The bias in human impressions towards recent events is inescapable. What happened last week can often seem more outstanding than an objectively bigger event that happened ten years ago.

Assessed objectively, is the current Australian federal government the most reactionary in history? The Menzies, Fraser and Howard years featured progressive elements, whereas there does not appear to be any ameliorating aspect or effort under this government. Although a round of “belt-tightening” is normal under new governments, this government has introduced or attempted major political reactionary changes at a rapid rate in its first 18 months, some of them unprecedented. The major changes or legislative attempts include: the abolition of two progressive taxes; the weakening of Medicare and attempt to kill bulk billing; the militarisation of the refugee repulsion program; the termination of schemes for stopping tax evasion; the removal of regulations that require financial advisers to act in the interest of their clients; the abolition of the position of the minister of science; the attempt at extreme welfare changes such as a six month waiting period for Newstart for people who lose their jobs; the removal of 80 billion dollars over the forward estimates from Health and Education funding; the attempt at the removal of caps for university fees; the abolition of the Climate Commission and the attempt at abolition of the Renewable Energy Target; the winding back of the planned NBN; disproportionately large budget cuts to public broadcasting, CSIRO, AIMS, and ANSTO; disproportionately large cuts to services for veterans; the cancellation of billions of dollars in public transport infrastructure in favour of road spending.

There have been dozens of other things but mostly they are in the minor, “nibbling” category of changes that conservative governments would make: conservative Australian governments since the war have tended, at most, to be genuinely conservative rather than reactionary. So taking the long view: has there been a government in Australian history that has undone so very much in such a short period?

We have conservative and progressive forumers here, and several of you will applaud all or most of these changes. Jolly good show, I’m not in this thread making value judgements. I don’t identify with reactionary sentiment, personally, but for all I know reactionary sentiment is right and I’m wrong. I don’t really want a debate on the actual merits: just an objective sentiment of which government was actually the most reactionary in effect.

>Assessed objectively, is the current Australian federal government the most reactionary in history?

Probably, but I don’t know much about the olden days governments.

I don’t know if reactionary versus conservative is the most useful way to categorize it.

I think it is more a case of being ideologically driven. They are perhaps the least pragmatic and most ideologically driven government we have had in ages. Driven by free market, private enterprise, minimalist government etc. So far they fit the mold.

They’re doing an inverted Whitlam.

Bubblecar said:

They’re doing an inverted Whitlam.

Exactly.

Various names for it: Neo-Con, Tea-Partyism, Libertarian etc.

Bubblecar said:

They’re doing an inverted Whitlam.

Yes.

From the stuff I read earlier in their reign of terror, I think they are reactionary. Doing some things out of spite towards the ALP.

*shrugs *

>I don’t know if reactionary versus conservative is the most useful way to categorize it.

>I think it is more a case of being ideologically driven. They are perhaps the least pragmatic and most ideologically driven government we have had in ages. Driven by free market, private enterprise, minimalist government etc. So far they fit the mold”

wealth reorganizing the turf
where once there were fields
their will it cages and boxes
yours above-ground burrows
should you know it different
born into those constructions
into it work, live’n you will fit
it be ‘nature’ from conception
them ‘natural order of things’
field of your view, contracted

I’d say this is the most random Australian Federal Government ever.

What does “reactionary” even mean?

mollwollfumble said:

I’d say this is the most random Australian Federal Government ever.

What does “reactionary” even mean?

What I mean is, Guillard was the exact opposite of Rudd. All Guillard did was introduce as many new taxes as possible. Abbott isn’t reacting against that.

My one totally annoying “reactionary” government thing is the Victorian Liberal Government’s cancellation of East-West link. Grr!

sorry moll you lose all credibility when you misspell the ex-pms name wrong. twice. might be ok for a trolling thread but i think this thread is actually trying to get some serious answers.

Define reactionary as a measurable quantity

i think this is a more subjective thread, as it is politics after all, so therefore defining ideas is unnecessary. it is what you want it to mean.

JudgeMental said:

sorry moll you lose all credibility when you misspell the ex-pms name wrong. twice. might be ok for a trolling thread but i think this thread is actually trying to get some serious answers.

