Whether they are in a coalition or not I don't see the nationals backing anyone else. The government would just be even more ineffectual. Toss up whether that would end up better or worse.
If the LNP coalition breaks down, who do the Nationals hitch their wagon to from then on? Labour? The Greens? Or do we go to a 4 party race?
4 party race would never happen, someone would need to form some sort of coallition to meet the seat criteria to form government.
This. Or it would be all Labor all the time. Which doesn't bother me per se, but I doubt it would be particular healthy for democracy
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited March 2015
Yuk at all anything all the time.
Whatever they started with wouldn't be how they'd end up.
They'd end up like any other party or person that gets too much power for too long.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Australia's 140 top polluters will set their own limits for future pollution virtually penalty free, according to the Government's latest Direct Action policy paper.
The Federal Government is building towards the launch of its flagship climate change initiative, the Emission Reduction Fund (ERF), in mid-April.
As part of that it has released a consultation paper outlining "safeguards" to ensure the big polluters do not offset emissions saved through the ERF.
Companies subject to the safeguards will select a baseline, or limit, for future pollution.
That baseline will be set according to the highest peak of emissions from the past five years.
AUSTRALIANS under 50 and out of work will be forced to work for the dole from July. The move comes as part of an overhaul of the job placement system designed to cut red tape and put an end to taxpayer-subsidised training that doesn’t lead to work. Currently only jobseekers aged 18 to 30 who live in 18 trial sites across Australia are required to undertake compulsory work for the dole. From July, the scheme will be expanded nationally and take in all jobseekers up to age 49.
The new requirements will see unemployed people under 50 having to work for the dole for 15 hours a week, for six months of every year they are unemployed. Those under 30 will have to do 25 hours a week, and all jobseekers will have to apply for 20 jobs a month
Funny thing is that the mentioned subsidised training "that doesn't lead to jobs" was exactly what got me my IT certifications during the GFC that lead to networking jobs that pay quite well for my age. Which, of course, was paid off many times over thanks to more taxes for the government from my income and increased personal spending.
Isn't this just an effort to drive down minimum wage? Where do they even find all these jobs that they apparently can't actually hire anyone to do normally, or which aren't worth paying for normally?
Also, what is the bet that supervisors for these things will end up being surprisingly expensive.
+6
Options
The Black HunterThe key is a minimum of compromise, and a simple,unimpeachable reason to existRegistered Userregular
A number of my friends undertook that training and got on their feet as a result
Man the NSW state voting system makes so much more sense then the Federal one.
You can vote preferentially above the line - which means you take party preferences out of the equation without spending 45 minutes numbering boxes.
+2
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I would prefer a proportional representation system for the lower federal house over instant run off.
We have proportional voting for the senate.
There's no reason not to have it for the lower house too.
Other than, you know, the currently dominating parties having a cry about needing to actually work for a living all of a sudden.
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Isn't this just an effort to drive down minimum wage? Where do they even find all these jobs that they apparently can't actually hire anyone to do normally, or which aren't worth paying for normally?
Also, what is the bet that supervisors for these things will end up being surprisingly expensive.
From what I've read, employers dislike work for the dole almost as much as those lumped working on it. Form their perspective, they get untrained workers who have no interest whatsoever in work they've been forced into, and so can only be tasked with the most menial of jobs with terrible output resulting.
Isn't this just an effort to drive down minimum wage? Where do they even find all these jobs that they apparently can't actually hire anyone to do normally, or which aren't worth paying for normally?
Also, what is the bet that supervisors for these things will end up being surprisingly expensive.
From what I've read, employers dislike work for the dole almost as much as those lumped working on it. Form their perspective, they get untrained workers who have no interest whatsoever in work they've been forced into, and so can only be tasked with the most menial of jobs with terrible output resulting.
Yup it's pure ideology, doesn't matter if it works. For example, doesn't matter if actually paying for housing for the homeless decreases the overall cost to the tax payer people will still be angry that (significantly less) of their tax money goes to paying someones rent.
