Do you ever wonder if your political views are wrong?

[Number37]

I'm not disagreeing categorically here but I would love to put this assumption to the test as I am not so sure it's true. My understanding is the majority of supporters of the 'high-taxing' Greens agenda are from higher income (but not in the extremely high income) demographic. Personally, I am in a fortunate position with respect to household income. I would gladly pay as much as 5% extra in taxes (and could be persuaded to pay more) if I knew it was going towards funding health, education (primary, secondary, tertiary), and science - basically any public good. I think the proposed tax cut is unconscionable given the rhetoric around deficit and debt though I will personally benefit to the tune of a coffee and a biscuit every week.

Anyway, a bit off topic but perhaps the spirit of the thread, I wonder a bit how many people who feel they are taxed too much have found themselves struggling financially because they took on too much debt. In Perth especially, you see many McMansions with two very new-looking 4WDs parked out the front. I can just imagine the householder 'feeling' poor - despite having an objectively high income - because of the interest they're paying to service their two car loans, an over-sized mortgage, and perhaps a credit card. No point in cutting their taxes; they'll probably just take out bigger loans and then blame the government again for taxing them to the point of poverty. Thus in essence, the banks just take our tax revenue and the government gets the blame.
In short, I'd love to see practical financial literacy taught throughout schools, but then I could see the banks lobbying hard against that. But, all of this is just my gut feel based on what I've seen - perhaps it's not as prevalent as it looks to me.

You're not imagining it...

 

[tandino]

You only need to look as far as the two most recent leaders.

Tony Abbott is a staunch Catholic, opposes abortion, opposes euthanasia, opposes gay marriage, doesn't believe in climate change, is a monarchist. People used to say John Howard wanted to take Australia back to the 1950s. Tony Abbott wanted to take Australia back to a convent school in the 1950s.

Malcolm Turnbull is Presbyterian turned Catholic whose political views are at odds with the church. I doubt most people on the street even know his religious beliefs. He isn't defined by them and is more socially progressive. But he plays politics and won't take on the right faction because he knows it will cost him the leadership.

The party by default attracts voters who identify with both types of person above. If you 'don't want them NTTAWWTs marrying' then you vote Liberal. Or if Abbott and friends are just a bit too progressive for you you vote Family First. Business owners, people with high salaries etc. invariably vote Liberal also, regardless of their beliefs on social issues. The majority of Australian voters are self-interested, so if they can save an extra 0.5% tax each year then that is more important than a free vote on gay marriage or similar.

Well that's a burden shared by a wide range of parties who draw support from a broad base. Same with the Labor Party, I would think the inner city types who are yet to defect to the Greens would probably hold some different views to the working class from the Western Suburbs. Same with the Tories in the UK, same with the Republican Party.

The only reason why any of these parties stand a chance of winning an election is because they derive support from a wide range of people who are willing to make compromises in their personal beliefs. Indeed, in this country we can rank them in order from worst to least-worst. Even single-issue parties/political movements face the same types of issues. You can't be all things to all people.

In terms of the specific membership base of the Liberal Party, if they are going to continue to preselect the same type of people, they will get the leadership they deserve.

 

[tandino]

I'm not disagreeing categorically here but I would love to put this assumption to the test as I am not so sure it's true. My understanding is the majority of supporters of the 'high-taxing' Greens agenda are from higher income (but not in the extremely high income) demographic. Personally, I am in a fortunate position with respect to household income. I would gladly pay as much as 5% extra in taxes (and could be persuaded to pay more) if I knew it was going towards funding health, education (primary, secondary, tertiary), and science - basically any public good. I think the proposed tax cut is unconscionable given the rhetoric around deficit and debt though I will personally benefit to the tune of a coffee and a biscuit every week.

