staringclown

How long will Malcolm remain

168 posts in this topic

All he needs to do is raise the base rate to compensate for the initial loss of penalty rates. Then once the penalties have gone - don't raise the base for a few years. Let inflation do its work. Presto! We are "competitive"

 

and since unions are less militant than in the past, then the chances of strikes over pay rises is less likely.

Your suggestion makes a lot of sense to the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and since unions are less militant than in the past, then the chances of strikes over pay rises is less likely.

Your suggestion makes a lot of sense to the government.

My recent experiences of unions is that they sell to the highest bidder, which is usually the employer, and usually in a brown paper bag. I'm pretty disgusted with unions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Qantas effectively scared the bejesus out of any union guy that has thoughts of being disruptive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Qantas effectively scared the bejesus out of any union guy that has thoughts of being disruptive...

I would have kicked that Irish faggot in the c**t. 

 

Edit = twice

Edited by zaph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit = twice

I thought the twice edit was to add faggot and c**t :)

 

You have to admit it was an insane move on his behalf and he pulled it off. Personally would rather never be in a situation where the best bet seems to be a right c**t but if I was I would like to have his commitment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the twice edit was to add faggot and c**t :)

 

You have to admit it was an insane move on his behalf and he pulled it off. Personally would rather never be in a situation where the best bet seems to be a right c**t but if I was I would like to have his commitment.

The twice was for two kicks, but I think you knew that. 

 

As much as I hate Joyce it was brilliant action supported with a large brown paper bag to the minister - who would have hated the thought of flying Virgin, or worse still another night in Canberra. The union should have stood their ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and since unions are less militant than in the past, then the chances of strikes over pay rises is less likely.

Your suggestion makes a lot of sense to the government.

Note how the govt is targeting less unionised workers. It's ok to cut penalty rates for less unionised service staff, but leave penalties for more unionised staff like nurses, cops etc. 

 

First they cut the lawnmowers penalties and because I wasn't a lawnmower man I didn't strike.

Then they cut the waiters penalties and because I didn't wait tables I didn't strike......

 

If you work in a non-professional (I include nurses, firies, cops etc) occupational and you're not a member of a union then you're a scab and you get the lower pay and conditions you deserve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note how the govt is targeting less unionised workers. It's ok to cut penalty rates for less unionised service staff, but leave penalties for more unionised staff like nurses, cops etc. 

 

First they cut the lawnmowers penalties and because I wasn't a lawnmower man I didn't strike.

Then they cut the waiters penalties and because I didn't wait tables I didn't strike......

 

If you work in a non-professional (I include nurses, firies, cops etc) occupational and you're not a member of a union then you're a scab and you get the lower pay and conditions you deserve. 

 

Considering nursing now requires a Uni degree, I'd call it a profession!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My recent experiences of unions is that they sell to the highest bidder, which is usually the employer, and usually in a brown paper bag. I'm pretty disgusted with unions. 

 

 

Coles employee takes legal action over deal that 'leaves workers worse off'

 

I belong to a relatively right wing union (CPSU) and we are currently engaged in a campaign. We are being offered a pay cut for a loss of conditions. Unsurprisingly the entire workforce (let alone the unionised workforce have voted a resounding no to the deal offered) I still believe in the principal of collective bargaining. 

 

There is ample evidence of collusion between unions and business. This was called "the accord" back in Bob Hawkes day. 

 

Unions have had it pretty easy since the 8 hour day campaign. Globalisation poses problems for them not seen before. The labour market has expanded. Technology poses further pressure as we can now automate jobs. I made the comment while in Hong Kong that there were guys at automated ticket machines for the peak tram that took your ticket and inserted it into the machine correctly.

 

I will now add I was paying for parking in Canberry and a homeless guy was camped in the payment booth shrouded in a blanket and hoodie. Slightly intimidating. I was alone with the guy. I inserted my ticket incorrectly and a voice from behind spoke "bar code up". I said thanks. I paid the charge after some more instruction on how to do so from the homeless guy. Finally, he provided me advice on where the ticket was ejected. I gave him my change.

 

I thought his business model was OK. Certainly better than the windscreen cleaner guy. Though I would prefer he had a smile and a red suit and was paid.

 

I guess my point is that services are about the only industry that can expand in the future. Human contact to explain the new technology. What sort of wages should we pay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Malcolm can do no wrong. The press gallery seem enamoured by him. Yet to see a critical article.

 

It seems the entire country is breathing a collective sigh of relief. It's all very quiet.

 

At some point he is going to have to spend some of that political capital. GST seems a likely candidate. Though if that is the sum total of his tax reforms considering the repeated mantra that everything is on the table he will be found wanting. 