-Loki-Don't pee in my mouth and tell me it's raining.Registered Userregular
edited March 2015
Personally speaking, I loved work for the dole. I'd been looking for work for ages, and sitting around playing Counter Strike and Guild Wars was terribly dull for passing the time. I did mine at a Salvation Army, and they were as happy for the help as I was doing it. I even stayed on volunteering after it was over, and I was actually missed when I found a job.
Bet you thought there would be a 'not' in here. No, I really enjoyed it, and they did miss me. I'd drop in on weekends to say hi.
Personally speaking, I loved work for the dole. I'd been looking for work for ages, and sitting around playing Counter Strike and Guild Wars was terribly dull for passing the time. I did mine at a Salvation Army, and they were as happy for the help as I was doing it. I even stayed on volunteering after it was over, and I was actually missed when I found a job.
Bet you thought there would be a 'not' in here. No, I really enjoyed it, and they did miss me. I'd drop in on weekends to say hi.
That's pretty cool. Traditionally volunteer-driven roles would be the perfect place for this kind of thing.
When I ended up on a long stretch of unemployment, my only choice for work for the dole was... fish processing. At somewhere an hour's drive away. Even the Centrelink staff looked dispirited at the idea. Thankfully I managed to land a proper job the day before it was mandated to begin.
Some interesting research here.
Puts a bullet in the old chestnut about voters being fickle and small minded nowadays.
No they just expect better than you are giving ladies and gents.
So lift your game.
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I don't completely disagree with the concept of work for the dole; giving people some kind of purpose during the week is better than nothing. I was probably at my most depressed when I was taking one or two courses a semester at uni without a backup job.
I also think that like @electricitylikesme says that its an excuse to reduce minimum wage for a lot of companies. The immediate managers who actually work with said people may dislike the idea, but its gold to the kind of upper management that just has to stop by every six months or so and mostly care about the difference on their balance sheets.
Anyone watching NSW? I'm heading libs retain with reduced majority, labour minor gains, greens adding more seats in the lower house
The Guardian's numbers:
Coalition on course to win 53 seats, Labor on 31, Greens four, independents two, with three too close to call, as ALP gains a statewide swing of about 9%
Not a big surprise. From outside, the Liberals seemed better organised, while Labor sounded uninspiring beyond their pushback to privatisation. Might help Abbott a bit within the party. Until the budget, that is.
Anyone watching NSW? I'm heading libs retain with reduced majority, labour minor gains, greens adding more seats in the lower house
The Guardian's numbers:
Coalition on course to win 53 seats, Labor on 31, Greens four, independents two, with three too close to call, as ALP gains a statewide swing of about 9%
Not a big surprise. From outside, the Liberals seemed better organised, while Labor sounded uninspiring beyond their pushback to privatisation. Might help Abbott a bit within the party. Until the budget, that is.
I kinda feel it was a reasonable outcome when it comes to the Federal side of things. There's going to be less pressure to ditch Abbott immediately (which would give his successor time to build themselves up) which then means fortunately, and unfortunately, Tones can stick his foot in his mouth many many MANY more times over the coming months.
Personally, I haven't seen a damn thing from the Labor side leading up into this election so I was really really glad that they added preferential voting above the line this time around instead of having to spend an age numbering more than a hundred boxes.
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Steve Whan's campaign helper-chan... Very dancing, such waifu
Two electorates to which I have connection, Tamworth and Parramatta are both highly disappointing, with a minor swing toward the Tories in the latter and a huge swing toward the NATs away from the independent in the former.
Ballina is one good news story to which I have a connection, NATs are booted for the Greens!
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Two national safe seats were lost to the greens.
That's significant.
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Australia's 140 top polluters will set their own limits for future pollution virtually penalty free, according to the Government's latest Direct Action policy paper.
The Federal Government is building towards the launch of its flagship climate change initiative, the Emission Reduction Fund (ERF), in mid-April.
As part of that it has released a consultation paper outlining "safeguards" to ensure the big polluters do not offset emissions saved through the ERF.
Companies subject to the safeguards will select a baseline, or limit, for future pollution.
That baseline will be set according to the highest peak of emissions from the past five years.