This is a political troll thread, that’s fine but call it for what it is and stop pretending it’s about objective people trying to find answers.

JudgeMental said:

i think this is a more subjective thread, as it is politics after all, so therefore defining ideas is unnecessary. it is what you want it to mean.

Oh ok… I see

I don’t know if I would call this government reactionary, more out of touch IMO.

“I’d say this is the most random Australian Federal Government ever.”

Er, meaning what?

maybe you missed my post where i said it was subjective PWM?

:-)

Neophyte said:

“I’d say this is the most random Australian Federal Government ever.”

Er, meaning what?

it’s a term the cool kids use these days for surprising

Dropbear said:

it’s a term the cool kids use these days for surprising

Heh.

Peak Warming Man said:

JudgeMental said:

sorry moll you lose all credibility when you misspell the ex-pms name wrong. twice. might be ok for a trolling thread but i think this thread is actually trying to get some serious answers.

This is a political troll thread, that’s fine but call it for what it is and stop pretending it’s about objective people trying to find answers.

Yeah, I mean anything critical of politicians in any way has to be trolling, doesn’t it?

Or does that only apply if the criticism is directed towards the party you support?

mollwollfumble said:

What I mean is, Guillard was the exact opposite of Rudd. All Guillard did was introduce as many new taxes as possible. Abbott isn’t reacting against that.

Both suggestions about Gillard are ludicrous.

I really don’t think that this government is ‘reactionary’ (in the scene it is acting to counter external effects), I think what we have here is a group that are driven by two primary factors, they being

• political ideology
• political point scoring

In opposition the now government opposed the mining tax and opposed the ETS and as such in government they needed to continue this opposition (this is the point scoring). The ideologically driven changes (things like the dismantling of medicare, harsh controls on social security and privatisation of higher education) are, for me at least, the really scary bit because they aren’t being done in reaction to anything at all; they are just changes for change’s sake.

Most reactionary? Oh yeah.

Mad, bad, dangerous, deceptive? Yep, yep, yep, yep.

Someone should stick a bomb under them – a chain reactionary one!

it doesn’t matter what you think

are the elections that bring politicians into power secure ? no. very little electoral security exists means we get the politicians in that come in on the back of electoral fraud – which as it turns out is totally legal in all practical terms. even if illegal voting is detected the result stands.

the mining companies run Australia, free speech does not exist under the Australian constitution, so for all the reverence of the “great” minds that put it together that one fact alone speaks volumes. the mining companies bump off all other industry until they alone are the sole employer except for perhaps the supermarkets. they get the subsidies and the government is forced to do their bidding; no outrage is too great , land is destroyed , clean water sources destroyed, wholesale contamination abundant and farmers forced off the land by gun, bank or book.

worrying about the corrupt busy bodies in the halls of power that that look only after their friends and family is just one small part if the equation

discuss it as much as you want – you won’t change anything – you are boned

Up here in Queensland-ing we have a strong premier making strong choices in a strong way for a stronger Queensland-ing.

dv said:

the removal of regulations that require financial advisers to act in the interest of their clients;

Do you have a reference for this?

My understanding is that the majority of financial advisers work directly for or are affiliated in some way with big institutions, ie: the big banks & big insurance / super companies.

What I’m saying here is, the majority of financial advisers have NEVER had their clients best interests in mind, the only thing they have on their mind, is their commissions!

A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. The word can also be an adjective describing such viewpoints or policies. Reactionaries are considered to be one end of a political spectrum whose opposite pole is progressivism/radicalism (in the meaning “left”), though reactionary ideologies may be themselves radical (in the meaning “extreme”). While it has not been generally considered positive to be regarded as a reactionary, it has been adopted as a self-description by some, such as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Gerald Warner of Craigenmaddie, Nicolás Gómez Dávila, and John Lukacs.

