I was very disappointed to read that Tony Abbott wants to retrospectively pay $75 000 to
victims of overseas terrorist attacks – including the two Bali bombings and September 11 … for ongoing trauma.
Abbott said
There is a lifetime of physical and psychological pain for those who survived these terrorist attacks or had family members killed in them. We cannot think that our financial duty to them has ended just because the medical expenses for their immediate injuries were paid for. This isn’t about political point-scoring. It is important to recognise the pain and suffering of these fellow Australians. I want to offer the Prime Minister bi-partisan support to ensure these Australians are financially compensated for their terrible suffering.
Personally I think this is an outrageous proposal – why should the pain and suffering of those affected by a terrorist attack be considered greater than the pain and suffering that others in society experience? Once more this is an example of the Nanny State writ large – the people travelled overseas on their own volition and the Australian Government provided substantial assistance, including counselling, after the terrorist attacks. There are many people in Australia without the means to enjoy an overseas holiday who suffer loss, and experience pain and suffering. It is not the Government’s responsibility to provide compensation to people affected by terrorist attacks overseas. Already we have built up expectation of the services the Government will provide its citizens overseas (many of whom will enjoy dual or multiple citizenship).
Australians have been greatly sympathetic to those affected by terrorist attacks overseas, just as those who have been abducted, raped or killed / maimed in natural disasters. Philanthropy has provided support to many of those affected; the Abbott proposal will simply crowd out private initiatives. The proposal is unnecessary, undesirable and unfortunate. The left is good at spending other people’s money, and, it seems, less generous with their own money. Hopefully those in the Liberal party will not seek to imitate the left’s passion at dispersing taxpayers’ money.
Hmm, this is so generous, I expect now there will be a rush of people hoping to have their legs blown off by mad jihadis. C’mon lighten up, this is a good news policy, and beats spending billions on useless European carbon credits.
Greigoz
31 Aug 12 at 7:06 am
Agree.
Abbott needs to reign in his economic populism.
Mark
31 Aug 12 at 7:06 am
Seems to me that the Coalition can easily lift its game. All it needs to do is to show the relevant graphics of key indicators over the period since the Howard Govt was elected. Boat arrivals, total spending, surpluses/deficits etc. There are some compelling contrasts.
The other thing that they need to do is to explain that the $70 billion “black hole”, to the extent it was ever a real number, was applicable over 5 years – ie $14 billion a year, which in the context of $370 billion spending each year is not all that much.
mondo
31 Aug 12 at 7:16 am
Ah, our Tone.
Just another hand wringing welfare statist.
Designed to help his perceived electoral problem “with women”, stand by for more made up reasons to send empathy cheques in the mail.
Upchuck.
Alfonso
31 Aug 12 at 7:25 am
Indeed.
I don’t get the rationale for this.
dd
31 Aug 12 at 7:32 am
WTF is wrong with politicians? WTF is this money going to come from?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH … and this is our hope to replace Gillard?
We are FUBAR!
Abraham
31 Aug 12 at 7:33 am
Totally agree SJ. Abbott is lame in many areas.
If you are maimed it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference in what manner it happened at the end of the day.
Besides the threat of terrorism abroad is a useful disincentive for Australians not to travel to Moslem countries that want to kill us.
Chris M
31 Aug 12 at 7:55 am
The only answer:
Campbell Newman for PM!
Kaboom
31 Aug 12 at 8:07 am
What about all the pain and suffering I’ve endured over the five years of these utterly monstrous, lobotomised laybore numpties?
Where’s my compensation, Yabbott?
Rabz
31 Aug 12 at 8:20 am
I assume Gillard will be doing this anyway, and Abbott is going small target about it to avoid the ‘heartless liberal’ stuff that would no doubt be all warmed up and ready to go in the PM’s office. Still ridiculous. It sounds like a thought bubble. The best cure of misery occasioned by violence is swift justice for the perps, not a stupid ex gratia payment that seems to imply that these people have no other support structures, state-funded or otherwise.
Keith
31 Aug 12 at 8:26 am
This is a long standing policy position of his.
It is also why if he wins his government really will be of the Big C conservative ‘DLP’ variety. Think taxing big companies for childcare (etc)
Much as I would like to see smaller government if Jules goes down, I’m not holding my breath…..