I would think that there would be a wide range of people from across the spectrum who would be willing to pay more tax "if only the Government would spend it right and put it into A B and C and not bloody waste it on W X Y and Z"

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

 

[tandino]

Next time you're in Melbourne see if you can spot an Anglo taxi driver or late night 7-Eleven clerk

As for illegal workers, yeah that's one of the problems with bringing over lots of migrants from developing countries - $5 a day to someone here is bullshit, but to a guy from Bangladesh that's a heap of money and worth sleeping in a tin shed with 20 other blokes for. The government keeps claiming it's cracking down on this stuff, but I suspect their priority is to make it look like they're responding to the problem while quietly letting the rort continue

Everybody knows what's going on. Every now and then there'll be a roadblock on the way out to the farms and they'll catch a handful of "tourists" working contrary to their visa conditions, but people want their 99c strawberries so corners have to be cut somewhere. If the Government doesn't set the standard and allows low-skilled migration and turns a blind eye to visa abuse, then the farmers will play the same game. It's a significant suppression to wages at the low end of the market.

If Australians won't do the work, then the price of labour should rise. That's how a market should work.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

I would think that there would be a wide range of people from across the spectrum who would be willing to pay more tax "if only the Government would spend it right

Haha! You may be right about that! I'd love to see how well what people would be willing to pay more tax for matches what tax is currently spent on. The chart the govt gave us with our tax returns was interesting but still too blunt for my tastes e.g. it tells you how much is spent on welfare but didn't break it down into the different types.

 

[kickazz]

Haha! You may be right about that! I'd love to see how well what people would be willing to pay more tax for matches what tax is currently spent on. The chart the govt gave us with our tax returns was interesting but still too blunt for my tastes e.g. it tells you how much is spent on welfare but didn't break it down into the different types.

Pretty sure it does - I remember noting that the aged pension got the lion's share by far.

 

[Patrick Bullet]

Pretty sure it does - I remember noting that the aged pension got the lion's share by far.

Does it? crap - I gotta get with the times! I could have sworn it didn't (maybe that was the 2014 Joe Hockey edition)

 

[JackOutback]

Yep, every time to Libs bang on about the high welfare budget, they fail to mention that the aged pension makes up the bulk of it. But it's easier to kick the unemployed than the elderly.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

I have not voted in any election for the past thirty years.

Daft decision there.

 

[Power Raid]

After I eschewed the Catholicism and DLP politics with which I was indoctrinated by my father, who was a religious and political bigot, I initially went full-bore atheist and radical lefty. I even joined the Labor party during the events leading up to 11th November 1975. This involvement also coincided with a previous Australian government's attempts to send me to an Asian war, to have people with whom I had no argument, shoot at me for no reason, other than that I was in their country. I empathised with their views on this, but I'm also a devout coward, which was a far more pressing consideration.

Then I embarked on a quest to educate myself, and found out that none of the political or religious labels being bandied about were adequate to the task of describing what it is to be me. I'm unsure where this places me on the politico/religious spectrum now, and couldn't give a toss about that. Nowadays, when pressed, I tend to describe myself as a realist, though that implies that there is such a thing as reality. Others, when it takes their fancy, have anointed me a 'nihilist' or a 'relativist'. I have no problem being seen as a nihilist, if that means I reject the concept of man as a solely rational being capable of objective thought. As for being a relativist, I can think of no other way to interpret the world as it worlds around me. After all, it wasn't my idea to land here, and I've been playing catch up ever since that happened. Indicative of of my current passion and rabid allegiance to one side of politics would be that I have not voted in any election for the past thirty years.

I think, therefore I yam.

You beat me, my last and only vote was Keating

 

[Reynolds Number]

I develop my views on personal experiences and further education. There's a lot of people around that have serious problems with putting themselves in shoes other than their own.

 

[Rotayjay]

I have been pretty leftist and pretty rightist at various times in my life. I have voted both Labor and Liberal at state and federal elections, voting Labor at the July election. I guess that makes me broadly centrist, which is a badge I don't mind wearing at all.

 

[Lebbo73]

I have been pretty leftist and pretty rightist at various times in my life. I have voted both Labor and Liberal at state and federal elections, voting Labor at the July election. I guess that makes me broadly centrist, which is a badge I don't mind wearing at all.

Labor have moved further to the left since Gillard won in 2010. You are definitely not centrist.

 

[kwikfix]

The only time I voted labor was when Bob Hawke was the leader, hated Keating.