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

Dropbear said:

Up here in Queensland-ing we have a strong premier making strong choices in a strong way for a stronger Queensland-ing.

roffle…

the ‘strong-ing’ in the advertising is a little OTT

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Up here in Queensland-ing we have a strong premier making strong choices in a strong way for a stronger Queensland-ing.

roffle…

the ‘strong-ing’ in the advertising is a little OTT

Fortunately, more and more people are realising this is all just marketing propaganda.(ie: bullshit)

Unfortunately, many people are so busy trying to survive and stay on top of their ever increasing costs of living, they don’t have the time or energy to give a fuck, so vote in who ever has the nicest suit n tie.

JudgeMental said:

sorry moll you lose all credibility when you misspell the ex-pms name wrong. twice. might be ok for a trolling thread but i think this thread is actually trying to get some serious answers.

I had been trying to forget that she ever existed.

Bubblecar said:

A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. The word can also be an adjective describing such viewpoints or policies. Reactionaries are considered to be one end of a political spectrum whose opposite pole is progressivism/radicalism (in the meaning “left”), though reactionary ideologies may be themselves radical (in the meaning “extreme”). While it has not been generally considered positive to be regarded as a reactionary, it has been adopted as a self-description by some, such as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Gerald Warner of Craigenmaddie, Nicolás Gómez Dávila, and John Lukacs.

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

In this case they want to go back to the distant past – the way things were pre-Whitlam. So I think reactionary is perhaps not the best word to fit it.

party_pants said:

In this case they want to go back to the distant past – the way things were pre-Whitlam. So I think reactionary is perhaps not the best word to fit it.

Yes, more your Thatcherite right wing radicals.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state (the status quo ante) in a society. The word can also be an adjective describing such viewpoints or policies. Reactionaries are considered to be one end of a political spectrum whose opposite pole is progressivism/radicalism (in the meaning “left”), though reactionary ideologies may be themselves radical (in the meaning “extreme”). While it has not been generally considered positive to be regarded as a reactionary, it has been adopted as a self-description by some, such as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Gerald Warner of Craigenmaddie, Nicolás Gómez Dávila, and John Lukacs.

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

In this case they want to go back to the distant past – the way things were pre-Whitlam. So I think reactionary is perhaps not the best word to fit it.

Menzies-era, perhaps?

Although he wasn’t a bad PM, as far as the Libs go.

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

…but her nasty spirit lives on.

party_pants said:

In this case they want to go back to the distant past – the way things were pre-Whitlam. So I think reactionary is perhaps not the best word to fit it.

I agree.

I laughed when I read Menzies resigned from the reserves as soon as war broke out

if people are willing to vote into power a man who shirks all responsibility whilst bathing in glorification of queen and country maybe Australia has been boned ever since “ federation” when the upper middle class seized power and crowned themselves rulers of the new “republic “ by any other name.

it’s like GST , you bring it then expand it to all the things you said you wouldn’t

baby steps

mollwollfumble said:

My one totally annoying “reactionary” government thing is the Victorian Liberal Government’s cancellation of East-West link. Grr!

What?

The East – West link was kyboshed by the recently elected Labor government.

and a good job too.

JudgeMental said:

and a good job too.

East-West link? The proposed western section providing a new link between CityLink and the western ring road would be economically viable IMO. We can’t fit any more lanes on Westgate bridge.

i think most studies show that better public transport rather than more roads is the better option. i mean if more roads worked then why would we need more roads?

JudgeMental said:

i think most studies show that better public transport rather than more roads is the better option. i mean if more roads worked then why would we need more roads?

Shipping containers have to be carted around on trucks for the last stage of their journey.

Shipping containers have to be carted around on trucks for the last stage of their journey.

i think that happens everywhere.

JudgeMental said:

Shipping containers have to be carted around on trucks for the last stage of their journey.

i think that happens everywhere.

Yeah I know. That’s why Melbourne needs another route because the Westgate Freeway will become too congested..

public transport is something that everyone thinks everyone else should be using

try carrying your loaded up shopping bags in the pouring rain , late of a night when you are sick and waiting for a bus that never comes

wookiemeister said:

public transport is something that everyone thinks everyone else should be using

try carrying your loaded up shopping bags in the pouring rain , late of a night when you are sick and waiting for a bus that never comes

Been there, done that.

