Next time they're thinking of increasing the tax on grog will they negotiate with me, or is that just limited to rich, non-voting entities?
Cheers,
Jim
Printable View
Next time they're thinking of increasing the tax on grog will they negotiate with me, or is that just limited to rich, non-voting entities?
Cheers,
Jim
We had a lady prime minister, it all ended in tears of course.:;
Here it isQuote:
Originally Posted by jimbur
and a very good thing it was too, that legislation was a dogs breakfast.Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHammer
Actually I think the younger generation is extremely interested and better yet SA might have a chance of getting some water down the Murray........well perhaps. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Clinton1
kiwigeo said in part: "5. Without sitting down and thinking really hard I cant think of many good reasons to have State and local governments. It's an old institution that might have worked in the past but has long outlived it's usefulness."
As an American, I'll wade in with why we believe that is a bad idea. Centralization of governmental powers leads to abuse of those powers. Ours is a confusing quilt of ideas, laws and customs. It works and we like it this way. Currently there are efforts to introduce more centralization but there is resistance from the people and the effort is being balanced, to some degree, by our two party system of government.
Not trying to offend by saying you are wrong or ours is better. I'm saying we like what we have. It is confusing and that is part of the control.
Big Shed: I know the difference and yes it's important. My memory failing as always :) I don't KNOW that she's an athiest either. Has anyone heard her say that ?
The American situation is different to ours. First you ahve 10 times the population (or 15 or whatever it is). Second you have a more evenly distributed and denser population.
We have something like 85% of our population in urban areas so there is a tremendous disparity between rural and urban voting power. We have concentrated pockets of population on the east coast and vast tracts seperating the other populations around the country. We are very much more like Canada than the USA, and in some ways Canada's government is an inversion of ours, with principle and residual power resting with the provinces while here those rest with the federal government.
Anyway the upshot is the state governments rule principly for the cities, and are undermined by federal actions. Meanwhile they undermine and thwart the local councils. When something is positive they all line up to take credit, when it goes wrong the point fingers at each other and duck blame.
The nature of your government is a debate you have to have, not us, but Australians recognise widely I believe that our system is not serving the people as best as it could. We have had loud and sustained cries for structural reform form some decades now, but apart from a general "ditch the states" or "ditch the councils" there is little detail concensus of how or what. That is a big part of why I wanted to encourage this conversation. I am interested in the opinions of people here.
IMO you are wrong. On the whole Australians are well satisfied with the situation as our voting record at referendums designed to change the constitution shows, It's only a small but vocal minority that sees benefits in change.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
The only reform we should have is return some powers back to the states and reduce the Commonwealth government back to what the founding fathers agreed to. The Commonwealth usurpation of powers by financial intimidation is what IMO is wrong with the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
Peter.
My understanding was that the states and the Commonwealth can levy taxes ( but the Commonwealth taxes were a priority to the states) and until WW2 that was the caseQuote:
Originally Posted by damian
To assist the war effort (lack of manpower) the Commonwealth raised the level of income tax to the average combined tax and gave grants to the states in return.
Unfortunately after the war the Commonwealth refused to go back to the original position and refused to reduce the level of their taxes.
So whilst states can still level income tax it would be in addition to the Commonwealth income tax.
Peter.
I just quickly re read the constitution. I couldn't find the section but I thought there was a statment somewhere in it that ONLY the commonwealth may levy taxes and that was the basis of the tobacco excise case some years back, which in turn led to the petrol excise being shifted to the commonwealth. Might have been based on differential rates between states though...
I suppose we move in different circles. People I talk to don't support referendums because they don't trust the government and referendums are usually structured to favour them rather than us. The disparity between city and country is probably (?) less of an issue in Victoria. When I lived in NSW there seemed to be a resentment of the Sydney centric government and it's a BIG issue here in Queensland where there have been real movements to split the state.
One thing I am sure of: given I have a certain opinion/view and most people I know share it, that does not by any means ensure other groups in society hold the same view. :)
Which of course means they are wrong...
http://australianpolitics.com/articl...ion-as-amended
Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
Excise is not a tax, it is an excise. It is administered by customs..