KC
31 Aug 12 at 8:27 am
Bad things happen. People shouldn’t be automatically compensated just because it was caused by an act of terrorism. This sort of feel-good populism is a luxury that post-Gillard Australia just cannot afford.
Cold-Hands
31 Aug 12 at 8:36 am
Oh jeez, just wait until the Lebs start rorting this bullshit.
Infidel Tiger
31 Aug 12 at 8:46 am
Yes IT. Don’t they have round table discussions first about what could happen and how it could all backfire? They shouldn’t run policy by taking every possible prospective Labor idea and meeting it (if that is where this little doozie comes from).
Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.
31 Aug 12 at 8:54 am
Abbott is a disaster waiting to happen.
coz
31 Aug 12 at 8:56 am
While a disaster, Abbott is a smaller one that Turnball. “Least disastrous of what is on offer” shoudl be he election slogan.
WhaleHunt Fun
31 Aug 12 at 9:07 am
Maybe a genuine commitment to a better deal for the families of victims in the ADF.
Compensation for families of American soldiers killed on duty.
Or bring indexation in line with the rest of the community.
Military superannuation pensions will increase by just 0.1 per cent.
Rudiau
31 Aug 12 at 9:10 am
Go on, live up to your convictions and convince the Liberal Party to get on the right track by not voting for them. Heh heh.
steve from brisbane
31 Aug 12 at 9:12 am
Plenty of us already do that, douchebag.
.
31 Aug 12 at 9:23 am
The real problem is that because of the negative rection by the MSM and press to Abbott, he has little choice but to agree to ALP policies in the short term. However, there is a more insiduous aspect to this, and this is the fact that it’s almost impossible for Abbott and the Liberals to repeal the socialist policies put in place by the ALP when the Liberals gain government in Canberra. They might modify them but repealing them? No, not when the mob gets used to receiving handouts.
The end result is predictable – a slow slide into a socialist system that will always fail economically when developed to its logical conclusion.
Louis Hissink
31 Aug 12 at 9:24 am
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Mique
31 Aug 12 at 9:29 am
Pray, pray he has a set like Scott Walker.
Rudiau
31 Aug 12 at 9:29 am
While a disaster, Abbott is a smaller one that Turnball
Sadly, true.
coz
31 Aug 12 at 9:47 am
Thteve – Go on, live up to your convictions and convince the Liberal Party to get on the right track by not voting for them. Heh heh.
I’ll be crossing every name off the ballot paper in black pen.
coz
31 Aug 12 at 9:49 am
Everyone is down on Tony ABbott now – journalists,bloggers, even Mr Howard – sad fact of human nature stick with someone at the top and then turn away if they (apparently) lose some popularity.
it’s a kind of group think, i’m guessing.
Mr Abbott is the most intelligent and honest politician, with values and integrity way far and above the dissembling rabble in government.
candy
31 Aug 12 at 10:03 am
I just love seeing all you rightists slagging off against each other. Just confirms my view that Gillard will stage a remarkable comeback in the forthcoming polls and go to win the next election comfortably. Meanwhile guys, just keep chewing each other up. I’m enjoying it.
hammygar
31 Aug 12 at 10:07 am
Candy, I agree. Although I want to see smaller govt and far far less regulations (get out of the way of business and let the economy grow), I think Abbott has all those attributes you mention. He also though has the big govt mentality that I despise. So instead of not voting for him (after all what is the alternative – more ALP disasters and graft) I give him and various other politicians the benefit of my advice. Aint email grand?
dianeh
31 Aug 12 at 10:21 am
And vote for whom? Green/Labour? As if. Their incompetence is exceeded only by their smug hypocrisy. No, wait, their mendacity exceeds their incompetence too. Then there’s their corruption. Not to forget their moral bankruptcy; and their racism.
No, blast it, the list of reasons to not vote Green/Labour is too long for one post.
While it’s disappointing to see signs of big government conservatives winning out on the coalition side, competent big government with some small government tendencies has to be better than the current crowd of incompetent big government socialists with totalitarian tendencies.
What a cluster-f*ck the current mob provide. How long did their great new “carbon price”(sic) scheme last? Oh yes, that’s right, less than 2 months.