I seem to recall I wrote somewhere, quite exactly, that this is what was going to happen. I think though it was on one of the places I blogged that got bought out and shut down. Anyway, I've no claim to originality, this is what economists everywhere have been saying would happen with this policy.
AUSTRALIANS under 50 and out of work will be forced to work for the dole from July. The move comes as part of an overhaul of the job placement system designed to cut red tape and put an end to taxpayer-subsidised training that doesn’t lead to work. Currently only jobseekers aged 18 to 30 who live in 18 trial sites across Australia are required to undertake compulsory work for the dole. From July, the scheme will be expanded nationally and take in all jobseekers up to age 49.
The new requirements will see unemployed people under 50 having to work for the dole for 15 hours a week, for six months of every year they are unemployed. Those under 30 will have to do 25 hours a week, and all jobseekers will have to apply for 20 jobs a month
Again, work for the dole is so weird. I mean, if it's worth getting someone to do, someone could be paid to do it.
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
Treasurer Joe Hockey has hinted the Federal Government will push ahead with a tax on bank deposits while blaming the Labor government for the budget deficit.
When asked on Network Ten's The Bolt Report whether he would be introducing a bank deposit tax, Mr Hockey hinted he would introduce the tax first introduced by Labor in 2013.
Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has previously refused to provide any details on the policy, but Mr Hockey has confirmed the policy will mirror Labor's.
Looks like the first weather balloons are afloat to guage public reaction.
Note that the Liberals lashed Labor over the policy, and banks fought it bloody hard, forcing them to give up. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens again.
"Labor is the blame for everything and does nothing right. So let's go do what they did in the past."
Which actually tells you a lot about the LNP. They want it their way, they want the credit, and they want to smear the other side so much that they will publicly lampoon any idea that they find good, and then implement it as though it were their own.
The guarantee on bank deposits has had interesting implications for the share prices of the banks, and their behaviour. It's basically deposit insurance, as I understand it. Except at the moment it's paid by the government instead of by the people whose deposits are insured. It seems like it makes sense to recover the cost from the people who are benefiting from it. Furthermore, it would probably be a 'progressive' tax, in that people with more money pay more.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
The guarantee on bank deposits has had interesting implications for the share prices of the banks, and their behaviour. It's basically deposit insurance, as I understand it. Except at the moment it's paid by the government instead of by the people whose deposits are insured. It seems like it makes sense to recover the cost from the people who are benefiting from it. Furthermore, it would probably be a 'progressive' tax, in that people with more money pay more.
Except that's pretty much crap: rich people don't keep their money in massive bank accounts (and aren't covered by deposit insurance anyway). It disproportionately taxes the middle-class who have savings, but not enough to have it overflow into investments.
+3
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
That's actually not obvious in this case. We're talking about a specific wealth tax here. I don't find it at all difficult to believe that people in the top 50% of the income distribution tend to hold more money, as a proportion of their income, in bank accounts than do the lower 50%, and thus they'd pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. I suspect there is probably a bulge in that distribution at some point and it wouldn't hold right to the very top end of the scale, but that would still make it by and large a progressive tax. I'm not sure where I'd be able to find the actual data that could back this up though.
Twiggy Forrest's entire net worth is not whiling away in uBank, no, but rich people do absolutely have cash in bank accounts.
Solvent on
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
That's actually not obvious in this case. We're talking about a specific wealth tax here. I don't find it at all difficult to believe that people in the top 50% of the income distribution tend to hold more money, as a proportion of their income, in bank accounts than do the lower 50%, and thus they'd pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. I suspect there is probably a bulge in that distribution at some point and it wouldn't hold right to the very top end of the scale, but that would still make it by and large a progressive tax. I'm not sure where I'd be able to find the actual data that could back this up though.
Twiggy Forrest's entire net worth is not whiling away in uBank, no, but rich people do absolutely have cash in bank accounts.
You don't make money with depositing in banks, you make money with investments.
That's actually not obvious in this case. We're talking about a specific wealth tax here. I don't find it at all difficult to believe that people in the top 50% of the income distribution tend to hold more money, as a proportion of their income, in bank accounts than do the lower 50%, and thus they'd pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. I suspect there is probably a bulge in that distribution at some point and it wouldn't hold right to the very top end of the scale, but that would still make it by and large a progressive tax. I'm not sure where I'd be able to find the actual data that could back this up though.
