1. 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.

The Newman Government in Queensland

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bowside, Jul 16, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    682
    What is the largest business in QLD? Surely the government couldn't perform all it's duties with the same number of workers' as a company that specializes in one thing? (ie: mining)

    The statement is kind of meaningless anyway. A perfect "privatized" society would have deep and liquid competition in each market, which would make for lots of medium/small sized businesses specializing in a few trades. So even in a "small government" society, the government would be one of the top employers.
  2. fatprop David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,438
    A government will be a large employer, but how large?

    I think the real question should be what businesses/services does a state government need to be/should be in?
  3. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    682
    As you say below, as large as it needs to be to complete all the tasks we assign to it. The statement "the governmnt should never be the biggest employer" isn't significant when you look at it this way. It doesn't matter if it's the 2nd biggest, 3rd biggest or whatever.

    Most Australians agree on the basics. Education, healthcare, roads, welfare, defence, ect. We only really argue about what minor % of this work should be privatized. Which does add up to billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs, but in the overall big scheme of things everyone seems to have a similar picture of the government's role. I don't think it's damaging at all. (neither do experts)
  4. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    682
    I should add, the reason we assign roles to the government is because the private market fails, or doesn't adequately meet the standards we want in that area. No one is stopping some billionares investing in high school education tomorrow and completely taking the government out of the picture. But providing affordable education for all is not profitable. Hence why the government is responsible for the bulk of that industry and has tens of thousands of employees in that area.
  5. fatprop David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,438
    The etc is usually the issue, as well as the level of the others provided
  6. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Sully,

    This is what you said, and I asked what are all those pillars. Now that you can't answer you resort to calling me names?
  7. Sully John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    8,740
    Scott I ignored that in an attempt to avoidcan argument with an obvious fan. But Newman spent a fortune promoting his plan to build the four pillars of queenslands economy. Which of these is he looking after right bow?

    Sent using Tapatalk
  8. Schadenfreude John Solomon (38)

    Likes Received:
    688
    Won't sacking all those people decrease revenue? Tax revenue and GST revenue for governments, and cash flow all through the economy.

    What abou tall the poor retailers with no customers?

    What about the businesses that provide services to govt?
  9. I like to watch Simon Poidevin (60)

    Likes Received:
    5,580
    Sully, are you suggesting what he is doing is unexpected?
    From what I have seen (from sydney) he is doing exactly what he said he would do.
  10. Sully John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    8,740
    It's certainly not what I was expecting when I voted for him.

    Sent using Tapatalk
  11. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Construction and mining - announcement this week that they would fast track the release of land by the ulda in some of the mining regions to increase housing construction and reduce bottlenecks in accommodation

    Not much else off the top of my head, but it is hardly the same as 'kicking all the pillars of the economy'. Also not sure you could rightly say he has 'spent a fortune' in promoting his plan.

    When you couldnt back up your statement you resorted to name calling. Something that mods don't like when others do it!
  12. fatprop David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    9,438
    Lowering the need to increase taxes or even the opportunity to lower taxes actually can have a benefit to the economy
  13. Sully John Eales (66)

    Likes Received:
    8,740
    Still not interested in arguing politics with you.
  14. I like to watch Simon Poidevin (60)

    Likes Received:
    5,580
    Then I can understand why you would be shitty with him.Looks like he has at least a two term majority as well.So you will be grinding your teeth for a while yet.
  15. Schadenfreude John Solomon (38)

    Likes Received:
    688
    You can increase tax revenue without raising tax rates. Decreasing cash flow will decrease tax revenue, but maybe he doesn't give a shit because he's trying to screw the federal budget.
  16. Schadenfreude John Solomon (38)

    Likes Received:
    688
    I wonder how much you have to donate to the LNP to be considered a pillar?

    When I look at the mining industry my first thought is always: "Those massively profitable companies that make money by taking something owned by all australians, and sell it internationally need more assistance."
    Ruggo likes this.
  17. Bruwheresmycar Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    682
    Mining companies are pretty self sufficient and generally just want to be left alone (from what I've seen). What annoys me is this attitude that the rate of tax they pay should never rise over time. It reminds me of those billionares who think everyone should have the same flat tax rate. I understand businesses wanting maximal profit for shareholders, but people/mining executives who get disgusted at the thought of paying a higher rate of tax 20 years into the future are the pinnacle of selfishness (and stupidity).

    The majority are obviously sensible people, but there seems to be a much higher proportion of c**** in the industry. And quite a few hold positions of power.
    Ruggo likes this.
  18. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Actually pretty sure that each state owns their own resources, so not exactly 'owned by all Australians'.
  19. Schadenfreude John Solomon (38)

    Likes Received:
    688
    Great semantic argument there - of course, those multinational mining companies restrict their activities to one state.
  20. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Not really. If Qld and WA own the majority of the mineral assets, yet you say that 'all Australians' own them, and should gain benefit from them, why can't we extrapolate further and have 'all people on Earth' own the assets?

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page