-PB

Like I said - ain't nobody got time for questioning where free money comes from

Half tempted to vote early after seeing how long the senate ballot actually is!

Pretty sure it's a crime to take an unaproved photo inside the polling station. Is that from this election?

:lol: I've only ever known one person to actually bother filling out the bottom parts. Pretty sure she put the liberal people from 1 to whatever, the labour people last to whatever, and just went from left to right for the rest of it :lol:

I guess that rules out our 442 moderators from political careers. They become responsible for the collective stupidity of the unwashed. Imagine the spin a reporter would put on the Hermoine thread, and would your mother be happy to read it aloud with her friends.

Might want to look at this.

Once you've voted for someone actually likely to win a Senate seat... your preferences after that pretty much become irrelevant.

Your friend would've actually been better off in this case voting '1' Liberal... as then statistically his vote would've been counted as a direct vote for the party and his preferences would've been distributed using the quota system as best suits the party.

Also, your friend technically voted for some pretty out-there ultra-left-wing parties ahead of the Labor party (including the Greens, Socialist Alliance, etc.) if that's what he did!



There really do seem to be only 2 reasons to vote below the line:
1) Because I want to vote for a particular party but NOT the particular person that is their preferred nominee ("I love the Labor party, but that Penny Wong is horrible I want to vote for someone in the party other than her")
2) Because you actually have an order of preference, rather than simply supporting a particular party ("I support the Nationals... but I *don't* support the Liberals so I don't want my preferences flowing to them. I'd rather my preferences flowed to the Shooters and Fishers. And if they're not going to the Shooters and Fishers I hope Bob Katter wins. Only after that do I support the Liberals")


Note that the second option *may* be based on individuals, but for most people would simply be about parties.

Liberals cut all company tax 1.5%

Then tax some of those companies 1.5%

Ergo, there is going to be a shortfall, with the Government required to spend money. Where is the money coming from to pay for the tax cut?

\:d/ \:d/ \:d/

In 2010 there were 297,900 births registered in Australia. So the average woman receiving $32,500 for each of those means that this is a TEN BILLION DOLLAR POLICY. Despite Abbott claiming that there is not enough government tax revenue.

New blow for Tony Abbott over paid parental leave scheme

Economic modelling shows real financial benefit could be half of what the opposition leader suggests under the $5.5bn scheme
Follow Lenore Taylor by

Lenore Taylor, political editor
theguardian.com, Wednesday 21 August 2013 08.39 AEST

The real financial gain for women under the Coalition's $5.5bn paid parental leave plan could be half that claimed by leader Tony Abbott, new modelling of the controversial scheme shows.

Abbott said his scheme is proof that he "gets" modern women and that it "will result in a woman earning the average full time salary of around $65,000 receiving $32,500 – and they will be around $21,300 better off under the Coalition's scheme relative to Labor's scheme."

But the modelling, by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), shows a woman with one child and a new baby earning $65,000 would in fact be better off compared with Labor's scheme by somewhere between $10,604 and $14,895 (depending on her partner's income) once reduced family tax benefit payments and income tax was taken into account.

Savings to the government from lower family tax benefit payments and income tax paid on the parental leave payments are included in the costings of the paid parental leave scheme that the Coalition has so far refused to release.

Also included is a saving from denying tax credits to shareholders of the 3,200 big businesses hit with a 1.5% levy to help pay for the scheme, which recent calculations by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) suggest could amount to $3.2bn over the first four years and $1.6bn a year when the scheme is fully operational.

Shareholder groups say this is an "unfair hit" on investors in Australian listed companies that feature in most share portfolios. They are calling on the Coalition to reverse the decision.

Labor targeted the impact of the levy on shareholders and self-funded retirees saying "it will hit superannuation, bigtime".

Kevin Rudd called the paid parental leave scheme and the levy to help pay for it "unfair, unaffordable and irresponsible".

Treasurer Chris Bowen said the Coalition's decision to deny tax credits meant the company tax levy would actually "be paid by every single shareholder in Australia".