Trademarks are a good example of how bogged down someone can become in the web of State vs. Federal America. You have to register Trademarks state by state because no one authority has the ability or control to establish a trademark that covers the US. Reading between the lines I'd suggest this is to support the incomes of IP Lawyers in the US and for no other reason than to people off. Even the EU have come together and organised one place you can go and register a trademark across all member countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifleman1776
That's not my view and it's not the view of many of the people in my circle either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
HH.
Getting sick of the W card being played for gillard... Who cares that she is a woman, it does not somehow give her magical powers or make her any more a better politician then a man or a hermaphrodite..
I really doubt she is going to be a long lived PM, while she may win the next election due to the silliness of the libs putting abbott in charge, she will not survive for much longer then that.. Her hands are just as much spoiled by the complete amateurish performance of this government as rudd's and swan's...
Remember she was part of the gang of 4..
Sorry, can you clarify what you said there. Are you saying you and people you know are in favour of retaining the states, or are you saying your in favour of abolishing them ? Your sentence can be read either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHammer
In a perfect world politicians would be elected on the basis of their ability to do the job. That unfortunately does not happen.
I think she will get a good number of the under 30 swinging vote. It will be interesting how she handles the miners. That issue IMO was more important in Mr Rudds demolition than what has been reported or portrayed by Gillard. There is no doubt the miners sent the backroom boys into panic with their advertising.Quote:
Originally Posted by .RC.
Despite my opposition to Mr Rudds policies I have enormous respect for his dedication no matter how misguided.
As has often been reported no Prime Minister should be treated in the manner he has.
Isn't that human nature. We mix with people who share our interests and views. Life would be a drag if we hung around around with people we had nothing in common with. You didn't join this forum because you're interested in V8 supercars.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
I believe this was one of KRudds undoings. An astute politician would surround himself with (and listen to) a diversity of opinions, not just those that are complimentary to his own point of view.
Bob
10 million women in Australia and this is the best we can do.
We are in the hands of a mob of professional politicians and union head bashers with no business experience and we allow them to run our biggest company.... called Australia.
And please don't tell me that the Canberra public servants fix the mess behind the scenes.
I think I'll move to WA. Things are really happening there and they don't give a fig for Canberra.
greg
Moving to Perth. Should be great......once you've negotiated your way through the grossly overloaded shambles of an airport and once your taxi driver has worked out where hes going. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Greg Ward
It depends on her internet filter... I doubt she will drop it and a lot of youngsters hate it. I think she will regain a lot of the swinging green voters who would have preferenced labor anyway...Quote:
Originally Posted by m2c1Iw
I find it totally sad how gullible people really are.. Here we have the #2 now #1 and people think she is going to fix everything. Reminds me when Anna Bligh took over in Qld, she continued the party line of wrecking everything.
I have learnt once a political party becomes incompetent the only way to fix their incompetence is to vote them out, simply changing the perceived leader is only a cosmetic change.
I see "Hard working Australians" is the new Gillard catch cry. Hmm even worse than "Working Australian families" how condescending! Man am I sick and tired of pollie speak.
Yep, and not very "inclusive" either. Leaves out self-funded retirees, people on the dole or disability pensions, veterans pensions and anyone who hasn't got a job (or indeed anyone who has a job, but doesn't work hard or otherwise:D)Quote:
Originally Posted by m2c1Iw
Greg can I have your wood stash :D remember I asked first :;Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Ward
I knew I was missing out on something being an over 40.:CQuote:
Originally Posted by m2c1Iw
No I live in a relatively small town and have to make the most of what I have.:UQuote:
Originally Posted by notenoughtoys
:o OMG the Greens are into it as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by .RC.
HH.
I knew she wasn't referring to me. :qQuote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
Ray...... my wood stack is my retirement super and all I have between the gutter and.... well a long career as a pensioner under Julia.
