So lots of things that increase govt spending but not one thing about how they are going to pay for it. Automatically disqualifies them from being worthy of discussion.
Politics STABLE POPULATION PARTY - Australia's sustainable choice ???
- Thread starter HardenUp
- Start date
- Tagged users None
taxes on developers profits to go to the state govt not the feds because they have to provide the infrastructure?
fuel taxes to feds phased out in favour of a GPS based per km charge for road vehicles incuding freight, ride sharing, private cars paid direct to state govt
(to balance this out feds keep more GST for health, education, pensions, welfare and have to find less for infrastructure. in fact much less
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
I'd love to see Australia have 50 1-2.5m cities than 5 cities supporting most of Australia's population.......unless the growth were only to continue in Sydney and Melbourne (well away from me).
BirdPerson
Rookie
- Jul 5, 2016
- 40
- 67
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I don't think it does. They're a minor party, they can hold value by raising new ideas to a national audience. Regardless, if you look further into their policies they do discuss sources of revenue.
Gday all, thanks for the replies.
Birdperson, I'm glad you found their policies pretty straightforward to understand. I've recently been trying to research the policies of the various parties, the one I'd spent the most time on, being a supporter and all is Sustainable Australia, I did this prior to the last election. The rest of the research came after the election and I assumed the larger parties such as Lab/Lib/Greens would have similarly easy to understand (actually I assumed even easier to understand) policy sections. Boy was I wrong!! How stupid of me to forget in politics all you need to do is to be SEEN to be doing something not actually BE doing something. Also the more vague you are on something, the less you can be held to account. It seems their policy pages are from that perspective....sigh....
I know a number of the party members, they have no interest in a new white Australia policy, they don't care who comes in, actually, considering refugees come from predominantely non caucasian countries and they will change the ratio of immigrants to refugees by their immigration reduction intake, they are inadvertently a less white Australia group. Though the emphasis is on inadvertent, because, like I said, they don't care where people come from, the impact of people is equal more or less equal regardless of their ethnicity, so they lump them all in together.
Regarding paying for things, I think their policies are still pretty sensible, ranging from selective industry protecting and promotion which will help the economy and therefore revenue in, to the positive effects of population stabilisation. A lot of infrastructure in Australia is a state whereby increased demands on it result in hugely increased costs of maintenance. This isnt easily picked up in traditional accounting, it would be in a forward forecast situation tho. That is accounting looks at cost borne and revenue that comes in, but ignores costs not borne and revenue missed out. Stabilising the population has a significant effect on the costs not borne in a good way, therefore, the income required to be otherwise spent on it, can be diverted elsewhere.
Birdperson, I'm glad you found their policies pretty straightforward to understand. I've recently been trying to research the policies of the various parties, the one I'd spent the most time on, being a supporter and all is Sustainable Australia, I did this prior to the last election. The rest of the research came after the election and I assumed the larger parties such as Lab/Lib/Greens would have similarly easy to understand (actually I assumed even easier to understand) policy sections. Boy was I wrong!! How stupid of me to forget in politics all you need to do is to be SEEN to be doing something not actually BE doing something. Also the more vague you are on something, the less you can be held to account. It seems their policy pages are from that perspective....sigh....
I know a number of the party members, they have no interest in a new white Australia policy, they don't care who comes in, actually, considering refugees come from predominantely non caucasian countries and they will change the ratio of immigrants to refugees by their immigration reduction intake, they are inadvertently a less white Australia group. Though the emphasis is on inadvertent, because, like I said, they don't care where people come from, the impact of people is equal more or less equal regardless of their ethnicity, so they lump them all in together.
Regarding paying for things, I think their policies are still pretty sensible, ranging from selective industry protecting and promotion which will help the economy and therefore revenue in, to the positive effects of population stabilisation. A lot of infrastructure in Australia is a state whereby increased demands on it result in hugely increased costs of maintenance. This isnt easily picked up in traditional accounting, it would be in a forward forecast situation tho. That is accounting looks at cost borne and revenue that comes in, but ignores costs not borne and revenue missed out. Stabilising the population has a significant effect on the costs not borne in a good way, therefore, the income required to be otherwise spent on it, can be diverted elsewhere.
