Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Australian Politics' started by yibbida, Oct 3, 2013.
boat people too,
they are expensive the bastards
just dont look at the multinational super companies
(Log in to remove this ad.)
Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them.
This post is totally clueless. I used to work for East Coast Lubes as a warehouse manager. This company sells Mobil lubricants. Every State and Territory has a company completely separate from Mobil that has the right to buy their lubricants from Singapore and distribute it in Australia. They all pay tax in Australia. Mobil doesn't operate in Australia, so why should they have to pay tax as well?
Probably also funding terrorism by purchasing Halal Vegemite.
Where is Treasurer Keating? He's not much older than Trump if I recall. Since Malcolm likes him so much maybe he could take Morrisons job.
******* disgusting! All those **** should be imprisoned!
A great achievement of multi cultural Australia. Our national dish can be enjoyed by all Australians.
What type of madman would take a treasury job where your task is undermined by people above you who are idealogicaly driven. Your choices are privatize everything or cut middle/lower class welfare. Not trying to just completely bag them out either but labor got spooked and threw the baby out with the bathwater when gillard government made tough choices so i doubt the man behind that would make any tough inspired reform either
Keating and Kennett
I've paid more in fines for being late on my BAS than they've paid taxes ...>FMD
Starting to cut their own "entitled" programs now.
I'm just imagining the howls from the usual voices if this had been a Gillard scheme
so 185mill for 200 families is almost 100k per family AND they had to pay a per hour cost.
Nanny pilot program slashed in mid-year budget update due to low numbers of families signing up
By Caroline Winter
Posted 52 minutes ago
RELATED STORY: Call for nanny pilot to include distance education
RELATED STORY: Turnbull's $185 million nanny program 'only helping 60 families'
RELATED STORY: Government caps places offered in nanny trial due to low demand
A national nanny pilot program aimed at helping parents juggle work and family has been slashed in the mid-year budget update, less than two years after it was introduced.
Federal Government decided to cut $170 million from the $246 million trial
Only 200 families signed up to the program, a fraction of what was expected
Subsidy set up left it more expensive for families with one or two children
Only 200 families had joined the scheme, so the Federal Government decided to cut $170 million from the $246 million trial.
But Jobs and Growth!
I propose we "name" recessions in much the same way we do cyclones.
We could call this one Kevin Gillard.
Why? Cos they caused it? Or because some bitch called Tracey was behind what happened in the NT?
Do you even think before you post? Or is it like an uncontrollable bowel movement?
meh tropical storm
So the last one was John Fraser ?
Anyway what did Rudd or Gillard put in place that was recurrent spending
Seems to be mainly one offs as I see it
ROFL at Morrison still trying to blame someone, anyone for his piss poor excuse for a governments sextupling of the deficit.
Any man with a hint of honour would fall on his sword.
He'd need to drug his hand the flog is so insignificant.
Governments are not households. Household or business debt is invariably undesirable, but whether or not a government deficit is undesirable depends on the state of the economy. If the economy is in danger of recession, as ours is, investment in infrastructure, research or just giving money to poor/middle-class people or even small businesses historically has helped to stimulate growth. Without government investment into an ailing economy, business then has to pick up the slack by taking on more debt to fund their business plans or make capital expenditures. This is all well and good when their business is booming, but businesses tend not to boom in recessions because nobody has any money to purchase their products. So what we are often left with is a business with excessive debt - a recipe for disaster especially when you can't even service the interest payments.
Also, with government cutbacks to spending, the RBA has set interest rates very low in order to encourage individuals and businesses to incur more debt. However, such debt can be used to gamble on financial assets, such as property. This forces individuals to incur more debt in order to be able to afford housing etc., in the first place. Not a great situation, especially in times of recession when people lose their jobs and can't afford to service such debt.
A surplus is most desirable to obtain when the economy is booming and the level of growth is clearly unsustainable, in that inflation rises too quickly or is accompanied by environmental deterioration, since this affects the health and therefore productive capacity of individuals (and also leads to more workers compo claims and unwanted media attention, which is bad for business).
Since we are most clearly not in that situation, IMO the LNP's stated goal of a surplus is IMO idiotic. No doubt that ALP would bash them for failing to curb the government's deficit for political reasons, but it will be easier for the LNP to then bash the ALP for it once they are in opposition since both sides (though moreso the LNP) have made it a part of our political discourse that government deficits = bad, government surplus = good.
It would actually be good governance and politics for the ALP to maintain the deficit and explain to the Australian public exactly why it is necessary - but I doubt this will happen. Maybe some glib soundbites like 'government surpluses are bad for working families' or 'government surpluses will increase your mortgage' would do the trick, I dunno.
Also, the government debt to GDP ratio is around 35% anyway, which is not particularly high. A government debt to GDP ratio of over 100-125% has historically been a hyperinflation risk, and even that risk is much more prevalent in politically unstable countries (Weimar Germany) with weak, undiversified economies (Zimbabwe).
Anyway, that's my two cents on the government deficit and why talk of reducing it is just playing politics. Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly dunno.
On another note, despite the LNP's stated goal of cutting the deficit and the apparent reduction in government spending, the debt to GDP ratio has actually increased. What has caused this? Must be that economic growth has not kept pace with government spending?
The ALP went to the last election, and admitted the deficit under their policy would rise, Scott Morrison reacted as though somebody had shit in his bed.
Taylor makes some valid points in this article, worth a read.
And on a trip to London the treasurer has duly started his new and improved sales pitch with a dire warning. If parliament doesn’t pass the tax cuts we’ll be “stranded” because the UK is reducing its tax rate to 17% by 2020 and Trump wants to reduce the US rate to 15%.
Treasury modelling did show the planned tax cuts would boost economic growth, a little bit. But there was no way to compare that increase (0.6% of gross national income in a decade’s time) with other things that might have been done with the money.
And there were no answers to questions about how we would manage the revenue shortfall, at a time when Australia is struggling to pay for things like hospitals and schools and when inequality is already rising, nor any analysis of the social and economic consequences of even more cuts to services.
There was the complicating factor of Australia’s unique dividend imputation system, which meant the real tax rate for local investors is lower than the headline rate.
How does Medicare while you are overseas work? Apart from reciprocal rights countries?
And what do you see as a fair wage for medical staff (given your opinion that the waste in medical system is lining doctors pockets). I agree there is waste but think it's more from unnecessary investigation due to patient demand/ litigation fears leading to suboptimal practice. Or waste generated by treating iatrogenic complications.
We don't give them free health - uninsured overseas visitors have to stump up $480 to see the emergency department. However it isn't an upfront payment (likely related to moral imperative) and yes some do not pay. Others use a relatives Medicare card, particularly with common surnames.
I know a lot of people who would be on over $100k pa and many over $1m pa overseas and not paying the Medicare levy but have Medicare. It is only reasonable that they pay the levy if they want Medicare.
The lining the pockets issue is easily fixed by a $10 surcharge, a professional public on line feedback system on doctors, caps on wages and getting rid of quotas for training.
That's true but the issue is those on Medicare, living overseas and not paying the levy.
Medicare has started to clamp down on this issue since the original post