“Least disastrous on offer” is luke-warm praise; but that’s the choice we appear to have.
Cato the Elder
31 Aug 12 at 10:35 am
Vote the for LDP 1 and preference the Liberals.
http://www.ldp.org.au/
Put the ALP and Greens last and 2nd last, strategically.
.
31 Aug 12 at 10:37 am
Abbott hasn’t even begun to spendathon.
He has no conceptualisation of budget restraint, based on the scandal of the Liberals’ last election budget costings. Promise after promise, none of which are costed, all built on a tissue of lies, covered up by the rubber stamp of a discredited accounting firm.
m0nty
31 Aug 12 at 10:43 am
Which is precisely the same as voting Liberal. You’re kidding yourself if you think that will have any effect whatsoever.
m0nty
31 Aug 12 at 10:46 am
No no, the point is to wipe out the Greens, and expand the LDP primary vote.
The LDP shafted the Greens out of an additional Senate seat last time.
Thank me later.
.
31 Aug 12 at 10:48 am
I agree with Dot
Vote LDP 1st to encourage them.
After that, the government will be formed by either Liberal or Labor – so we go for “least worst”.
Aside from that:
Factio Virides delenda est!
Cato the Elder
31 Aug 12 at 10:53 am
Hey, I was just speaking to a courier driver, who I joke with regularly about how I support Gillard and the carbon tax, and he said he has really gone off Abbott, and thinks Labor’s polling will improve if they keep up good policy like the improved dental scheme.
This is from a man who really, really loathes Gillard.
He is of the view thought that Abbott looks a bit silly for exaggerating the carbon tax effect, and that he projects negativity without any substantial positive plans.
He cannot see who in the party would take over, though, and he agreed with me that the obvious one (Turnbull) can’t credibly change his stripes on carbon pricing, and the party can’t easily change its position on opposing it.
This was all rather surprising given who it was coming from.
steve from brisbane
31 Aug 12 at 10:57 am
Naww, it’s like giving the slow kid in class a gold star.
m0nty
31 Aug 12 at 11:04 am
Pity it won’t prevent the ozdraylian lobodomy pardee being reduced a pathetic dysfunctional rump of less than twenty twats after the next election.
Oh hang, It’s not a pity.
laybore and their supporters are bunch of fucking jokes.
Rabz
31 Aug 12 at 11:05 am
Is this a joke?
160 billion dollars of debt in 5 years.
Where’s your “concern” over Labor’s proven 32 billion dollar a year black hole?
Oh that’s right, you’re a shill, it doesn’t matter what Labor do.
twostix
31 Aug 12 at 11:05 am
Fucking bullshit. The transport industry don’t mind the carbon tax because Gillard got rid of the floor price you douchebag.
Here’s a hint, you money grubbing fuckheads:
Stop using amphetamines every weekend. Brush your fucking teeth. Drink fluoridated water. You ALREADY get one “free” Comm Govvy. subsidised check up/cleaning a year, ask your dentist.
Anyway, Vote 1 LDP.
.
31 Aug 12 at 11:06 am
Fatso,
You want an NBN becuase you don’t have a girlfriend. You failed economics at uni. You busted at least one company.
Just shut up. The LDP did a sterling job of denying the lunatic Green left another Senate seat in NSW and Humphreys (peace be upon our prodigal son) and Terje (say Tay-a) would make excellent Senators.
.
31 Aug 12 at 11:08 am
Once a candidate or Senate group receives over 4% of first preference votes they get $2.42 per vote.
twostix
31 Aug 12 at 11:09 am
Most of us are agreeing that the Liberals (sic) won’t fix the Trade Union Party’s bad policies?
Probably no effect, the TUP will be turfed out at the next election anyway.
Forester
31 Aug 12 at 11:10 am
Does the entire LDP run on angry pills, or just you, dot?
steve from brisbane
31 Aug 12 at 11:11 am
Well gee, it’s great that your mob prevented the Greens from gaining the balance of power. Oh wait…
Which state was that in, btw?
m0nty
31 Aug 12 at 11:13 am
“The mob used to ‘socialist’ handouts”
So when he gets ion he needs to say ‘FFS The cupboard is bare!’ The Laybore Lush spent it AAALLL”
‘Man we will have to suffer for a goodly while to repair the damage’
Cue slashathon.