 

Shorten is a charmless nerk in comparison. He really has to go. Unfortunately for Labor they have made it so difficult to unseat their leader that we are likely stuck with him. Plus I can't think of anyone that could replace him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turnbull is leading like Bernie out of Weekend at Bernie's. He's actually doing nothing but with sleight of hand looks like he is the life of the party. 

 

It can't last long but the other mafia crew have an even more lifeless corpse as a leader in Shorten so it's party time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turnbull is leading like Bernie out of Weekend at Bernie's. He's actually doing nothing but with sleight of hand looks like he is the life of the party. 

 

It can't last long but the other mafia crew have an even more lifeless corpse as a leader in Shorten so it's party time!

 

Precisely. His rhetoric is good. It was always thus. But he has an entire asylum of views to manage. I'm not sure how the libs got to this point. He will either marginalise the right and gain the power to implement his own agenda or the LNP will lose the next election. There is a serious possibility that a right wing splinter party may form from the dissidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely. His rhetoric is good. It was always thus. But he has an entire asylum of views to manage. I'm not sure how the libs got to this point. He will either marginalise the right and gain the power to implement his own agenda or the LNP will lose the next election. There is a serious possibility that a right wing splinter party may form from the dissidents.

MT is now proposing elimination of state rego fees and reduction of fuel taxes (exercises!) for an increase in GST. That will benefit the mid class (which wins and an election) but will increase transport costs of the very poorest. Where's his public transport mantra??

 

Morrison is white-anting - he will be our next opposition leader. I wouldn't mind giving him a slap with a wet lettuce leaf!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MT is now proposing elimination of state rego fees and reduction of fuel taxes (exercises!) for an increase in GST. That will benefit the mid class (which wins and an election) but will increase transport costs of the very poorest. Where's his public transport mantra??

 

Morrison is white-anting - he will be our next opposition leader. I wouldn't mind giving him a slap with a wet lettuce leaf!

It is arguable that a) registration fee more than once is valid and B) licensing other than for commercial vehicles is within the constitutional powers of government. I think they may be trying to pull a shifty.

 

But then GST is unconstitutional with S57 (IIRC).

 

Never trust politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is arguable that a) registration fee more than once is valid and B) licensing other than for commercial vehicles is within the constitutional powers of government. I think they may be trying to pull a shifty.

 

But then GST is unconstitutional with S57 (IIRC).

 

Never trust politicians.

I don't really understand your point a) and there seems to be no B)!

 

S57 is about disagreement between the houses - ie a double dissolution. I see no reason why GST is unconstitutional. 

 

I agree, never trust politicians. 

 

This seems to be the first solid proposal to offset an increase in GST, aside from 'no one will be worse off'. The only way the very poorest will be no worse off is to increase welfare. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand your point a) and there seems to be no B)!

 

S57 is about disagreement between the houses - ie a double dissolution. I see no reason why GST is unconstitutional. 

 

I agree, never trust politicians. 

 

This seems to be the first solid proposal to offset an increase in GST, aside from 'no one will be worse off'. The only way the very poorest will be no worse off is to increase welfare. 

 

You can only 'register' a vehicle once, think of a child's birth - so more than once doesn't make sense. It is a tax and opens the question of whether states have the power to tax ownership of vehicles.

 

Reading into Quick & Garran's annotated version of the Constitution is such that it infers the power of license in relation to travel only extends to commercial use, not private use. Hence governments are over-stepping their powers in forcing licensing when it is not for commercial purposes. I don't recall if it was in annotated S90 or another section.

 

My mistake it was S55 in relation to GST not being constitutional as it involves two subjects of taxation (goods AND services):

 

 Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

 

Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of customs or of excise, shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of customs shall deal with duties of customs only, and laws imposing duties of excise shall deal with duties of excise only.

 

 

But politicians will get away with whatever they can try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we (media, politicians, political commentators, regular joe's and flo's), are missing something in this whole circus around any supposed increase in GST.

Why do we need it in the first place?

There is a big hole in the budget!!!

That's right a big hole in the budget, because government are spending more than they are making.

But they then have the gall to suggest that the only way they can fix it is to increase the everyday cost of living by imposing a GST on everything.

Does anyone else see that there is a flaw in their logic?

Is anyone saying our economy is up the creek, because the previous levels of taxation can no longer keep pace with the requirement of government spending?

NO!

No, our economy is just fine.

We are at the lowest level of interest rates "ever", and yet we still can't get out of the financial hole.

Give me a break.

 

Is it ever time to cut back?

Is it ever time to curtail excess spending and start reeling in out of control budgets to a more sustainable level? 

No!

New rail ventures, new roadways, new football stadiums and God knows what else are being espoused all over the place so that Malcolm and his cronies can appear like they have turned around the economy in a few short weeks.

I'm sorry but I still beleive the budget Joe Hockey bought down in 2013 was closer to the truth.

We are going nowhere fast.

This whole debate is all a smoke screen for an economy that is literally in the toilet.