Bubblecar said:

wookiemeister said:

public transport is something that everyone thinks everyone else should be using

try carrying your loaded up shopping bags in the pouring rain , late of a night when you are sick and waiting for a bus that never comes

Been there, done that.

Ditto…with small kids.

Melbourne is fucked without a proper set of ring roads

you need two ring roads with a speed limit on the outside lanes of 120kmph

the road network is like a broken jigsaw puzzle otherwise

they might as well encourage everyone to buy more music , they’ll need it for the monster traffic jams

D-s: in politics, reactionary politics is that which wishes to return to a previous political state, to reverse progress, etc.

dv said:

D-s: in politics, reactionary politics is that which wishes to return to a previous political state, to reverse progress, etc.

OK… be that as it may, I still don’t see this as an attempt to return to any previous state of government… many of the policies you mentioned are unique but I do agree many are also very regressive

dv said:

D-s: in politics, reactionary politics is that which wishes to return to a previous political state, to reverse progress, etc.

Many people saw the Carbon Tax as something more than just a broken promise, many saw it as a regressive tax and anything but progressive. This of course makes the abolition of the tax as progressive.
It’s all in the I of the beholder.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

D-s: in politics, reactionary politics is that which wishes to return to a previous political state, to reverse progress, etc.

Many people saw the Carbon Tax as something more than just a broken promise, many saw it as a regressive tax and anything but progressive. This of course makes the abolition of the tax as progressive.
It’s all in the I of the beholder.

I agree, it makes much more sense to tax fresh food, education and medical care than thst carbon pollution stuff that those greenies bang on about

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

D-s: in politics, reactionary politics is that which wishes to return to a previous political state, to reverse progress, etc.

Many people saw the Carbon Tax as something more than just a broken promise, many saw it as a regressive tax and anything but progressive. This of course makes the abolition of the tax as progressive.
It’s all in the I of the beholder.

but is was a progressive tax (by definition)

Progressive: I agree with it
Regressive: the other mob are cu..grubs

>>it makes much more sense to tax fresh food

Stops reading.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>it makes much more sense to tax fresh food

Stops reading.

Chuckle…

It’s an uncomfortable position that mob is pushing, I agree

Peak Warming Man said:

>>it makes much more sense to tax fresh food

Stops reading.

Seriously though… do you really believe that abolishing the ‘carbon tax’ (an essentially fixed to variable carbon pricing mechanism) to replace it with a government subsidy to big business is a good idea?

Dropbear said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>it makes much more sense to tax fresh food

Stops reading.

Chuckle…

It’s an uncomfortable position that mob is pushing, I agree

Frank and open discussion an tax does scare some people, but you’ll get over it.

sorry PWM, there is no prize for second.

JudgeMental said:

sorry PWM, there is no prize for second.

Or third.

Peak Warming Man said:

Dropbear said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>it makes much more sense to tax fresh food

Stops reading.

Chuckle…

It’s an uncomfortable position that mob is pushing, I agree

Frank and open discussion an tax does scare some people, but you’ll get over it.

Frank and open discussion about taxing fresh food over carbon you mean?

Dropbear said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Dropbear said:

Chuckle…

It’s an uncomfortable position that mob is pushing, I agree

Frank and open discussion an tax does scare some people, but you’ll get over it.

Frank and open discussion about taxing fresh food over carbon you mean?

The discussion on the carbon tax has been and gone, this government had a mandate to get rid of it and that has been done.
There is a white/green paper on tax reform coming out soon the GST has not been excluded as to my mind is appropriate.
It’s not complicated.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

D-s: in politics, reactionary politics is that which wishes to return to a previous political state, to reverse progress, etc.

Many people saw the Carbon Tax as something more than just a broken promise, many saw it as a regressive tax and anything but progressive. This of course makes the abolition of the tax as progressive.
It’s all in the I of the beholder.

Not when the beholders only see what they want to see.

A new tax that is revenue neutral and is accompanied by tax concessions that leave low to middle income people either the same or better off is not a regressive tax.

1) >>Not when the beholders only see what they want to see.

True.

2) >>A new tax that is revenue neutral and is accompanied by tax concessions that leave low to middle income people either the same or better off is not a regressive tax.