New ideas of spending have to be provided with new ideas of costs. People only see the free lunch if you don't tell them how much its going to cost. And they may well do that in their detailed documents. But the voters dont read that.
iluvparis
Import Whisperer
- Apr 1, 2005
- 50,055
- 40,651
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Calgary Flames, Man Utd
No reasonable project analysis would overlook this.
kwikfix
Club Legend
- Banned
- #109
Mr Smith said, left unchecked, Australia's population would hit “80 to 100 million by the end of the century if we keep growing”.
He said that kind of perpetual growth would only serve wealthy Australians, while the majority of the population would suffer a decline in living conditions and be worse off. “The cake is a certain size, mainly coming from our mineral reserves and our primary production from farming, and double the population, I believe everyone's worth half as much,” he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ation-and-economic-growth-20140813-3dmx0.html
He said that kind of perpetual growth would only serve wealthy Australians, while the majority of the population would suffer a decline in living conditions and be worse off. “The cake is a certain size, mainly coming from our mineral reserves and our primary production from farming, and double the population, I believe everyone's worth half as much,” he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ation-and-economic-growth-20140813-3dmx0.html
Over 90% of voters don't read anything, most vote what they've always voted, a scary amount are swayed by short slogans, the remainder by tv and newspapers. If you actually read something in relation to politics you are a rare breed!!
Standard of living over the long run has nothing to do with the size of population. Only in the short run can sudden booms in populatiom influence standard of living. He is making crap up.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Perhaps we need to increase the income tax subsidy for remote areas, funded by a property tax for our major cities.
kwikfix
Club Legend
- Banned
- #114
Ok, so you think 80m for Australia is ok?
It won't have a effect on living standards?
It won't have a effect on the environment?
Seriously, if anyone believes in global warming and the effects on the environment, they couldn't approve of having an extra 60m people living in this fragile ecosystem.
It won't have a effect on living standards?
It won't have a effect on the environment?
Seriously, if anyone believes in global warming and the effects on the environment, they couldn't approve of having an extra 60m people living in this fragile ecosystem.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,468
- 118,155
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
I am a fan of ruralisation of infrastructure, yet it seems the idea is centralization , in services and populations. If we want to live in the 5 major cities then I would like to see the city lines capped and new growth upward ie more high density living. Its starting to happen now as people move away from the 1/4 acre block and a house with a big backyard. This should help current infrastructure cope ie electric services only have to boost current grids and not stretch them ( or build new ones which stretch the power supply)
I am a fan of forced ruralisation for immigrants. 5 years in Coonabarabran for example. Yes 80% may move to a city after but you will still keep 20% who will stay and become members of the community. This does mean an increase in infrastructure, but if its managed correctly it can be done in stages. Here in Mt Barker which is growing rapidly they have shut down the ServiceSA centre( old motor reg) and the nearest is Marion 25km away into Adelaide or ''online''
We see places like Geelong starting to struggle as one-industry towns are forced to seek alternatives when the Big Player leaves/shuts down.
I like Power Raid and the idea of Tax Concessions such as they do/did? past Pt Headland? But make it Designated Rural Centre.
As to the OP and the party I am not a fan of making houses cheaper by basically forcing home owners to accept a lower price because there is no-one to buy the house or rent. Have no problem with more Public Transport but it needs to be targeted. Too many services are focused on the city centres and crosslines aren't utilized as much as they could be. Smaller vehicles can come into play at off-peak times. On number 6 see above. We cant have a sustainable living model and not have high density growth. See above electrics. Number 9 is puff. Its a nice feel good statement. Number 8 is a good one.
I would like to see a Hospital ( of whatever size ) that has surgical capabilities within 250km radius of each other based on population ratios. But its criminal at times that people have to travel over 1200km in some instances for an oncology check-up.