But not one politician (government or opposition) is really being honest with the Australian people.

We are broke (under current levels of taxation), and so they are attempting to increase revenue by stealth.

How can you increase the GST by 5% and no one be worse off?

Sorry. That is an impossibility.

"No one will be worse off" What a load of crap!!

Then why not leave it as it currently is?

Make it work with the current level of revenue.

Why are we tampering with it, if we believe no one will be worse off. (Someone's got to be worse off, if our federal government revenue is to increase)

And I guarantee it won't be the rich and famous.

This is a total load of codswallop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we (media, politicians, political commentators, regular joe's and flo's), are missing something in this whole circus around any supposed increase in GST.

Why do we need it in the first place?

There is a big hole in the budget!!!

That's right a big hole in the budget, because government are spending more than they are making.

But they then have the gall to suggest that the only way they can fix it is to increase the everyday cost of living by imposing a GST on everything.

Does anyone else see that there is a flaw in their logic?

Is anyone saying our economy is up the creek, because the previous levels of taxation can no longer keep pace with the requirement of government spending?

NO!

No, our economy is just fine.

We are at the lowest level of interest rates "ever", and yet we still can't get out of the financial hole.

Give me a break.

 

Is it ever time to cut back?

Is it ever time to curtail excess spending and start reeling in out of control budgets to a more sustainable level? 

No!

New rail ventures, new roadways, new football stadiums and God knows what else are being espoused all over the place so that Malcolm and his cronies can appear like they have turned around the economy in a few short weeks.

I'm sorry but I still beleive the budget Joe Hockey bought down in 2013 was closer to the truth.

We are going nowhere fast.

This whole debate is all a smoke screen for an economy that is literally in the toilet.

But not one politician (government or opposition) is really being honest with the Australian people.

We are broke (under current levels of taxation), and so they are attempting to increase revenue by stealth.

How can you increase the GST by 5% and no one be worse off?

Sorry. That is an impossibility.

"No one will be worse off" What a load of crap!!

Then why not leave it as it currently is?

Make it work with the current level of revenue.

Why are we tampering with it, if we believe no one will be worse off. (Someone's got to be worse off, if our federal government revenue is to increase)

And I guarantee it won't be the rich and famous.

This is a total load of codswallop.

 

Biggest problem is that the electorate is not willing to swallow the bitter medicine and instead will vote in whoever can delay the inevitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour: It is an unfair regressive tax and that is why we oppose increasing it

No Journalist Ever: Oh so you want to remove it completely then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was pretending that there was no such thing as asset tax.

 

Economists regard land taxes as the most equitable tax. The Henry review showed the benefits

 

There is no end to the links I could post that support this fair and equitable tax. Here's the most recent:

How to fix everything: cut my tax

It isn't even in the discussion.  Not even on the table so to speak. Instead, we will have an increased regressive consumption tax with all of the commensurate churn (the public service will be pleased :clap: ) to compensate the poorest. The rest of you will pay through the nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Briggs gone (Abbott supporter) - General douchebag

 

Dutton (Abbott supporter) On notice - rejected from the National security committee. 

 

Macfarlane (Abbott supporter) tried to defect and now faces an uncertain future...

 

Brough (Turnbull supporter) - But an idiot...

 

Craig Kelly (Abbott supporter) Safe seat but a climate change sceptic - not with the program. Pre-selection challenges abound...

 

If Turnbull wants clear air more will tumble. Can he recapture the libertarian liberal party from the right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Briggs gone (Abbott supporter) - General douchebag

 

Dutton (Abbott supporter) On notice - rejected from the National security committee. 

 

Macfarlane (Abbott supporter) tried to defect and now faces an uncertain future...

 

Brough (Turnbull supporter) - But an idiot...

 

Craig Kelly (Abbott supporter) Safe seat but a climate change sceptic - not with the program. Pre-selection challenges abound...

 

If Turnbull wants clear air more will tumble. Can he recapture the libertarian liberal party from the right?

 

He will probably blow up the party if he goes too far. I would like to see some unifying leadership from Malcom in the middle.

 

Otherwise we will face another Julia vs Kevin period of trench warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An "effects test" was abandoned by Abbott at the behest of big business and has been introduced by Malcolm surprisingly. Safe schools review has also upset the conservatives. Malcolm has finally gone over the top as it were. Maybe he's making his move at last. He has to do something I suppose to sure up the base (small business)... Good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An "effects test" was abandoned by Abbott at the behest of big business and has been introduced by Malcolm surprisingly. Safe schools review has also upset the conservatives. Malcolm has finally gone over the top as it were. Maybe he's making his move at last. He has to do something I suppose to sure up the base (small business)... Good job.

 

Looks like I spoke too soon... They have buckled on the Safe Schools review. The right must have incriminating photos or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now