See 1.

Peak Warming Man said:

Dropbear said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Frank and open discussion an tax does scare some people, but you’ll get over it.

Frank and open discussion about taxing fresh food over carbon you mean?

The discussion on the carbon tax has been and gone, this government had a mandate to get rid of it and that has been done.
There is a white/green paper on tax reform coming out soon the GST has not been excluded as to my mind is appropriate.
It’s not complicated.

Changes to the GST are unlikely at best – the fed will have to get the approval from all the states

The most sensible way to look at tax reform is to stop tax breaks on wealthy individuals and companies (superannuation tax offsets, negative gearing as well as closing personal and corporate tax loopholes). Do this and we’ll be a lot closer to a more equitable tax system that raises the money required to fund government services and all done without negatively impacting those least able to afford it.

Peak Warming Man said:

Dropbear said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Frank and open discussion an tax does scare some people, but you’ll get over it.

Frank and open discussion about taxing fresh food over carbon you mean?

The discussion on the carbon tax has been and gone, this government had a mandate to get rid of it and that has been done.
There is a white/green paper on tax reform coming out soon the GST has not been excluded as to my mind is appropriate.
It’s not complicated.

funny thing is it’s already been done…

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/finalreport.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/final_report_part_1/chapter_12.htm

Peak Warming Man said:

1) >>Not when the beholders only see what they want to see.

True.

2) >>A new tax that is revenue neutral and is accompanied by tax concessions that leave low to middle income people either the same or better off is not a regressive tax.

See 1.

I’m sorry PWM, but you’ll have to work it through for me.
Please explain how a tax that leaves most people in the same or better position is regressive, but a tax that leaves everybody worse off, and low income earners are proportionately much more affected than high income earners, is not regressive.

Peak Warming Man said:

Dropbear said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Frank and open discussion an tax does scare some people, but you’ll get over it.

Frank and open discussion about taxing fresh food over carbon you mean?

The discussion on the carbon tax has been and gone, this government had a mandate to get rid of it and that has been done.
There is a white/green paper on tax reform coming out soon the GST has not been excluded as to my mind is appropriate.
It’s not complicated.

Lulz..

Mandate is such a rubbery word.

Dropbear said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Dropbear said:

Frank and open discussion about taxing fresh food over carbon you mean?

The discussion on the carbon tax has been and gone, this government had a mandate to get rid of it and that has been done.
There is a white/green paper on tax reform coming out soon the GST has not been excluded as to my mind is appropriate.
It’s not complicated.

Lulz..

Mandate is such a rubbery word.

The only time a govt has a mandate to do anything is when there is no way that the opposition can block it. Anything else and they have to negotiate to get a result.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

1) >>Not when the beholders only see what they want to see.

True.

2) >>A new tax that is revenue neutral and is accompanied by tax concessions that leave low to middle income people either the same or better off is not a regressive tax.

See 1.

I’m sorry PWM, but you’ll have to work it through for me.
Please explain how a tax that leaves most people in the same or better position is regressive, but a tax that leaves everybody worse off, and low income earners are proportionately much more affected than high income earners, is not regressive.

>>but a tax that leaves everybody worse off,

The pensioners were compensated for the carbon tax.
They were compensated because the carbon tax sent up prices.
This government abolished the carbon tax but not the compensation therefor the pensioners are better off for abolishing the carbon tax and the introduction of the alternative.

But these arguments have all been had before, there’s always two sides to a story.
See 1.

Actually I have no real issue with the idea of taking a policy to an election and then acting on it (after all, it’s the way it should be – ie Howard and GST).

The amusing thing is watching people use that as a moral argument (ie taxing fresh food over carbon) and trying to imply the issue is somehow dead and buried.

Dropbear said:

Actually I have no real issue with the idea of taking a policy to an election and then acting on it (after all, it’s the way it should be – ie Howard and GST).

The amusing thing is watching people use that as a moral argument (ie taxing fresh food over carbon) and trying to imply the issue is somehow dead and buried.

I completely agree… but the one thing that I think is lost in this argument is that role of government is to work with the rest of Parliament to achieve its goals… it’s ridiculous to think that because a particular party has control of the lower house it has the ‘mandate’ to steamroll political process.

