ScreamingLlama posted:

I hereby register my strenuous objection to this part of the OP on the grounds that you are going too loving far. We (yes, we, there's still plenty of Dems) are still a party as far as the AEC is concerned, and until remain so until such time as the party is actually deregistered. Also stop being a bunch of shitlords carrying on about something that happened twenty years ago that half of today's party membership had no loving control over (due to, you know, being children at the time).


Gods preserve me.

ScreamingLlama posted:

Drunken, bitter, angry yobbos mocking everything remotely political while impotently stewing in the futility of their own acts?

ScreamingLlama posted:

I'm not willing to accept the idea that one fuckup means that group should be gone forever. After all, the ALP put Kim Beazley in charge for a long while.

ScreamingLlama posted:

we have actual economic policies as opposed to the Greens just belching out clouds of weed smoke like the factories they profess to hate

Clouds of Weed Smoke posted:

The Greens today announced revenue measures that would fund the repayment of $20 billion of investment in new public transport, schools, hospitals, housing and other social infrastructure, without privatisation or running up unsustainable debt.

The Greens propose to restore taxation measures worth $950 million a year on property speculators and poker machines in the large clubs that were introduced by former Labor Premier Bob Carr in 2004 and then axed by his successor, Morris Iemma, in 2006.

Together with $400 million a year from maintaining the stamp duties on business transactions (the "IGA taxes") that were scheduled to be abolished, a loan of $20 billion can be paid back over a twenty year period, using conservative estimates of interest rates.

The vendor duty would not apply to the family home or farm and would help prevent first home buyers being priced out by another housing bubble.

Rescinding Morris Iemma's tax cut for the most profitable clubs would reduce the money available to them to expand and further concentrate poker machines in areas with high incidences of problem gambling.

Tacking back the tax cuts

Reinstate the Vendor Duty. This would apply to the sale of all land other than owner-occupied homes and family farms, where the value since purchase has increased by more than 12 percent. The duty was designed to address the combination of capital gains and negative gearing tax concessions introduced by the Howard Government.
Revenue: $645 million averaged over four year forward estimates
Restore marginal poker machine tax rates at clubs with profits of more than $1 million a year to the level set by Labor in 2004 (a sliding marginal scale from 25 percent on $1 million to $5 million of profits to 40 percent on profits over $10 million).
Revenue: $310 million per annum averaged over four year forward estimates
Maintain the stamp duties on certain business transactions (the "IGA" taxes) which are scheduled to be abolished in July 2016. These include stamp duty on business mortgages, unlisted marketable securities and transfer duty on non-real business transfers. The duties are forecast to raise $381 million in 2016/17 and $403 million in 2017/18.
Revenue: $400 million per annum averaged over four year forward estimates
Total revenue: $1.355 billion per annum

Borrowings

$20 billion at 3.25 percent, paid back over 20 years at $1.35 billion a year. The rate is deliberately conservative, compared to the current 10-year Waratah bond rate of 2.75 percent which would require annual repayments of $1.3 billion. Phased borrowing over the 20 year period would increase the total amount of capital that can be sustainably raised.

INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT INCLUDES

Schools, TAFE colleges and hospitals $4.5 billion
Social (including public) and affordable housing $4.5 billion
Public transport (new projects, not yet announced) $1.75 billion
Renewable energy package (already announced ) $2.75 billion
Large scale solar and other renewables $2.25 billion
Sports and recreation $1.5 billion
Other social infrastructure, focused on jobs creation $2.75 billion
Total: $20.0 billion

Graic Gabtar posted:

Well considering how many on welfare are claiming disability then I think most would take their chances that avoiding that investment is safe as pulling hard on a rope to raise the blade would be something people won't dare do in this age of phone cameras.

Ragingsheep posted:

QM, do you know what the size of the Waratah Bond program is? It seems to be a much more retail investor focused program so I really doubt you could borrow $20bn off that program alone.

Senor Tron posted:

Low lying areas like Melbourne are submerged, inland Coalition strongholds like Western Sydney take over.

Anidav posted:

What the gently caress is this poo poo?

GoldStandardConure posted:

[citation needed]

EvilElmo posted:

But the greens posters in this thread just said it was right they were proposing to make changes to the pension.

Tokamak posted:

I wouldn't mind America trying this for a decade so they can further blow out their budget and have nothing to show for it. Then we can finally lay this one to bed, but this because I don't live in America.

quote:

Ireland was a beneficiary of this during the so-called Irish Miracle in the late 1980s when a 75% cut in its corporate tax rate led to a massive inflow of capital, the establishment of more than 1,000 corporate headquarters, and dramatic increases in workers' wages.

quote:

would be to force shareholders to pay income taxes on their companies’ profits as they accrue. This gives companies no tax-related reason to leave the US, while ensuring shareholders rather than workers make up for any revenue losses.

Cocomonk3 posted:

Can someone explain to me as though I'm a child (because I have a child's understanding of economics) the recent kerfuffle about the GST in Western Australia?

I'm Western Australian, so it's getting play on the radio, and what I've been able to gather is that of the GST that WA pays, we get back a significantly smaller share than the other states. And this is set to decrease? At first glance this annoys me since it seems unfair but I'm not sure if that's just that I don't understand what's happening (likely) or that the radio doesn't explain it well (also likely). Can anyone help me out with that?

quote:

"Quite frankly, I really wish I had the revenue that Peter Costello had," he told the ABC's AM program.