It will be his only chance. Short term pain for long term gain – but I do wonder if he really has it in him – and – if his front bench has the smarts and knowledge to keep a tight fiscal rein on him?
Helen Armstrong
31 Aug 12 at 11:13 am
What do you expect from the Cat’s own feral pekanese?
Every time a post is created criticing the Coalition he is on peddling numbers so dodgy they must’ve come from Wayne Swan.
Then when there is no critical posts for a while he is whining like a beta-male.
Token
31 Aug 12 at 11:14 am
You’re a liar Steve, you get what you deserve.
There are free checkups and orthodontics are so cheap the middle class (95% of us) have kids with ortho work.
The ALP are such a wank. How many special interest groups are they going to fucking bribe?
Have the genii like Roxon ever thought of just leaving us with our money and not taking it away, hiring a few PR APS dudes and giving us about half back with an absurd acronym?
The first thing Abbot should do is purge the Treasury offices.
.
31 Aug 12 at 11:15 am
Mob?
The Greens are a mob. Lee Rhiannon is a traitor who was on the Soviet payroll. You support the Alliance Government. I don’t answer to those who support treachery.
.
31 Aug 12 at 11:16 am
It’s getting real easy to pick the talking points of the week issued from Liebor Central.
This week it’s – surprise, surprise – AbbottAbbottAbbott and how the electorate is turning off him. See Richo today, Goose earlier on etc.
Of course there is no actual evidence for this, so talking points say just make stuff up about personal anecdotes.
Right on schedule comes one of our robotic trolls..
Lazlo
31 Aug 12 at 11:16 am
Dot – isn’t it sad how SoB has started posting the conversations he has with his invisible friends, who unlike every other courier in the country, strangely agree with every point SoB makes?
In SoB’s world, the postie, the courier, the plumbers and all the other people he sees out of his window all agree wit him.
Token
31 Aug 12 at 11:18 am
I see, Andotty Green, so you think LDP preferences were crucial in NSW. Wiki says:
So the LDP didn’t shaft the Greens out of anything. The Greens got less than one quota, and got one seat. Poor Andotty, a failed election analyst as well.
m0nty
31 Aug 12 at 11:20 am
Hey M0nty, seeing we are remembering memerable preference deals, how about that brilliant move by Victorian Labor which gave Steve Fielding the balance of power and prevented Krudd from being able to push through the Greenreich.
If it wasn’t for that brilliant move we wouldn’t even have a hung parliament and Labor would’ve been able to implement an ETS.
Thanks for reminding us how brilliant Labor is!
Token
31 Aug 12 at 11:22 am
Labor did implement an ETS. It starts in 2015, you idiot. Watch Abbott find an excuse not to scrap it if he gets into power.
m0nty
31 Aug 12 at 11:25 am
So many people at this blog have a problem with recognising reality (in this case, my honesty in political opinion and recount of incidents like this morning’s conversation.)
steve from brisbane
31 Aug 12 at 11:26 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Really? Suck it.
monty you are talking out of your arse
The Greens got primary votes near the quotas. The ALP had 1.5-2.5 quotas on primary votes.
The Greens could have jagged more Senate seats. Don’t fool yourself.
The reason why the LDP didn’t get up? Fred Nile is a c**t who hates gays (the LDP are for gay marriage) more than hates poverty and ALP incompetence, and (pro gay) green lunacy.
Rhiannon got into the Senate because the Coalition didn’t preference the LDP over the Greens.
They were fuckwits and they paid for it with the election of an Alliance Senator who is a traitor.
.
31 Aug 12 at 11:37 am
Steve, is this the reality in a parallel universe where you have the required probity to pass a working with children check?
Is it true that you must have things delivered to your house by courier due to the fact that you can’t really leave the house because of the various restraining orders that are in place?
Huckleberry Chunkwot
31 Aug 12 at 11:40 am
People have become used to sucking on the breast of government and the weening process is a torment.
Lysander Spooner
31 Aug 12 at 11:41 am
The deal by Vic Labor to preference Steven Fielding was a great gift to Australia.