Dropbear said:

Actually I have no real issue with the idea of taking a policy to an election and then acting on it (after all, it’s the way it should be – ie Howard and GST).

The amusing thing is watching people use that as a moral argument (ie taxing fresh food over carbon) and trying to imply the issue is somehow dead and buried.

See 1.

Peak Warming Man said:

The pensioners were compensated for the carbon tax.
They were compensated because the carbon tax sent up prices.
This government abolished the carbon tax but not the compensation therefor the pensioners are better off for abolishing the carbon tax and the introduction of the alternative.

But they are not better off because the government is introducing all sorts of other taxes and benefit reductions to fix the hole in the budget left because they did not remove the compensation for the carbon tax, which would have been the honest thing to do.

Peak Warming Man said:

But these arguments have all been had before, there’s always two sides to a story.
See 1.

Yes, See 1.

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Actually I have no real issue with the idea of taking a policy to an election and then acting on it (after all, it’s the way it should be – ie Howard and GST).

The amusing thing is watching people use that as a moral argument (ie taxing fresh food over carbon) and trying to imply the issue is somehow dead and buried.

I completely agree… but the one thing that I think is lost in this argument is that role of government is to work with the rest of Parliament to achieve its goals… it’s ridiculous to think that because a particular party has control of the lower house it has the ‘mandate’ to steamroll political process.

well yes quite, as the other side can say they have a mandate to stop it, but it’s still a lot better to take large structural changes to an election.

Peak Warming Man said:

Dropbear said:

Actually I have no real issue with the idea of taking a policy to an election and then acting on it (after all, it’s the way it should be – ie Howard and GST).

The amusing thing is watching people use that as a moral argument (ie taxing fresh food over carbon) and trying to imply the issue is somehow dead and buried.

See 1.

One what?

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

Actually I have no real issue with the idea of taking a policy to an election and then acting on it (after all, it’s the way it should be – ie Howard and GST).

The amusing thing is watching people use that as a moral argument (ie taxing fresh food over carbon) and trying to imply the issue is somehow dead and buried.

I completely agree… but the one thing that I think is lost in this argument is that role of government is to work with the rest of Parliament to achieve its goals… it’s ridiculous to think that because a particular party has control of the lower house it has the ‘mandate’ to steamroll political process.

well yes quite, as the other side can say they have a mandate to stop it, but it’s still a lot better to take large structural changes to an election.

agreed… II mean it’s obvious that tax reform will be the platform for the next election… If I were the ALP I would be working on a set of very key tax policies aimed at making the system as a whole more transparent and equitable – do that and they will have it in the bag.

diddly-squat said:

agreed… II mean it’s obvious that tax reform will be the platform for the next election… If I were the ALP I would be working on a set of very key tax policies aimed at making the system as a whole more transparent and equitable – do that and they will have it in the bag.

Here’s hoping…

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

I completely agree… but the one thing that I think is lost in this argument is that role of government is to work with the rest of Parliament to achieve its goals… it’s ridiculous to think that because a particular party has control of the lower house it has the ‘mandate’ to steamroll political process.

well yes quite, as the other side can say they have a mandate to stop it, but it’s still a lot better to take large structural changes to an election.

agreed… II mean it’s obvious that tax reform will be the platform for the next election… If I were the ALP I would be working on a set of very key tax policies aimed at making the system as a whole more transparent and equitable – do that and they will have it in the bag.

Yeh. Increasing income tax is a sure vote winner

Dropbear said:

Yeh. Increasing income tax is a sure vote winner

Bracket creep will eventually sort out income tax. It’s super tax concessions, negative gearing and possibly a raise in the GST where I think the solution lies.

Dropbear said:

diddly-squat said:

Dropbear said:

well yes quite, as the other side can say they have a mandate to stop it, but it’s still a lot better to take large structural changes to an election.

agreed… II mean it’s obvious that tax reform will be the platform for the next election… If I were the ALP I would be working on a set of very key tax policies aimed at making the system as a whole more transparent and equitable – do that and they will have it in the bag.