"This is Tony Abbott's grand raid to pay for his signature [paid parental leave] policy ... Why should a retiree who has been working and saving all their lives pay for Tony Abbott's scheme through a tax on their retirement savings?" Bowen said.

Questioned about the tax credits issue on Wednesday Abbott confirmed they would not be paid on the 1.5% levy.

"Levies don't attract franking credits, that's just a standing rule," he said.

In fact, the government introducing the levy can choose whether it attracts tax credits or not, and the Greens have said they will seek to amend the 1.5% levy so that it would attract tax credits.

Abbott said Labor was creating "hysteria" around the issue.

Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser tweeted on Wednesday: "Investors take $1.7 billion hit for parental leave. Bad for retired people especially, inconceivably bad policy."

Under Labor's existing scheme, women get 18 weeks leave at the minimum wage of $622 a week. Under the Coalition's proposed scheme they would get 26 weeks at their actual wage, capped at $150,000 annual earnings.

According to the Coalition, a woman on the minimum wage or a part time worker earning less than that, would be at least $5,000 better off under its scheme.

But the NATSEM modelling, conducted by principal research fellow Ben Phillips, says a woman on the minimum wage with a child and a new baby, whose partner also earned the minimum wage, would in fact be $3,682 ahead under the Coalition scheme compared with Labor's because of lower family tax benefit payments.

High income women would also lose a chunk of their generous gains under the Coalition scheme in tax - a woman earning more than $100,000 whose partner earned more than $150,000 would be $52,000 better off before tax under the Coalition plan, but $26,791 after tax.

The real gains for lower income women would be close to the Coalition's claimed gains if the leave was for their first child and they did not have existing family tax benefit payments to lose under the income test rules for the benefits.

"The Coalition's scheme is definitely more generous but there are strong interactions for low income women with the tax and transfer systems, which means the gains are not as big as some people might think," Phillips said.

Asked about the NATSEM modelling reported by Guardian Australia, Abbott said: "This is a progressive system; if you have a higher income you lose some benefits, and you pay a little bit more tax, but you are always better off if your income increases."

The Coalition has said its policy will be "fully paid for" by the levy by rolling government parental leave plans, including for state and local government workers, by scrapping the existing Labor scheme, and by these "consequential" reductions in government payments of family tax benefits and increases in personal tax paid.

But it has so far refused to release the figures. It says they will be released before the end of the campaign.

"All of our policies will be subjected to scrutiny in the course of this campaign. All of them will be subjected to post-election scrutiny by the Parliamentary Budget Office ... it is fully funded and it has been absolutely fully costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office," Abbott said on the campaign trail on Tuesday.

But Labor has seized on the absence of costings and internal Coalition divisions about the scheme.

"Mr Abbott has been on about this policy for years. His party is divided on it. The Coalition is divided on it. The National Party folks are saying they'll cross the floor on it. Business hate it. State government conservative premiers hate it and ordinary Australians think it's wrong because it's so unfair – $75,000 on one hand to this person and taking back Schoolkids Bonus and other basic supports for working families on the other. It is unfunded. It is unfair. And frankly, it is a policy falling apart as we watch," prime minister Kevin Rudd said on Tuesday.

An updated PBO costing of the Greens' scheme, released on Tuesday, shows that their plan would cost the budget $2.1bn over its first four years.

Many of the features of the Greens' scheme are exactly the same as the Coalition's.

Problematically for the Coalition, the PBO says the levy would raise very little over the first two years because companies would "take steps to change the timing of their income in the year prior to the start date in order to benefit from the introduction of the levy".

The Greens would cap the wage replacement at $100,000 annual earnings, compared with the Coalition's cap of $150,000 - a difference that would make it cheaper. But it would also offer fathers an additional two weeks' paid leave, which would be somewhat more expensive.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/20/benefit-coalition-paid-parental-leave

Barry O'Farrell denies Linda Burney comments were racist

NSW premier implied the Indigenous Labour MP and deputy opposition leader had not achieved her position on merit

Australian Associated Press
theguardian.com, Wednesday 21 August 2013 12.21

The NSW premier, Barry O'Farrell, has brushed off claims that comments he made about the Indigenous politician Linda Burney were racist.