Twiggy Forrest's entire net worth is not whiling away in uBank, no, but rich people do absolutely have cash in bank accounts.
You don't make money with depositing in banks, you make money with investments.
Oh, is that how it's done?
I don't know where he got the scorpions, or how he got them into my mattress.
That's actually not obvious in this case. We're talking about a specific wealth tax here. I don't find it at all difficult to believe that people in the top 50% of the income distribution tend to hold more money, as a proportion of their income, in bank accounts than do the lower 50%, and thus they'd pay a higher proportion of their income in tax. I suspect there is probably a bulge in that distribution at some point and it wouldn't hold right to the very top end of the scale, but that would still make it by and large a progressive tax. I'm not sure where I'd be able to find the actual data that could back this up though.
Twiggy Forrest's entire net worth is not whiling away in uBank, no, but rich people do absolutely have cash in bank accounts.
You don't make money with depositing in banks, you make money with investments.
Oh, is that how it's done?
Yes. What's the best interest rate you can find on a long-term savings account under $100,000 with any bank in Australia?
Now, what's the market average value increase percentage rate for professionally-managed share portfolios?
There is a good reason why once you have enough emergency backup savings money to do so, you invest...
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Side topic, but around what amount should you start investing?
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Side topic, but around what amount should you start investing?
We do the "have 3 months of expenses available" thing, and everything else goes into an investment portoflio.
So a tax like this, if it's only based on savings and not earnings in someway, will tax us more as a % of our income the less we earn.
Vanguard is a pretty solid investment company if you guys want to get started.
edit: Though thinking about it, if we earned less I'd be inclinded to have more money in the bank than our standard 3 months.
Currently we can easily absorb unexpected expenses or purchases, and then just top up the savings account next paycheque. With a smaller paycheque, this becomes a bit riskier.
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Assume I have never had enough savings to actually know anything about investment, such that "the 3 months of expenses available" thing is not, in fact, a thing I know about. Or anything related to it.
I'm asking for my partner, who has a lot of savings right now and doesn't really know what to do with them.
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
In that earlier article Hockey says he has to increase taxes.
Who wants to bet against the prediction "these taxes will barely touch his rich mates."
Anyone?
No?
Yeah they are pretty shit odds aren't they.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
+1
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Assume I have never had enough savings to actually know anything about investment, such that "the 3 months of expenses available" thing is not, in fact, a thing I know about. Or anything related to it.
I'm asking for my partner, who has a lot of savings right now and doesn't really know what to do with them.
Vanguard's Index fund is a good start. Zero involvement required from your side other than purchasing shares.
And with an Australian bank account they can deposit the dividends directly into your accout or automatically re-invest.
The Commonwealth Treasury has set out the case for an increase in Australia's rate of goods and services tax and a series of cuts in income and company tax, saying that at 10 per cent, Australia's GST is one of the lowest in the developed world.
Posts
4 party race would never happen, someone would need to form some sort of coallition to meet the seat criteria to form government.
Origin: KafkaAU B-Net: Kafka#1778
This. Or it would be all Labor all the time. Which doesn't bother me per se, but I doubt it would be particular healthy for democracy
Whatever they started with wouldn't be how they'd end up.
They'd end up like any other party or person that gets too much power for too long.
Also, I hope you like unmotivated, unwilling workers doing meaningless jobs Funny thing is that the mentioned subsidised training "that doesn't lead to jobs" was exactly what got me my IT certifications during the GFC that lead to networking jobs that pay quite well for my age. Which, of course, was paid off many times over thanks to more taxes for the government from my income and increased personal spending.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Also, what is the bet that supervisors for these things will end up being surprisingly expensive.
You can vote preferentially above the line - which means you take party preferences out of the equation without spending 45 minutes numbering boxes.
We have proportional voting for the senate.
There's no reason not to have it for the lower house too.
Other than, you know, the currently dominating parties having a cry about needing to actually work for a living all of a sudden.