I am a fan of forced ruralisation for immigrants. 5 years in Coonabarabran for example. Yes 80% may move to a city after but you will still keep 20% who will stay and become members of the community. This does mean an increase in infrastructure, but if its managed correctly it can be done in stages. Here in Mt Barker which is growing rapidly they have shut down the ServiceSA centre( old motor reg) and the nearest is Marion 25km away into Adelaide or ''online''
We see places like Geelong starting to struggle as one-industry towns are forced to seek alternatives when the Big Player leaves/shuts down.
I like Power Raid and the idea of Tax Concessions such as they do/did? past Pt Headland? But make it Designated Rural Centre.
As to the OP and the party I am not a fan of making houses cheaper by basically forcing home owners to accept a lower price because there is no-one to buy the house or rent. Have no problem with more Public Transport but it needs to be targeted. Too many services are focused on the city centres and crosslines aren't utilized as much as they could be. Smaller vehicles can come into play at off-peak times. On number 6 see above. We cant have a sustainable living model and not have high density growth. See above electrics. Number 9 is puff. Its a nice feel good statement. Number 8 is a good one.
I would like to see a Hospital ( of whatever size ) that has surgical capabilities within 250km radius of each other based on population ratios. But its criminal at times that people have to travel over 1200km in some instances for an oncology check-up.
Are you sure about this?
Though an optimum economy / standard of living is a function of many things, all other things being equal there seems to be some ratio of population to resources that results in the optimum. If we are past the optimum point already, then any addition of population brings a net negative effect but there are many time lags and measurement inaccuracy in the economy that make it hard to discern when the point is passed.
If you think this isn't correct, research island populations that have no ability to trade. I can guarantee there is absolutely a point of resources to population that is optimum, after that point is reached the results vary from going a bit backwards to extinction of that population....
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
You can be put in charge of sorting the wheat from the chaff.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
you're probably right but even with 50 cities and 36,735km of coast line; that's a city every 734km
obviously not possible without desal and nuclear power
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Coastline doesn't necessarily mean inhabitable.
Anyoo, sustainability should centre around maintaining levels - not planning for a 100% population increase.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
my punt is we are due a decent war around 2023. that should ease population pressure but not sure if it fits in the sustainable category
- Feb 14, 2002
- 17,797
- 6,858
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lexton, Northcote Park
Western Australia and Queensland are testament to this.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The SW of WA is very habitable. Temperate climate, arable land, consistent rainfall.
WA would IMO be a better state if say Perth/Albany/Bunbury (perhaps with an inland centre) were comparably sized centres of 500k-1m. Perth is not designed to be a city of 2m and is struggling with it.
That being said, I don't advocate Bunbury, Albany etc. now becoming major centres of that size. WA is what it is (Perth-centric despite the geographical spread) and we should focus on sustaining the population we have.
My question is, if we could achieve all the slated benefits of economic growth, such as more employment, higher earnings, industry expansion, without population growth, would anyone still actually want population growth, would anyone think more humans is intrinsically a good thing?
As far as I can tell most (definitely not all though) people only want population growth because its (mostly incorrectly) been made synonymous with economic growth, which has in turn been made (partly incorrectly) synonymous with what most people like in their lives - more jobs, more pay, fuller bank account, same for everyone around them and a lot of good news as a result.
Because of the incorrects I've listed above we could achieve the benefits people like, without the cost of population growth, is anyone keen for that?
As far as I can tell most (definitely not all though) people only want population growth because its (mostly incorrectly) been made synonymous with economic growth, which has in turn been made (partly incorrectly) synonymous with what most people like in their lives - more jobs, more pay, fuller bank account, same for everyone around them and a lot of good news as a result.
Because of the incorrects I've listed above we could achieve the benefits people like, without the cost of population growth, is anyone keen for that?
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,468
- 118,155
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Would always look at it. I am a fan of the European Model of the 1700s. Wait till the place gets over full then ship people off. To Mars. Or anywhere.
The impetus for man reaching out to the stars wont be exploration or discovery but mundane reasons like living room and economic hardships.
Similar threads