A spokesman for O'Farrell said the government would not be "dignifying that with a response". "It's all a bit ridiculous," he said.

The premier made his remarks after Burney, the deputy opposition leader, accused the community services minister, Pru Goward, in question time of having lost the confidence of her department.

"The minister for community services, the member for the Southern Highlands, has achieved every position in her life on merit. You can't say that," he said.

Burney later said O'Farrell might have been referring to her Indigenous background.

"If the premier has an inherent racial element to his questions, I can't prove that," she told reporters.

"All I can say is he's made imputations about my capacity, my reputation, on three occasions."

On previous occasions O'Farrell has joked that Burney could play ''hooker'' in a rugby league team and accused her of ''casting her spells''.

The opposition leader, John Robertson, has accused O'Farrell of making a racial slur and has called on him to make a public apology.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/barry-ofarrell-denies-linda-burney-comments-racist

I think Abbott's paid parental leave is fundamentally a good policy, the error with it is that the upper limit is just too high, $150,000 is too generous.

I understand why they've made it that high, the theory being that women earning that kind of money are reasonably high up in the organisation, and one of the reasons people say women find there is a glass ceiling for them when they climb the ranks is related to having to make a choice between their career or having kids and blah blah blah, so I get what they're saying, but ultimately I don't buy it, I think its just too generous.

I think if the cap was maybe $80,000 rather then $150,000 then I think the policy would gain far greater consensus in the community and Labor would find it much more difficult to pick holes in it.

Ironically though, lowering the cap to $80,000 probably wouldn't make that much difference to the overall cost of the policy though, because in reality that VAST majority of people who will benefit from this policy would be on average incomes, most people on that kind of money are over 40 years of age, there just isn't THAT many women on that kind of money at child bearing age, and if they are, they are more likely to delay childbirth in order to aid their career. But from a political perspective, just the idea of some "rich bitch" on $150k having access to this policy is just poison for the Libs

Just my opinion

Edited by RJL25: 21/8/2013 10:08:10 PM

In terms of the debate tonight, the media are trying to pump it up "oh wasn't it exciting, bit of argy bargy, blah blah blah" but honestly, I just found it fucking boring... 2 blokes trying to make out they are firing up, without actually firing up... please

No the fundamental error is that his current policies are already well outside the budget and about as sound as the Titanic. And this policy (Costing ~$10bn) on top is just exacerbating that.

Yeah, hard to make a decision to vote for Labor on the basis of budget responsibility though afro...

Ultimately I do agree that paid parental leave is something worth while, both parties actually agree on this, just the detail that differs.

The LNP can't really say "hey, look at the ALP, they can't even predict the budget in turbulent financial times" when their policies don't even add up. At least the ALP policies add up.

So the LNP haven't released their costings yet (bash them over the head) but despite this you already know that they don't add up?

And even before the budget revenues were down graded therefore blowing out the deficit, THEY WHERE ALREADY IN DEFICIT! Nothing to do with not being able to predict the budget in turbulent times mate, because even if it wasn't turbulent, they would still be in deficit!

Also Government revenues have INCREASED year on year every year since Labor came to power, the write downs just meant that revenue didn't grow AS MUCH as they predicted, but overall, revenue is up man, yet deficits are still growing... No but Labor are bloody sound economy managers man....

I don't care if your a Labor supporter man, its your right to support whoever you like, but don't try and argue that they've done a good job with the budget mate, they haven't. Focus instead on the good things they've done, Gillard did introduce a hell of a lot of very good reforms during this term of Government, people say Labor don't have a good record, but shit they actually do on many fronts, but the budget is not one of them afro and if I was a Labor supporter, it'd be the last thing I'd be trying to talk about....