It cost Labor one PMs & will soon cost it a 2nd. One it had to knife itself and the second will be booted out due to an electoral thumping (before she goes off to face corruption charges).
Yes, and as the job destroying ETS will be scrapped before 2015 by a Coalition government with a large majority, many around Australia will be celebrating Victorian Labor’s preferencing of Steve Fielding.
Token
31 Aug 12 at 11:42 am
They got the BoP comfortably, what more could they do?
No, you didn’t get up because you didn’t get enough votes. The CDP votes all got transferred to the LNP. You’re the one who is fooling yourself.
m0nty
31 Aug 12 at 11:45 am
Further to my comment above re TA possibly being big welfare spending big government, I neglected to comment on something that I have been thinking about for a bit re his ‘negativity’ as portrayed by Liebor and meeja.
I believe this perceived negativity is purely due to the collective Meedia refusing to publish anything positive about him, married, family independent wife and daughters, charity work, volunteer work, save Coalition from another term in opposition as would have been most certain under Labor Light Turnball, before we even get to his politics, which have resonated enough with Australians to have ALP trailing along like some kids snot rag in the polls.
I would really like him to have some positive media, instead of media parroting ALP taslking points of the day/week/month/year oh it never changes, does it?
Helen Armstrong
31 Aug 12 at 12:16 pm
Abbott’s big government conservatism:
- ‘direct action’ on climate change
- paid parental leave
- terror victims compensation scheme
These things do not win him votes. In fact they muddy the message. Maybe ‘muddying the message’ is the point, in that they blunt the criticism of him as an extremist and having no policies of his own. (although winding back Labor policy is a policy, but the press don’t seem to see it that way).
dd
31 Aug 12 at 12:26 pm
This is a great stimulas idea it will definately employ a lot of lawyers proving all the acts of terrorism around the world. Their will be terrorist events we have never even heard of. Only $75 000, this number will have to be upped especially for new terrorist events to account for inflation. I hope this handout will not be taxable so the beneficiaries can have decent holidays.
kelly liddle
31 Aug 12 at 12:30 pm
roger
31 Aug 12 at 12:37 pm
Just shut up monty, you are embarrassing yourself again, big noting yourself and talking out of your arse.
You don’t know what the prefs flows were or what negotiations happened.
You’re a shitbird, basically.
Entirely sensible policy
http://www.ldp.org.au/policies/1266-budget
Within a small government context, the LDP believes government should fund recurrent activities entirely through taxation and balance liabilities and assets to achieve the equiivalent of zero net worth.
Policy
Within the context of a government which limits its ownership of assets to essential holdings, the LDP believes governments should balance their liabilities and assets to achieve the equivalent of zero net worth.
Having achieved that, governments should thereafter run balanced budgets, where recurrent activities are funded entirely through taxation and not through borrowings.
Discussion
Balancing the value of assets and liabilities (i.e. achieving ‘zero net worth’) supports intergenerational equity. If assets exceed liabilities, a government is essentially forcing current taxpayers to provide a bequest to future taxpayers. If liabilities exceed assets, a government is forcing future taxpayers to pay for benefits provided to current taxpayers. Such saving and ‘dis-saving’ decisions are best made by individuals and families.
Balancing the value of assets and liabilities would be achieved by governments with net assets running small deficits until the balance is reduced to zero, and governments with net liabilities running small surpluses until net liabilities are reduced to zero.
Once zero net worth was achieved, governments would plan for budget balance (i.e. achieving ‘zero net operating balance’).[1]
Running balanced budgets means recurrent government activities would be funded entirely through taxation, not borrowings. Governments would fund asset purchases through borrowing, and fund interest costs and depreciation (both of which are treated as expenses) through taxation. All this would ensure that the budget remained in balance and net worth remained at zero. Assets would be valued at market value using international accounting standards.
Running balanced budgets would mean that budgets would not be manipulated in a forlorn attempt to steer the economy towards the ‘right’ level of economic activity.
The LDP considers that government assets should be limited to essential holdings. The LDP privatisation policy envisages the sale of a wide range of government businesses. In addition, the LDP considers that governments should not hold financial assets. [2] Financial investment should be undertaken by private individuals rather than forced on taxpayers by governments that have no inherent advantages in it.