Greg
With an August 2010 Poll being tipped ( I think they mean August 2011) I am wondering if the rush to show what she has done will all fall in a heap fingers crossed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Ward
Ray, they mean 2010 and she means business.
And the Labor party means business as well! I think the past week show that they are really only interested in power...not people
But they don't really understand that successful businesses need good policies to be successful so they can pay the taxes that allow the Labor Party to be socially benevelant and for them to waste funds as she has under her BER.
I think she will win in August and so we go into the labour cycle of debt again as expenditure exceeds income.
The change in WA has already show good signs...WA has already started to repay Labor's debt in that state.
I wonder how much debt she can clock up in the next term and whether that will exceed Kevin's.
Greg
Scary thoughts Greg, its always been that way one spends the other drags them out of the debt. A lot will suffer badly.
I was watching the courier mail comments as all this unfolded last week. I was quite disturbed at how many people (about a 3rd) obviously had no idea how our system of government works.
She's had the expected bounce in the polls, but I'll be watching with great interest to see if she can maintain that, even until August.
I'm surprised she is waiting until August, I would have thought her best chance was to go to polls as soon as, while she thinks she's got enough people thinking that the change in leadership was a good move, by August too many things will have panned out, and people have had time to think :?, waiting could work against her.Quote:
Originally Posted by damian
Apparently she can't call a "normal" election until Thursday 01/07/2010, with the minimum time period being 33 days and an election must be held on a Saturday, August 7 is the earliest we will see an election.
A "normal" election is an election other than a double dissolution, which she can still call as the trigger for that is also in place.
Mid snow season election now hen did I see that last early to mid 80's, its also when many people are OS touring in the summer sun postal votes galore. Who wants to go stand in queues in this weather :no:. Oh ok I want to stand but not in a polling line :U
Voting Greens will still get you a Labor government.:roll:
Bill Shorten was on QandA last night trying to suggest that Julia is going to an early election to allow the people to verify their support of her as PM. What a load of rubbish! The only reason she is going to an election as soon as possible is to try and ride the current wave of popular coverage about her hairdo, her boyfriend, being a woman etc etc to get re-elected. Because as said above if she waits until after the honeymoon period people will work out that she was as culpable as Rudd in the decisions made by the current government and that nothing has really changed.
It's a shame Malcolm Turnbull didn't wait a week to appear on QandA and had been on the panel instead of Barnaby Joyce it would have made for an interesting debate about who has the power in the labour party.
All this because poor Bill Shorten didn't get a promotion....
HH.
Shorten one of the small band of faction leaders that pull the puppet strings in the Labour Party. I often wonder why the right wing of the Labour doesnt just join the Liberal Party and the left faction of the Liberal Party join the Labour Party...would make things alot easier for all.Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyHammer
You havent heard the latest?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Ward
The super mining tax is going to be replaced with a super woodstash tax.....indexed according to species and which way it's sawn. :D
Oh noes now I will have to hide it too :oo:....mmmmm bottom of the fireplace accounts :UQuote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
I wonder if I burn it in species if I can re-constitute it when I need it??
Pete
If you burn it then you'll have to make sure you've got enough carbon credits stashed......theyre going to rejuvenate the Emissions Trading Scheme.Quote:
Originally Posted by fxst
This is how it works and how stupid we are
We have 600 hectares of forest. Last cut around 1973. Ready for cutting in the next 10-20 years.
I'm prepared to lock it up and sell the C credits for around (say) 50K a year. Not ever cut a tree for ever!
That is OUT under the way the system works.
To gain C credits I have to clear all the trees and plant a plantation of monocultured trees.
I can then sell the credits....... and we have lost 600 hectares of mixed NSW bush.
But we have C credits that the Govt can claim
So I guess my stash will be on the ground in the future.....
What a mess and the next Govt will also be a mess.....a Gillard one won by hiding her and Labor's true face from the nation by going to an early election.
What do we know about her? She never answers a question, just smiles and simpers about being a red head..
Great. Even NZs looking better....
Greg
Greg but not only monocultured trees don't they have to be of a specific kind; some kind not being acceptable others acceptable.