Aussie Thread: Democracy Sausage

[Jeor]

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

ScoMo and Cormann successfully navigate a tricky Senate and will pass their personal income tax reform in full, thanks to Lambie and the Centre Alliance. 

Most of the cuts don't come in until 2022-23 (stage two - bracket creep) or 2024-25 (30% MRT between $41k and $200k). But they will surely proceed now . It would take a brave Labor government to repeal them. 

I don't know. If the budget is in deficit (which it may well be from the next financial crisis) and this was under the Coalition's watch, I think Labor could make the argument that the third layer of tax cuts need to be repealed. A lot can happen between now and then.

EDIT: I'm in London and managed to get into Wimbledon, and also see Barty play in a doubles match (partnering with Azarenka). Woo!

[The Anti-Targ]

So an employment lawyer reckons RA sponsors could be fined if it's shown they threatened RA with pulling sponsorship if Folau wasn't dealt with. That's interesting. I would think sponsors should not be held directly accountable for RA actions, as they should be free to withdraw sponsorship at any time, so long as it meets the terms of their sponsorship contract. Would be interesting to see if it is within the sponsors' deals to withdraw sponsorship in relation to the conduct of an individual player. Did RA put its foot in it by bringing up the sponsors (and govt funding) and not just sticking to the code of conduct line? Did it think the code of conduct defense would not stack up on its own so it looked around for other justifications and hit upon one that could end up blowing up in their faces?

What will be the fall out if it turns out RA had no lawful grounds to terminate Folau's contract and they have to pay him and apologise. RA could still claim that it would have stood on principle and cut ties with Folau anyway and is willing to take the consequences as an act against intolerance. But it might be a very expensive hill on which to die. Perhaps they'll need a go fund me to be able to afford the fine and avoid insolvency. Maybe some of the sponsors could chip in.

[Free Northman Reborn]

43 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So an employment lawyer reckons RA sponsors could be fined if it's shown they threatened RA with pulling sponsorship if Folau wasn't dealt with. That's interesting. I would think sponsors should not be held directly accountable for RA actions, as they should be free to withdraw sponsorship at any time, so long as it meets the terms of their sponsorship contract. Would be interesting to see if it is within the sponsors' deals to withdraw sponsorship in relation to the conduct of an individual player. Did RA put its foot in it by bringing up the sponsors (and govt funding) and not just sticking to the code of conduct line? Did it think the code of conduct defense would not stack up on its own so it looked around for other justifications and hit upon one that could end up blowing up in their faces?

What will be the fall out if it turns out RA had no lawful grounds to terminate Folau's contract and they have to pay him and apologise. RA could still claim that it would have stood on principle and cut ties with Folau anyway and is willing to take the consequences as an act against intolerance. But it might be a very expensive hill on which to die. Perhaps they'll need a go fund me to be able to afford the fine and avoid insolvency. Maybe some of the sponsors could chip in.

It’s always been about their image and about the sponsors for RA. To believe otherwise is naive.

Anyway, the point remains, since virtually all organisations care about their image, and will want to please powerful clients/sponsors/stakeholders all the time, if there isn’t legal protection for expressing your religious views then soon the choice will be between shutting up or not being able to find meaningful employment outside of a church.

Which in practice is little different to the state prohibiting the freedom to express religious views.

[Impmk2]

3 hours ago, Paxter said:

Yes there are serious concerns about fiscal responsibility here. And that's before you even consider the changes through the lens of tax progressiveness (progressivism?). Fast forward a few years and the Libs will be proposing an increase in the GST to pay for the tax cut.

As someone who works in the University sector and is reliant on public money in the form of research grant funding I'm quite worried, we may well be on the chopping block yet again. Though as I've now got a decade of experience I'm pretty employable so will probably be ok. I really feel for the young people who are just coming through now though. 

It really pisses me off, people (including some of those I work with) don't think about where the money will come from. Just want it in their pockets right now.

[Stubby]

46 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

...if there isn’t legal protection for expressing your religious views then soon the choice will be between shutting up or not being able to find meaningful employment...

Much like it has been for gay people, atheists, and anyone else who was not Christian for hundreds of years.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Anyway, the point remains, since virtually all organisations care about their image, and will want to please powerful clients/sponsors/stakeholders all the time, if there isn’t legal protection for expressing your religious views then soon the choice will be between shutting up or not being able to find meaningful employment outside of a church.

 

Again where does it end for you man? Should the state bars  literal white-supremacists from being fired from their place of employment for their expressed views on wanting to treat others  as subhuman if they just say god agrees with them? 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It’s always been about their image and about the sponsors for RA. To believe otherwise is naive.

Anyway, the point remains, since virtually all organisations care about their image, and will want to please powerful clients/sponsors/stakeholders all the time, if there isn’t legal protection for expressing your religious views then soon the choice will be between shutting up or not being able to find meaningful employment outside of a church.

Which in practice is little different to the state prohibiting the freedom to express religious views.