Among the lowest budget deficits in the world, taking us through the toughest economic period in the last 20 years relatively unscathed...

Yep they did a shit job.

As I've already stated numerous times (and to no rebuttal): Abbott has stated that the Australian Government needs increased tax revenue, however he is cutting income and company taxes and rejected the ALP's attempts to introduce a new Tobacco levy. On top of this he's also stated that "austerity measures" aren't an option. This doesn't add up.

On top of this he's introduced $10 billion dollar maternity leave policy.

I'm so sick of that argument, yes the global financial situation was shit, but fact of the matter is the Australian economy was not effected anywhere near to the extent of the US and europe. Frankly the economic downturn in the late 80's hurt the Australian economy far more then the GFC hurt Australia, yet Hawke and Keating, while delivering deficits, didn't get us into anywhere near the same level of debt as Rudd and Gillard got us in.

Additionally, I say it again, Government revenues INCREASED year on year EVERY YEAR Labor has been in power. An increase in government spending may well have been warranted during the peak of the GFC, but it should have then gone back down again. It didn't, 4 years on the GFC is no longer a valid excuse for us STILL being in deficit.

Maternity leave policy according is costed at 5.5 billion, not sure where your getting 10 from but i'm sure you'll be able to find some opinion piece written by someone with an agenda to support that, but in terms of the Tobacco levy the Libs are actually on record as saying "we cannot guarantee we will remove this" which is code for of course we won't remove this.

They've also confirmed that the school kids bonus is gone and that 12,000 public servant positions will be eliminated via natural attrition.

There are savings there mate, I suspect you just don't want to see them...

Edited by RJL25: 21/8/2013 10:51:03 PM

Anyway as I said, if your so sure that Labor are so good, then why don't you talk up all the good shit Ruddy's going to do? Why focus all your energies on the opposition...

Maybe because of good financial planning/budgeting?

5.5bn would mean that they're only allowing for HALF as many babies to be born in Australia as have been born annually in the last 3 years.

So he's cutting 12,000 public servant jobs despite the fact that a month ago he was sniping the ALP over the employment rate. Go figure.

On top of that he's cutting education funding and cutting school kids bonuses. HECS now costs you some $130,000 to study law. So from now on under the LNP you can only be successful if your family already was successful.

Rudd was only in for a year prior to the GFC hitting, no Government no matter how good can have any real impact on the overall budget position in just 12 months.

So if its good planning/budgeting, then I guess your saying it's Howard that got us through then yeah? Somehow I doubt thats what you think...

Most economists will tell you that it was the mining industry, China and the relative strength of our banking sector that got us through the GFC, the Government didn't hinder the situation, but they didn't really do anything of any real note other then the banking deposit guarantee that made any real difference. And that policy didn't cost anything, so not an excuse for the deficit, plus it received bi-partisan support.

Because people are actually stupid enough to believe what the LNP say. And that's worrying.

on the first point, not all women who have kids are employed, there are lots of women who are either homemakers or, well, teenagers, who have babies too and they won't be factored in to this policy. Might not be quite half, I don't know, but I think its a bit simplistic to say that you should just double it...

In terms of the public service jobs, he isn't sacking people, he just isn't planning to replace people who they quit, retire, whatever. So that wouldn't actually have any impact on the unemployment situation.

In terms of education funding cuts, i'd like to see reference to that because while thats been part of the Labor scare I haven't actually seen anything announced around this. In terms of the school kids bonus that is definitely being cut yes, but I'm yet to meet anyone who has actually spent that money on school uniforms and books and stuff... that shit usually just goes onto the credit card.

In terms of HECS, you don't need to be from rich origins to study law, you can still put your studies on HECS, or you can be like me and work your arse off by working full time and studying part time and paying for your own studies along the way. You don't need to be from rich origins at all to be able to afford it mate, you just need to work your arse off.

Plus given how much Lawyers earn, I think people who make that commitment to either work their arse off and self fund their studies, or to go into debt to study, are well and truly rewarded for their toils at the other end.