Consistent with this policy, the LDP considers that the federal government should not artificially maintain a market in Commonwealth Government Securities (CGS). Bonds should only be issued to the extent they are needed to match assets.
Propping up the CGS market (by borrowing in excess of requirements and using the excess to purchase financial assets) is the policy of both major parties. The LDP is opposed to this.
Governments that borrow to invest in financial assets achieve returns (adjusted for risk and after management costs) that fall short of those achieved through private financial investment.
Governments that borrow to invest in financial assets can reduce or distort the supply of funds to borrowers in the private sector, and can increase private sector borrowing costs.
Some argue that propping up the CGS market, thus maintaining a ‘risk free’ $A debt instrument, aids efficient price discovery and reduces search and uncertainty costs. The problem is that CGS crowds out the development of low risk $A private sector debt instruments that could also serve this price-discovery purpose. Moreover, lending to a government that embarks on a leveraged financial investment strategy is low risk only because of the potential to transfer the risk to taxpayers.
Overall, propping up the CGS market represents industry assistance for a handful of players in the financial sector, with net costs for the economy as a whole.
.
31 Aug 12 at 12:45 pm
roger,
That doesn’t wash. Civilians aren’t the same as a soldier fighting in combat unless you allow me a semi-automatic weapon and I can instantly be integrated into the chain of command.
The key feature of wartime combat is not government compensation after the fact.
dd
31 Aug 12 at 12:50 pm
Since all of the CDP’s NSW Senate votes exhausted to the LNP, you can link policy documents all you like, but it had precisely zero effect on the way the votes fell. Your claim that the LDP had any effect on denying the Greens anything is demonstrably untrue. You lied, Andotty, plain and simple.
It’s easy to tell when you get caught out on your lies and have no answer, because you invariably turn up the abuse.
m0nty
31 Aug 12 at 1:09 pm
Unlike those on the left, we at the cat are happy to criticise bad policies from all parties. I expect far fewer bad policies from an Abbott Government than any ALP government. But all governments irrespective of how good will make mistakes and implement bad policies.
samuel j
31 Aug 12 at 3:54 pm
I think monty and steve’s positions are “Abbott sucks – you should vote for a candidate with all his faults and all-new faults of their own!”
Quentin George
31 Aug 12 at 4:49 pm
No. I told the truth minty. You are a desperado. Preference flows matter only when they aren’t the LDP’s to you, but Green primary votes didn’t count as well…you nincompoop.
You get abused because you big note yourself and lie and refuse to withdraw what you say, which is utter hogwash.
The LDP has shafted the Greens out of Senate seats in 2004, 2007 and 2010.
The CDP should accept we are the least worst option for them and the Liberals are pig headed idiots if they preference the Greens over us again.
More sensible policy again.
The LDP supports significant tax cuts.
Reform is good. Sometimes, revolution is better.
Much has been said about the need for tax and welfare reform in Australia, but the tyranny of the status quo and self-imposed limitations such as ‘budget neutrality’ and no ‘person-worse-off’ relegate any usual reform proposal to failure.
Consequently, the LDP does not argue for incremental reform. Instead it offers a new template from which to consider tax and welfare issues, a tax revolution: Reform 30/30.
Reform 30/30 includes a tax-free threshold of $30,000 and a flat income tax of 30%, with no deductions. All income taxes (company, Capital Gains Tax [CGT], Pay As You Go [PAYG], Fringe Benefits Tax [FBT]) would be equal at 30%, and the Medicare levy removed.
The tax-free threshold (TFT) would be increased to $30,000 per person and all tax expenditures (tax deductions, offsets, and so on) would be removed.
The current welfare system would be replaced by a sliding scale of payments (called a Negative Income Tax or NIT) that phased out at 30% and finished at an income of $30,000.
For example, if you earned $0, you would receive 30% of $30,000 ($9000). If you earned $10,000, you would receive 30% of $20,000 ($6000). If you earn $25,000, you would receive 30% of $5000 ($1500). This would involve a cut in payments to the unemployed and an increase in payments to low-income earners.
One advantage of the NIT is that it removes the need for the minimum wage. Instead of legislating for higher wages, the NIT allows wages to stay at their market rate and instead supplements low incomes with an NIT payment. Removing the minimum wage would result in a significant increase in the number of jobs available.