Actually, in your own country there are no federal legal employment protections applicable to private entities for people's speech. Since many states have fire at will labour laws, you can be sacked for expressing any opinion your employer doesn't like, religious or otherwise. At least in Australia (and NZ) you can only be sacked for cause, and if an employer doesn't have a code of conduct for employees it would be extremely difficult to sack someone for expressing their opinion. So it might pay to turn your attention to protecting worker rights in the USA more than looking to protect religious rights in Australia. Folau has more legal protections in Australia than in most US states. The only reason sports stars in the USA have any protections is because they have player unions and collective bargaining. Funny that.

If RA didn't have a code of conduct it could not legally terminate Folau's contract.

[Paxter]

Pathetic stuff from Labor to actually join the Coalition in passing that tax package. It’s poor policy through and through.

[Jeor]

2 hours ago, Paxter said:

Pathetic stuff from Labor to actually join the Coalition in passing that tax package. It’s poor policy through and through.

Yes, I'm surprised they actually gave up and will vote for it, especially given how much it was a centrepiece of their attack campaign.

They should have at least said no on principle and forced all the Coalition allies to do the heavy lifting.

I'm guessing Albanese and co just didn't want the next election to play out as "Labor loves taxing you, you know they voted against tax cuts right?". Which, to be honest, I don't think is worth it. People are going to fall for the "Labor taxes heaps and spends heaps" line all the time, a bunch of people will still think that Labor voted against it anyway (given the election campaign) so it seems weird to me to just suddenly do a U-turn. It's the worst of both worlds.

[Paxter]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

It's the worst of both worlds.

To be honest, that is the ALP in a nutshell. They are poor (or at least perceived as poor) economic managers in the opinions of most fiscal conservatives and have simultaneously failed to deliver results for social progressives (e.g. the environment, immigration, LGBT rights). I wish Labor would go the way of the SPD in Germany (who are the old centre-left party now playing second fiddle to the Greens).

If that happened, the Liberals could claim more of the centre ground in government, leaving the right-wing rump for One Nation and Bernardi. 

The funny thing about this whole tax cut debate is that I could have supported it (despite the hit to fiscal sustainability) if it was just a bit more progressive. But dear lord the new MRTs/tax brackets really do favour higher income households. 

[The Winged Shadow]

They can't lose with their strategy. The big cuts come in when they won't be in charge, and if the economy hits the shitter then someone else will have to clean it up (they'll somehow manage to blame Labor I'm sure). And when they cut service, people just blame service providers for shit service, not the coalition. Medicare is shit, not the coalition. Schools are shit, not the coalition. Public transport authorities are shit, not the coalition. Insurers are shit, not the coalition etc. Coalition rarely have to answer for the collateral damage and consequences of their service cuts, because they are so good at handing off responsibility. And people who are dependent on those services the most are usually not coalition voters anyway.

Having said that, I don't think the fiscal policy is as important to the economy as people make it out to be. Whatever happens internationally with the big boys will have bigger impact on the economy than income tax cuts (which has its positives as well, lets not forget). I'd be more worried about any possible benefits/handouts to pensioners/mid & high income earners. It's those that bite the most since they are so hard to get rid off. You can always come up with new tax or levy etc if things are bad, but repealing those handouts/benefits are hard.

[Paxter]

5 hours ago, The Winged Shadow said:

They can't lose with their strategy. The big cuts come in when they won't be in charge, and if the economy hits the shitter then someone else will have to clean it up (they'll somehow manage to blame Labor I'm sure). And when they cut service, people just blame service providers for shit service, not the coalition. Medicare is shit, not the coalition. Schools are shit, not the coalition. Public transport authorities are shit, not the coalition. Insurers are shit, not the coalition etc. Coalition rarely have to answer for the collateral damage and consequences of their service cuts, because they are so good at handing off responsibility. And people who are dependent on those services the most are usually not coalition voters anyway.

Having said that, I don't think the fiscal policy is as important to the economy as people make it out to be. Whatever happens internationally with the big boys will have bigger impact on the economy than income tax cuts (which has its positives as well, lets not forget). I'd be more worried about any possible benefits/handouts to pensioners/mid & high income earners. It's those that bite the most since they are so hard to get rid off. You can always come up with new tax or levy etc if things are bad, but repealing those handouts/benefits are hard.

Not sure I agree entirely with the first para. Labor has actually achieved some decent political success when they've attacked the Coalition on services (e.g. Hockey's co-payment for GP visits, the 'Mediscare' campaign under MT). They probably should have stuck to that line more in the last election rather than cutting negative gearing, CGT etc. 

But the second para I do agree with. At least cutting taxes for working age people reduces distortions and encourages consumption (unless that consumption is on international travel and foreign-made TVs!) But they could reduce the tax base to a point where an increase in the GST or a cut in services is unavoidable down the track, particularly if there is a recession and the government subsequently needs to repair the budget. 

