• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Mining and the Greens

Status
Not open for further replies.

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
The Labor Party is a democratic socialist party. Why is this such a surprise to people?
 

Tangawizi

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Good article from Ziggy Switkowski out today.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...ernment-pd20110309-ERW3D?OpenDocument&src=rot

And the value proposition proposed by installing ceramic fuel cells does seem to make sense if electrical efficiency is meant to be a big focus for the next decade. Maybe only a temporary measure until a cleaner tech evolves though but these things make more than enough power for the average household. They do need to get the cost down though. http://www.cfcl.com.au/Value_Proposition
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Yes I have not read one article by a scientist or economist that believes this tax will do anything but plenty by others on the opposite side.

If gillard truly believed in this she would legislate a revenue neutral tax with anything left over from handouts going to r and d investment in clean tech.

Ps when are they going to start calling it a carbon dioxide tax?
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Didn't she resign from the Socialist Forum in 2002 when her political career was starting to kick on to being a leadership aspirant?

Gillard isn't burdened by such mere facts. She has indicate when asked that she had minor involvement and stopped 20 years ago, when in fact she was still registered in 2002 and was part of the mangement of the group.

If she has nothing to hide then why hide it?
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I disagree with that too. Social welfare levels haven't varied all that much since the early 80's (adjusted for inflation). Howard was actually the biggest spender adjusted for inflation, but that's as a result of a variety of middle class welfare initiatives, rather than poverty line welfare, where he largely continued the same level of support as before, except that the long term unemployed had increased mutual obligation requirements that included work for the dole, which both Rudd and Gillard have kept. On coming to power, Rudd, and then Gillard, have largely maintained the changes to medicare, kept a surprising number of the changes made by work choices, and kept the changes to income taxation. In practical terms, they are both (near as makes no difference) adherents to Market Liberalism, with the Labor party slightly closer to New Labor's third way approach, and the Liberals adopting a mix of liberalism and soft conservatism (with some hard, Regan-era social conservatism thrown in every so often).

These tiny examples of knob twiddling are not even slightly socialist. The use of the word "socialist" is a logical fallacy designed to reduce an argument to a manageable good verses evil scenario. Both right and left play these games, and neither is acceptable.

The counterpoint to your argument would be that if you don't sometimes employ this sort of emotive and strong language, then you won't have the general public's awareness of the direction of certain policies. If everyone was as moderate as you would like, then there is a chance that everyone will just creep along in the direction of the government at the time, whether left or right, and you will end up a long way from where you want to be. I use it because I see that this government is moving this country in a direction that could end up a long way from where I want it to be (economically at least).

Also, the use of the term 'middle class welfare' is, I believe often misguided. Middle class welfare for Howard was just vote buying, and in essence he was just giving back some of the additional taxes the government was reaping from the pockets of the middle class (due to bracket creep and an increased middle class). It isn't like it was coming from the lower classes to pay for the middle class. IMO it is incorrect to classify something as welfare when it came from the people you are giving it to. I'd be surprised if anyone can disagree with this?
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Gillard isn't burdened by such mere facts. She has indicate when asked that she had minor involvement and stopped 20 years ago, when in fact she was still registered in 2002 and was part of the mangement of the group.

If she has nothing to hide then why hide it?

This type of stuff gets me really angry Scotty. Are you Alan Jones? For fuck's sake.

We should be talking about actual issues that affect society, this stuff is an irrelevant distraction. I lose respect for anyone who says otherwise, and gives you that bullshit about 'she's our PM, we have the right to know about this'. I don't care, neither should you.
 

Ash

Michael Lynagh (62)
Also, the use of the term 'middle class welfare' is, I believe often misguided. Middle class welfare for Howard was just vote buying, and in essence he was just giving back some of the additional taxes the government was reaping from the pockets of the middle class (due to bracket creep and an increased middle class). It isn't like it was coming from the lower classes to pay for the middle class. IMO it is incorrect to classify something as welfare when it came from the people you are giving it to. I'd be surprised if anyone can disagree with this?

I've been staying out of this for a while, but regardless of where the money comes from (and you're quite wrong about where a lot of that money did indeed come from - it came from a variety of sources, and also Costello was handing back tax cuts at the same time which were countering some bracket creep, admittedly those tax cuts favoured the upper middle class wage earners and higher but still benefited the middle class), government welfare is government welfare. And welfare that benefits the middle class is middle class welfare.

Don't forget that Howard and Costello rode a huge boom through the naughties - and that they were hardly frugal with their spending and tax cuts. In fact, as I have shown previously, the first year of the Rudd government spend less as a % of GDP than Howard and Costello.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
This type of stuff gets me really angry Scotty. Are you Alan Jones? For fuck's sake.

We should be talking about actual issues that affect society, this stuff is an irrelevant distraction. I lose respect for anyone who says otherwise, and gives you that bullshit about 'she's our PM, we have the right to know about this'. I don't care, neither should you.

Yes, that is right. People's past is irrelevant to who they are what they stand for and what they are likely to do.

Not to mention that the point of my post that you quoted was to note that she has lied when asked the question. I would like to know why she lied, and I fail to see how that is irrelevant.

Go ahead and lose respect for me if you wish.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
I've been staying out of this for a while, but regardless of where the money comes from (and you're quite wrong about where a lot of that money did indeed come from - it came from a variety of sources, and also Costello was handing back tax cuts at the same time which were countering some bracket creep, admittedly those tax cuts favoured the upper middle class wage earners and higher but still benefited the middle class), government welfare is government welfare. And welfare that benefits the middle class is middle class welfare.

Don't forget that Howard and Costello rode a huge boom through the naughties - and that they were hardly frugal with their spending and tax cuts. In fact, as I have shown previously, the first year of the Rudd government spend less as a % of GDP than Howard and Costello.