Probably the biggest advantage of Reform 30/30 is that the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) is always 30%. The EMTR measures how much of an additional dollar earned goes to the government. Under the current system the EMTR is variable and high. One cause of high EMTRs for people on low-incomes is the overlap of paying income tax and losing welfare payments. This can lead to EMTRs of up to 80% on some of the poorest people in Australia and is called the “poverty trap”, and is a major disincentive against getting a job.
The combination of lower unemployment payments, more jobs available and greater rewards for getting a job would lead to a significant increase in employment, and the social capital benefits that go with that (higher self-esteem, more opportunities, greater social participation). Absolute poverty would be reduced and economic growth would increase.
Another important benefit from Reform 30/30 is the administrative simplicity. By having a flat tax at the same level as company tax, and removing all tax expenditures (except those necessary to retain the integrity of the income tax system), it would no longer be necessary to complete a tax return. One problem of the current system is the churning of welfare — where the same person both pays income tax and receives welfare. Under our proposal this would be abolished.
There would be no question of tax avoidance, no need for complex accounting procedures and no costly administration and compliance costs. The biggest losers from Reform 30/30 would be tax accountants — which is surely a sign of good tax reform.
The proposal includes a significant reduction in income tax. This is appropriate as Australians currently pay too much tax — more than any previous Australian generation. Still, a reduction in tax must be met with a reduction in spending. Some elements of Reform 30/30 will work to offset the lost revenue — such as less unemployment, lower welfare payments, higher economic growth, less tax avoidance, the removal of middle-class welfare and lower administration costs. In addition, the removal of tax expenditures will save the government $30 billion and remove hundreds of inefficient distortions (which will in turn lead to higher economic growth).
Finally, no reform of the tax and welfare system would be complete without also removing the billions of dollars currently paid to industry as corporate welfare.
Reform 30/30 is unambiguously beneficial to the economy. It offers 500,000 new jobs, less poverty, a $90 billion bigger economy, higher growth rates, lower tax levels and a simpler, fairer tax/welfare system and more money in the budget. The price is that some sacred cows of politics (‘progressive’ tax, minimum wage, no-person-worse-off) will have to be sacrificed.
Issues of equity will always be contentious, but Reform 30/30 is more equitable than the status quo for several reasons. First, it massively reduces unemployment and poverty. Second, it ends discrimination against couples. Third, it ends discrimination against risky business and inconsistent income.
Finally, this reform will actually pay for itself. Rough estimates suggest a medium-term impact on the budget of +$15 billion per year, and more in the long run.
Full details on this reform policy are contained in Reform 30/30: Rebuilding Australia’s Tax and Welfare Systems by John Humphreys.
Pissed off conservatives, you have an out
http://www.ldp.org.au/get-involved/join-online
.
31 Aug 12 at 7:52 pm
You could argue that the terrorist victims were civilian victims of war, which was to an extent true. Generally speaking, i agree it is not the role of government to compensate such victims, however you couldn’t count the number of less worthy recipients of government handouts.
Twodogs
31 Aug 12 at 10:04 pm
Roger, that’s moronic. Read the Geneva Convention. They are terrorist BECAUSE they defy the Geneva Convention.
The legality of war is in the principle of fairness. If you are going to fight, wear a uniform and show the enemy what you are – fair game in a fair fight. There is nothing legal about shooting unarmed civilians – that’s murder.
I’ll assume you submitted your comment without thinking, because otherwise you’re talking complete bollocks.
Twodogs
31 Aug 12 at 10:22 pm
I guess that’s true.
dd
31 Aug 12 at 10:25 pm
I’m getting more and more depressed each day with Abbott. What the flying fuck is the 75K to terror victims gift all about? Why are they so special?
And he’s also going in hard over internet comments. I’ll vote for them as I want these liars out, however I’m under no freaking illusions about that side.
Haven’t the idiot Libs ever learnt. They can’t protest against bog government from the loons on the other side when they do this shit themselves.
JC
31 Aug 12 at 10:27 pm
Why? Dying in say a car accident overseas would be just as worthy.
It’s fucking horse shit.
They will always be out bid by the left no mstter how much money they throw at bad causes.