[The Winged Shadow]

3 hours ago, Paxter said:

Not sure I agree entirely with the first para. Labor has actually achieved some decent political success when they've attacked the Coalition on services (e.g. Hockey's co-payment for GP visits, the 'Mediscare' campaign under MT). They probably should have stuck to that line more in the last election rather than cutting negative gearing, CGT etc. 

But the second para I do agree with. At least cutting taxes for working age people reduces distortions and encourages consumption (unless that consumption is on international travel and foreign-made TVs!) But they could reduce the tax base to a point where an increase in the GST or a cut in services is unavoidable down the track, particularly if there is a recession and the government subsequently needs to repair the budget. 

You're right. I think Medicare is the only thing that is kind of untouchable. It's one of the few areas where the public votes the way they poll.

[Stubby]

Because he's been back in the news today, I offer the following joke.

A car mounted the kerb outside Fred Nile's house today.  He ran outside and threw a bucket of water on it.

[Varysblackfyre321]

On 7/1/2019 at 9:33 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

I think all of a sudden the right might start getting cold feet about giving religion special exemptions. Back when it religion in Aussie = Christian it was all go with the conservative right to protect religion. Now the far right keeps raising the specter of Australia becoming ruled by Shariah law, there might be less of an appetite to give religion special treatment, because the law could never give special treatment only to Christianity and so any special treatment they might give to Christianity will also apply to Islam.

That’s not how their thinking works. Christianity would still be the only religion that would really get special treatment. Their goal has always been Christian supremacy/exceptionalism. Most of them only use the phrase of “religious liberty” in order to sound more neutral. Sure, they’ll rush in defense whenever a Christian’s “religious rights” are under attack, but  anything else, will be treated as up for debate at best.

Like, Conservatives in the US squeal on and on how much they love freedom of religious .

Then we see that half of Republicans don’t think building mosques should be illegal. Then see their religious leaders openly bemoan the fact America is no longer throwing gays in cages.

 

[Stubby]

On a day when the Essential Poll revealed that only 38% supported "religious freedom" legislation, Morrison tells a Hillsong conference that 'Our nation needs more prayer, more worship. That's how things are overcome.'  Bollocks.

Our nation needs a PM that makes decisions based on evidence, facts and logic.

[karaddin]

I'm really worried at how much a PM like Morrison combined with an utterly spineless Labor opposition will drag the country on social issues. What's currently going on in the US has reversed the trend towards acceptance in millenials there and a recent study reported that the idea of a family or friend coming out as gay would make them "uncomfortable" has increased among millenials for 2 years in a row. While the total numbers are still heavily for acceptance, the trend is concerning.

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

While the total numbers are still heavily for acceptance, the trend is concerning.

Totally agreed on all points.

[Free Northman Reborn]

18 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

That’s not how their thinking works. Christianity would still be the only religion that would really get special treatment. Their goal has always been Christian supremacy/exceptionalism. Most of them only use the phrase of “religious liberty” in order to sound more neutral. Sure, they’ll rush in defense whenever a Christian’s “religious rights” are under attack, but  anything else, will be treated as up for debate at best.

Like, Conservatives in the US squeal on and on how much they love freedom of religious .

Then we see that half of Republicans don’t think building mosques should be illegal. Then see their religious leaders openly bemoan the fact America is no longer throwing gays in cages.

 

Not sure how you can really be a Christian without believing that the only way to Salvation is through Christ. It is the fundamental principle of the religion.

So pushing for “Christian exceptionalism” should be a given for any true Christian.

Here I make a clear distinction, of course, between believers in Christianity on the one hand, and those who just feel an affinity to Christian values and traditions, but discard its fundamental truths, like many modern watered down “Christians”.

Christianity is by its very nature divisive. There is no getting away from that.

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Not sure how you can really be a Christian without believing that the only way to Salvation is through Christ. It is the fundamental principle of the religion.

So pushing for “Christian exceptionalism” should be a given for any true Christian.

 

Shockingly you can be a Christian and not believe Goverment should give you special treatment that they don’t give  members of another religion or make up laws based on your religious beliefs

It appears you think being a “true” Christian literally means they must see it as only natural they push laws that punish people for a sin specific to their religion, that it’s totally fine to clamp down on non-Christian religious activities.

In which case you’re proving my point on most conservative Christians in the west who cry out for “religious freedom ”not actually giving a damn about freedom, religious or otherwise. If you did your first response to those Christians who’d persecute others for not following a religious edict they see intrinsic to Christianity, or give them special treatment would be to condemn them, not defend them as only acting like “true Christians”. 

You quote Orwell. But seem to think it’s non-applicable when it’s your side doing the very things he warned against.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Here I make a clear distinction, of course, between believers in Christianity on the one hand, and those who just feel an affinity to Christian values and traditions, but discard its fundamental truths, like many modern watered down “Christians”.

Yes, any Christian who isn’t a bloody theocrat, who wants government to throw gays in cages ain’t no true Christian. Sarcasm.