From what I've read, employers dislike work for the dole almost as much as those lumped working on it. Form their perspective, they get untrained workers who have no interest whatsoever in work they've been forced into, and so can only be tasked with the most menial of jobs with terrible output resulting.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Yup it's pure ideology, doesn't matter if it works. For example, doesn't matter if actually paying for housing for the homeless decreases the overall cost to the tax payer people will still be angry that (significantly less) of their tax money goes to paying someones rent.
That's pretty cool. Traditionally volunteer-driven roles would be the perfect place for this kind of thing.
When I ended up on a long stretch of unemployment, my only choice for work for the dole was... fish processing. At somewhere an hour's drive away. Even the Centrelink staff looked dispirited at the idea. Thankfully I managed to land a proper job the day before it was mandated to begin.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Some interesting research here.
Puts a bullet in the old chestnut about voters being fickle and small minded nowadays.
No they just expect better than you are giving ladies and gents.
So lift your game.
I also think that like @electricitylikesme says that its an excuse to reduce minimum wage for a lot of companies. The immediate managers who actually work with said people may dislike the idea, but its gold to the kind of upper management that just has to stop by every six months or so and mostly care about the difference on their balance sheets.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
I kinda feel it was a reasonable outcome when it comes to the Federal side of things. There's going to be less pressure to ditch Abbott immediately (which would give his successor time to build themselves up) which then means fortunately, and unfortunately, Tones can stick his foot in his mouth many many MANY more times over the coming months.
Personally, I haven't seen a damn thing from the Labor side leading up into this election so I was really really glad that they added preferential voting above the line this time around instead of having to spend an age numbering more than a hundred boxes.
Two electorates to which I have connection, Tamworth and Parramatta are both highly disappointing, with a minor swing toward the Tories in the latter and a huge swing toward the NATs away from the independent in the former.
Ballina is one good news story to which I have a connection, NATs are booted for the Greens!
That's significant.
Again, work for the dole is so weird. I mean, if it's worth getting someone to do, someone could be paid to do it.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-29/joe-hockey-hints-at-details-of-bank-deposits-tax/6356670
Note that the Liberals lashed Labor over the policy, and banks fought it bloody hard, forcing them to give up. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens again.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Which actually tells you a lot about the LNP. They want it their way, they want the credit, and they want to smear the other side so much that they will publicly lampoon any idea that they find good, and then implement it as though it were their own.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
Except that's pretty much crap: rich people don't keep their money in massive bank accounts (and aren't covered by deposit insurance anyway). It disproportionately taxes the middle-class who have savings, but not enough to have it overflow into investments.
Twiggy Forrest's entire net worth is not whiling away in uBank, no, but rich people do absolutely have cash in bank accounts.
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
You don't make money with depositing in banks, you make money with investments.
Oh, is that how it's done?
http://newnations.bandcamp.com
Yes. What's the best interest rate you can find on a long-term savings account under $100,000 with any bank in Australia?
Now, what's the market average value increase percentage rate for professionally-managed share portfolios?
There is a good reason why once you have enough emergency backup savings money to do so, you invest...
We do the "have 3 months of expenses available" thing, and everything else goes into an investment portoflio.
So a tax like this, if it's only based on savings and not earnings in someway, will tax us more as a % of our income the less we earn.
Vanguard is a pretty solid investment company if you guys want to get started.
edit: Though thinking about it, if we earned less I'd be inclinded to have more money in the bank than our standard 3 months.
Currently we can easily absorb unexpected expenses or purchases, and then just top up the savings account next paycheque. With a smaller paycheque, this becomes a bit riskier.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I'm asking for my partner, who has a lot of savings right now and doesn't really know what to do with them.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/small-banks-say-they-will-suffer-from-proposed-deposits-levy-20150329-1ma8j1.html
In that earlier article Hockey says he has to increase taxes.
Who wants to bet against the prediction "these taxes will barely touch his rich mates."
Anyone?
No?
Yeah they are pretty shit odds aren't they.
Vanguard's Index fund is a good start. Zero involvement required from your side other than purchasing shares.
And with an Australian bank account they can deposit the dividends directly into your accout or automatically re-invest.
I, however, get cheques mailed to me
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.