So if I gave you some money, then you handed it back at a future date, you would consider it a 'loan' to me?

So where did the money come from, Ash. You telling me they didn't get it from taxation? Are you telling me the greatest taxation revenue doesn't come from the middle class?
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Yes, that is right. People's past is irrelevant to who they are what they stand for and what they are likely to do.

Not to mention that the point of my post that you quoted was to note that she has lied when asked the question. I would like to know why she lied, and I fail to see how that is irrelevant.

Go ahead and lose respect for me if you wish.

If her past involved serious criminal activity then it is relevant to the current situation. Her alleged involvement in some Socialist alliance is not. It doesn't matter whether she lied about it or not. I am not saying this stuff should be totally off-limits, more that anyone who brings it up exposes themselves to be an idiot.

This stuff just causes needless vitriol and fuels the opinions of the uninformed. It's like US pundits talking about Obama's association with Reverend Wright- irrelevant and pointless. By all means attack her for lying about POLICY, but this stuff smacks of cheap shock-jockery (I reckon that should be a word).

You are better than that.
 

Ash

Michael Lynagh (62)
So if I gave you some money, then you handed it back at a future date, you would consider it a 'loan' to me?

So where did the money come from, Ash. You telling me they didn't get it from taxation? Are you telling me the greatest taxation revenue doesn't come from the middle class?

Firstly, as I said, any welfare is welfare no matter where it comes from. Learn the difference between government hand outs that are means tested in some way and tax cuts. Government hand outs that are tested based on circumstance (or even not, in the case of the health care rebate) are defined as welfare, and that's what they are, no matter whose taxes pay for them. And I will stress this point as your first point is rubbish, as I would've fallen into the middle class income bracket during Howard years, and all I saw from his "middle class welfare" was the private health care rebate. So where's the rest of my share of taxes, that, as you claim, went to middle class welfare which I supposedly got right back? Not so good a loan if I don't get it back, is it? So that's an incorrect analogy.

Secondly, I challenge you to prove that the middle class welfare under Howard came entirely from middle class taxes. I think you will struggle to do that, as it is near impossible to do. You claim that most taxation comes from the middle class, therefore the middle class pays for their own welfare. While you're at it, please provide the breakdown in taxes paid by the lower, middle and upper wage earners (or classes if you will).

To help you out, I found a breakdown of government revenue in 05-06:

http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/fbo/html/02_part_1-02.htm

Around half of federal government revenue is from individual income tax (what the middle class would've mostly been paying, with around 3/4 of federal government revenue coming from income taxation in total) . Good luck proving that the government used income tax from the middle class to provide "middle class welfare", and then at the same time cutting taxes. You're going to need to find individual income tax revenue from other years, find the breakdown that came from the middle class, determine funding changes from the Howard government, and try to work out where bits and pieces of money went. Not to mention from the difference in what the upper class and lower class paid and where their increases in taxation went to.

To be frank, this is a stupid point to be arguing. It was middle class welfare - government handouts that most benefited the middle class. It does not matter where the money came from, and it's not a point even worth arguing.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Ash you are a very literal person aren't you. I have no doubt that you have the dictionary definition of welfare down pat but that isn't what I am talking about. The term middle class welfare being used alongside or compared to true welfare is in my opinion incorrect.

If you are putting more or equal into an economy than you are getting out then I don't see that being true welfare. I see middle class welfare as a different way of giving money back than cutting taxes (whether that be to business or individuals). I don't agree with it as it was mainly used to buy votes but I also don't consider it true welfare.
 

Tangawizi

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Changing course slightly - here a good article on the Aussie CleanTech Industry.

The title of "Shunned at Home" says it all really.
 

Attachments

  • Ethical_Investor_-_Shunned_at_home.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 666
C

chief

Guest
For Labor to win this next election, they are going to have to do some severe tax cuts to a lot of people. Only way Labor will win.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Disagree chief they need to start showing they can run the country efficiently and consistently. Stop the backflips and wastage and that will go a long way. Stop making it easy for Abbott to be the 'wrecker'.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Hope this carbon tax is a little more successful than the one in Norway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

Norway
Norway introduced a CO2 tax on fossil fuels in 1991.[105] The tax started at a high rate of US$51 per metric ton of CO2 on gasoline, with an average tax of US$21 per metric ton[106] The tax was also applied to diesel, mineral oil, oil and gas used in North Sea extraction activities.[107] The International Energy Agency's (IEA) 2001 Review of Norway in the Energy Policies of IEA Countries stated that "since 1991 a carbon dioxide tax has applied in addition to excise taxes on fuel." It is among the highest carbon taxes in the OECD. Carbon taxation is also applied to the production of oil and gas offshore. The IEA estimates for revenue generated by the CO2 tax in 2004 were 7,808 million NOK [108] (about US$1.3 billion in 2010 dollars).
According to IEA 2005 Review of Norway,[108] Norway's CO2 tax is its most important climate policy instrument, and covers about 64% of Norwegian CO2 emissions and 52% of total GHG emissions. Some industry sectors have been granted exemptions from the tax to preserve their competitive position. Various studies in the 1990s, and an economic analysis by Statistics Norway, have estimated the effect of the CO2 tax to be a reduction of 2.5-11% of Norwegian emissions under a business-as-usual approach (i.e., the predicted emissions that would have occurred without the tax). However, even with the carbon tax, Norway's per capita emissions rose by 43% between 1991 (when the carbon tax was introduced) and 2008.[109
 

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
Regardless of any fear mongering, it is worrying that these reactors could be compromised in such a way. I am in no way anti nuclear but a rethink is in order after these events.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top