collective net wealth of the nation, including non-monetary economic and social assets’, which implies support for economic growth, correctly measured to take account of environmental and social assets.
My own main point of criticism relates to the policy on foreign investment, which is couched largely in terms of old-fashioned economic nationalism. What is needed here is a more sophisticated analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of global capital markets, to back up the case for policies such as a Tobin tax.
In most electorates, a vote for the Greens will have purely symbolic significance, and it will be the allocation of second preferences between Liberal and Labor candidates that really counts. Moreover, it is doubtful that many Green voters will be motivated primarily by concerns about economic policy. Nevertheless, anyone who decides to vote for the Greens on the strength of their support for the environment and opposition to war should be encouraged to know that they are also choosing a party with a policy that is economically as well as socially responsible. If only the major parties could claim as much.
John Quiggin is an ARC Federation Fellow in Economics and Political Science at the University of Queensland.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2003
- Posts
- 12,843
- Reaction score
- 11,626
- Location
- Bunvegas
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- WA, Australia
Wheeling out all the One Nation alumni is an interesting step to take. The outer suburbs of Perth are rich crackpot central at the moment, and if the west decides to run interference for Sullivan they'll probably have a fairly easy run in the media as well.
My bet would be Murray-Wellington or Bunbury. Big law and order problems in Mandurah and Bunbury where this sort of juvenile rubbish is liklely to play. Bunbury especially.
My bet would be Murray-Wellington or Bunbury. Big law and order problems in Mandurah and Bunbury where this sort of juvenile rubbish is liklely to play. Bunbury especially.
Quiggin and Kenneth Davidson are probably the two most left wing guys you can find on economics in Australia.
When someone calls privatisation a dubious financial expedient you know they are miles away from anything approaching mainstream thought.
The Greens policies would see a massive decline in investment in Australia, not to mention a bit cut in eco growth as consumption falls on higher taxes. Utter disaster.
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2006
- Posts
- 30,967
- Reaction score
- 18,548
- Location
- Perth
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Royals & Subi
Been ready Policy again? Privatization has a dubious financial credentials in many service areas. To suggest otherwise is insane. Ideological popularism is not something to approach with pride.
Irrespective of that their policies to 'tackle' climate change would certainly be enough to destroy the Australian economy, even if the rest of their socialist nonsense wouldn't.
Family First is no better, don't get me wrong, but to suggest that the Greens have any credibility as anything besides a political spoiler is fairly silly.
Family First is no better, don't get me wrong, but to suggest that the Greens have any credibility as anything besides a political spoiler is fairly silly.
Been ready Policy again? Privatization has a dubious financial credentials in many service areas. To suggest otherwise is insane. Ideological popularism is not something to approach with pride.
Utter nonsense. Arguing that the state should own businesses that the private sector can run is the extremist ideology, regardless than in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases one can think of the private sector does it far better.
Take the privatisastion proceeds, reduce taxes, receive increased corp taxes and taxpayers come way out in front.
You love that word "utter" a lot.
As a minor party Greens are preferable to Family First. To become a major party they would have to moderate their more economically left ideals. For Family First to become a major party they would have to create policy that isn't about imposing Sunday School morals. Don't know if they could do that, just like One Nation struggled to be a party for anything other than "No Darkies".
As a minor party Greens are preferable to Family First. To become a major party they would have to moderate their more economically left ideals. For Family First to become a major party they would have to create policy that isn't about imposing Sunday School morals. Don't know if they could do that, just like One Nation struggled to be a party for anything other than "No Darkies".