 

[JackOutback]

Labor have moved further to the left since Gillard won in 2010. You are definitely not centrist.

Given the Labor Party hasn't been 'left' in a generation, centrist is about right. We have two main political parties: centre right and further right.

 

[Moo]

I'm always considering where I stand on a range of topics.

I've come from a rather poor, rural background and even though I'm 5th gen Australian- I grew up with a lot of immigrants and have ended up doing quite well.

I've lived in country WA for a good slice of my life & 5 years in the UAE/Omani border.

I've worked for the Govt, been part of a union but come from a small business family & currently run my own company.

The result of this is I'm all over the shop....a victim of my multiple experiences.

Examples-

Strongly Pro-SSM but want 18C reformed.

Hate the ingrained racism facing indigenous but equally hate that we are not being tougher and standing up for a lot of indigenous kids because we're scared of looking racist.

Pro-multicultural but anti the abuse of 457.

I do listen to multiple sides of any debate ...some I'll never move on (e.g. The Republic) but whilst I'd preferred we just legislate SSM - I softened on the plebiscite when this was argued by some.

I've also been strongly influenced by my sisters, wife & daughter to be far more pro-feminist than I was even 10 years ago.

What I hate is just being pigeonholed as left or right on all issues because of my views on 1 or 2 big ticket items.

 

[kwikfix]

Yep, every time to Libs bang on about the high welfare budget, they fail to mention that the aged pension makes up the bulk of it. But it's easier to kick the unemployed than the elderly.

Deserves a thread of it's own. There are far too many wealthy pensioners taking the piss outta of us, the taxpayer, far too generous.

 

[Lebbo73]

Given the Labor Party hasn't been 'left' in a generation, centrist is about right. We have two main political parties: centre right and further right.

You have us mixed up with the US. This isn't the US election thread.

 

[JackOutback]

You have us mixed up with the US. This isn't the US election thread.

Do left and right have any meaning left at all? The Labor Party is an economically conservative party, a few sops to social causes doesn't make them a left party.

 

[Lebbo73]

Do left and right have any meaning left at all? The Labor Party is an economically conservative party, a few sops to social causes doesn't make them a left party.

Are you telling that Tanya Plibersek, Penny Wong, Stephen Conroy, etc aren't virtually members of The Greens Party?

 

[IKnowtheDog]

Yep, every time to Libs bang on about the high welfare budget, they fail to mention that the aged pension makes up the bulk of it. But it's easier to kick the unemployed than the elderly.

You're not a Paxton are you?

 

[JackOutback]

Are you telling that Tanya Plibersek, Penny Wong, Stephen Conroy, etc aren't virtually members of The Greens Party?

Conroy? He of the internet filter?

Obviously there are some members of the party that are more left than others (and some that are more right) but at the end of the day, they all fall in line behind centre right policies (particularly economic).

 

[Mofra]

Are you telling that Tanya Plibersek, Penny Wong, Stephen Conroy, etc aren't virtually members of The Greens Party?

Yes.
They've voted for Labor's neo-liberal economic policies for their entire political career and all began as 'third wavism' swept the UK & US.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Are you telling that Tanya Plibersek, Penny Wong, Stephen Conroy, etc aren't virtually members of The Greens Party?

And Eric Abetz, Peter Dutton, Cory Bernardi, George Christensen, Tony Abbott, George Brandis would all be more at home in Family First.

That doesn't make the coalition the same as Family First. if left and right have any meaning, the nation has lurched to the right a long way. The modern centre is well to the "right" (on most things - not Medicare or gay rights) of the 70s and 80s Liberal party.
As much as left and right have any meaning.

 

[madmug]

Left & right doesn't have a lot of meaning these days. They became less relevant as the cold war faded away.
So many other divisions based on nationalist, religious, xenophobic, racist tendencies have come to the fore.
Left & right seemed such an easy way to badge political groups. Its too generalised to have any real meaning now.
Politics has become way more convoluted.
Left/right dichotomy just becomes less relevant to real life behaviors & the sort of political machinations & outcomes we've seen of late.