Yeh. Increasing income tax is a sure vote winner

it’s tough, I’ll grant you… but I think compared to an increase in the GST, I think most people will go for the more progressive option (or I at least think they would).

Equally if the LibNats come to the table they’ll have it in the bag.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

Yeh. Increasing income tax is a sure vote winner

Bracket creep will eventually sort out income tax. It’s super tax concessions, negative gearing and possibly a raise in the GST where I think the solution lies.

• a progressive company tax system
• removal of many of the complexities in the current individual tax system (rebates, deduction, etc…)

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

Yeh. Increasing income tax is a sure vote winner

Bracket creep will eventually sort out income tax. It’s super tax concessions, negative gearing and possibly a raise in the GST where I think the solution lies.

You can’t stop negative gearing now . It would be suicide

Dropbear said:

You can’t stop negative gearing now . It would be suicide

Restricting it to one property and a maximum claimable amount could work?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Dropbear said:

You can’t stop negative gearing now . It would be suicide

Restricting it to one property and a maximum claimable amount could work?

First step is restricting it to property.

Then maybe look at restricting it to numbers.

maybe they should tax the old and the sick??

ok you are old , probably got some money in the bank – with Australia’s rapidly growing shiny population it would be suicide not to tax older people. if they all went somewhere else it would save a fortune not to mention that you could replenish the ranks with some nice asylum seekers with hardcore jihad tendencies that have seen them persecuted in other countries.

the old people would pay a 50 percent tax as they left the country to save what little they had .

the true genius of taxing the sick is that they don’t have any options – right!!?

they’ll be too sick and feeble to oppose you , you make a law that any legal rep for them has to pay a 50 million dollar bond to the goverent before any legal rebuttal could happen

edit – shiny being aging in iPhone speak

the government could then use the billions it collected from raiding people’s bank accounts to build some fucked up submarines and fighter jets that everyone says are doomed and will never work ( maybe some helicopters too).

then they’d need some money to pay for some more crap and they would all live happily ever after

Even among those people who think mandate politics is a thing, I don’t know how they’d argue that the government had a mandate to make cuts to health, cuts to education, changes to the pension, cuts to ABC and SBS, given that they gave very specific promises to the contrary. If they do in fact broaden the GST it will be a clean sweep.

In another venue, Martin B has suggested that Bruce’s last dig, or possibly Howard’s, might be more outstanding, but notes that it is “Remarkable that this is the starting point, not the tired end.”

dv said:

In another venue, Martin B has suggested that Bruce’s last dig, or possibly Howard’s, might be more outstanding, but notes that it is “Remarkable that this is the starting point, not the tired end.”

Let’s not forget that Howard actually changed the Marriage Act to ensure that only conservative voters could legally marry.

dv said:

In another venue, Martin B has suggested that Bruce’s last dig, or possibly Howard’s, might be more outstanding, but notes that it is “Remarkable that this is the starting point, not the tired end.”

feels confused

Can you explain this in simpler terms please?

Witty Rejoinder said:

dv said:

In another venue, Martin B has suggested that Bruce’s last dig, or possibly Howard’s, might be more outstanding, but notes that it is “Remarkable that this is the starting point, not the tired end.”

feels confused

Can you explain this in simpler terms please?

I have asked whether the current government is the most reactionary Australian Federal government in history.

Martin B suggest that Bruce’s last term, or Howard’s last term, might have been more reactionary.

However, he makes a note of the fact that this current government is right at the start of its reign, and that it is unusual for conservatives to go so far so fast.

Ahhhh Stanley Bruce. Gotcha.

dv said:

However, he makes a note of the fact that this current government is right at the start of its reign, and that it is unusual for conservatives to go so far so fast.

Political backers have been getting more impatient since the 1970s. The idea of a conservative government being ensconced in Canberra for many years is not as firm as it used to be.

They want their payoffs ever more quickly, when such a govt does manage to get in. Make hay while the sun shines, and all that.

Bubblecar said:

They’re doing an inverted Whitlam.

LOL

PWM, fair enough that you don’t agree with my analysis. What Australian government do you think was the most reactionary.