Graic Gabtar posted:

Ah cool. So then all of our transport problems will be solved right?

Graic Gabtar posted:

not funding anything without a strong business case now.

Graic Gabtar posted:

No, I don't need to be reminded of anything. Do any major transport infrastructure projects come with stunning profitability?

Vladimir Poutine posted:

Voters should be required to show identification, allowed to use pens for federal elections, parliamentary inquiry says posted:

Voters turning out at next year's federal election could have to show identification and — for the first time in almost a century — be legally provided with a pen instead of a pencil.

These are among the 24 recommendations of a lengthy parliamentary inquiry into the troubled 2013 election.

Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters has released its final findings on the $191 million election, which ended with Western Australian voters returning to the polls for a second time to elect the state's six senators.

The committee found nearly 1,400 Senate ballot slips that disappeared in the state may have literally fallen off the back of a truck.

The final report has caused a split between the Coalition on one side, and Labor and the Greens on another, over two proposed changes to electoral law:

The need to show voter identification at the booths and;
An automatic voter enrolment process used by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)

The Coalition, led by Liberal MP Tony Smith, favours a new requirement to "present a form of acceptable identification to be used with an ordinary pre-poll or election day vote".

The presentation of a driver's licence, bank statement or rates notice was compulsory at this year's Queensland election and the JSCEM heard it worked to reduce cases of questionable voting.

Mr Smith wants the same regime applied federally.

"It's something I think should become law, it's something the voters would like to become law," he said.

"Most voters find it bizarre you're asked for ID to get a parcel at the Post Office, but when it comes to our democratic duty ... there's no check at all," he said.

But Labor and the Greens have filed a dissenting report, pointing to a fall in voter turnout in Queensland under the ID system and warning: "if such a drop in turnout were to result at the next federal election, more than 165,000 Australians may be excluded from the electoral contest".

"This would not be a positive development in our democracy," it said.

The Coalition is also at odds with Labor and the Greens on a process known as "automatic enrolment."

Currently, the AEC uses data matching from Government agencies to uncover people of voting age who have not placed themselves on the roll.

The adults are then enrolled automatically by the AEC.

The Coalition wants a form of consent in the process before voters are added to the roll, while Labor and the Greens favour waiting for an AEC review before making any changes to the process.

Recommendations from JSCEM election reviews usually lead to changes to the Electoral Act and this year's report looks set to change a 97-year-old feature in the voting booth.

Since 1918, the Act has demanded that electoral officials "furnish voting compartments with a pencil".

But complaints by Clive Palmer and other submissions have prompted the Committee to unanimously conclude "the operational norm should be for pens" and to unanimously recommend "the provision of pens should be the default option".

Voting changes to limit micro-party candidates, independents

Publication of the Committee's final report has also reignited a dispute with minor parties and independents in the Senate.

Since last year, a clear majority of committee members have favoured optional preferential voting for "above the line" voting, partial preferential voting below the line, and the abolition of group voting tickets for Senate ballots.

If passed into law, the changes would be likely to make the election of micro-party candidates and independents with votes as low as 1.3 per cent much harder.

NSW Liberal Democratic Party Senator David Leyonhjelm predicted "the only crossbench senator who will survive under that calculation would be Nick Xenophon in South Australia".

"I think there would be a crossbench rebellion quite frankly if this was to proceed," he said.

Senator Leyonhjelm also warned "if they proceed down that path, they introduce legislation, get it through, they will have the most feral Senate they've ever heard of".

Graic Gabtar posted:

How so?

dr_rat posted:

At least they shouldn't have enough votes in the senate to get that past.

Graic Gabtar posted:

What percentage of voters would not have a driver's licence, bank statement, or rates notice? Is it less that fraudulent voting or higher?

quote:

When used at the Stafford by-election, 99.1% of voters had appropriate ID.

Graic Gabtar posted:

For the very small amount of people who don't if they tick a box on some form and they get an ID for free would you be OK with that or are we in "Australia Card" territory?

Graic Gabtar posted:

would you need the cost of an electronic roll?

However, if you bring in electronic rolls then, wow. Welcome to the pricey world of information security.

Murodese posted:

Probably the Stable Population Party, something he wishes the Democrats had more of.

Anidav posted:

katlington posted:

It's almost like they're trying to use arguments they've heard others use in other contexts without understanding what they mean. It's like they're dumb or something.

Negligent posted:

in the sense of being a moral wrong.

Negligent posted:

Paying someone money, who in exchange for that money places your life and theirs at risk, is not.

Negligent posted:

Or you know, you could try to go somewhere you won't be murdered, without paying a people smuggler.

Negligent posted:

Endman already tried that.

Negligent posted:

You place one foot in front of the other and repeat

Negligent posted:

I mean rescue in the broadest sense. Not just that the navy comes and saves you, or even that the boat reached shore and you make it to civilisation, but that you will be completely helpless and at the mercy of your rescuer, and again, I mean rescuer broadly.

Negligent posted:

If, in your current location, you are in danger of being murdered, then the prudent thing to do is go somewhere that you are less likely to be murdered. Walking is available to everyone, whereas people smuggling is not.

Negligent posted:

The moral obligation is to not use your money to put yourself and the people smuggler in a position requiring rescue

Negligent posted:

Sigh, the difference is that you know with certainty upon entering into the act that you will be at the mercy of a rescuer, as opposed to an unexpected emergency.

Negligent posted:

But you don't make a conscious decision to have a medical compliant requiring emergency care.