JC
31 Aug 12 at 10:30 pm
Let’s remember that a woman lost her job for tweeting to a celebrity, “go hang yourself.”
This concern about internet comments is a moral panic, pure and simple. Rock and roll music was considered evil not so long ago. Now it’s internet comments.
There are already laws in place for libel and slander. There are already laws in place to stop harassing behaviour. There’s no need for new laws to stop people saying hurtful things to each other.
You can’t arrest someone for saying “go hang yourself.” (oops, I just said it myself)
dd
31 Aug 12 at 10:53 pm
There’s a bit more to it than that. After a follower of Dawson’s saw what the woman had said she replied saying that it was an awful thing to say and that her fiance had hung herself. The woman then replied to her, not the celebrity saying that if she was her fiance she would have hung herself too.
Now the woman has not (yet) been sacked, just suspended. She was however pretty easily traceable to her employer and most large organisations like the one she works for do have social media guidelines that do even extend to things which said out of work hours. Because, like it or not, employers see their employees as representing them and their “brand”. Especially if they tweet from the same account on work related matters.
So its entirely possible that she has broken guidelines set out by her employer and her employer may well have some grounds for sacking her, though I’ve no idea if it would stand up in court.
Chris
31 Aug 12 at 11:31 pm
Yeah but that’s a red herring. This is not a front page story because someone was busted tweeting at work. Nobody is calling for stricter workplace rules around twitter; they’re calling for punishment of people who tweet nasty tweets.
Yeah it’s pretty low; but what’s the non-internet standard here? We already have laws around what’s acceptable to say to someone. The fact that it’s said via twitter or facebook rather than face-to-face or by in print is secondary.
dd
1 Sep 12 at 12:10 am
Bizarre to say the least.
CC
1 Sep 12 at 1:40 am
I sort of agree. There are some people calling for criminal punishment for what she did (personally I disagree on that point). But the suspension, and possibility of sacking is kind of an aside. That’s essentially up to the employer, within the bounds of employment law. Its in effect a sort of social censure via public pressure on the employer. Though my view is that sacking what is probably a fairly low level employee would in most cases be excessive. Perhaps a career limiting action though!
I don’t know if she made the tweets from work or using her employer’s resources, but I imagine that if someone made a similar harrassing kind of statement whilst at work on the phone and it became public knowledge, that the person’s employer would similarly not be happy about it. In general the line between “at work” and “not at work” is getting pretty blurry for white collar jobs.
Chris
1 Sep 12 at 1:41 am
So it ought to be a crime to taunt someone to do something if their spouse already did it and you may or may not know?
Turn off twitter and facebook. They are shit.
.
1 Sep 12 at 8:13 am
I’ve never liked that tactic. It’s like those campaigns of advertisers to shut down media voices.
Also no university can sack someone for using twitter because it would be the height of hypocrisy. Non-work use of resources is rampant in universities. One administrator saying one rude thing is a drop in the ocean.
dd
1 Sep 12 at 8:22 am
So many posts have gone right of topic into personal attacks it seems. So getting back to it, this “compensation for some” mentality is just like say, ten houses burn down, its a tragedy and a fund is started to help. Your single house burns down, stiff shit. Let it get out of control and take out the neighbourhood if you want any help afterward.
The Realist of Queensland
1 Sep 12 at 8:55 am
Fair enough to have that view, but is it something that you’d really like to see regulated/made illegal (I’d hope not!)? I think its pretty much an inevitable outcome in these days where anyone can effectively start their own lobbying campaign.
It’s clearly not that twitter is being used – a lot of organisations now encourage the use of social media tools during work hours using work resources (mine does) but how it is used. If I said something similar on Twitter I know I’d be getting a call from my manager or my manager’s manager pretty quickly!
Chris
1 Sep 12 at 10:01 am
Again, while Abbott does often show a tendency to over-indulge in Political Correctness (and to try and thus impress ABC/Fairfax), I’m with him on that one.
The form of war the West fights post 9/11 is different to the traditional warfare – WWII-like – model, and we have to move with the times.
It is a War waged by civilians (terrorists) against civilans (victims) who fight back as civilians (Flight 93). Abbott shows great perception of this concept and I’m totally in agreement with him in this.
roger
1 Sep 12 at 10:15 am