Jump to content

NZers and Aussies: Switching it up


The Anti-Targ
 Share

Recommended Posts

NSW election in 2 days.

Seems most regulars on this thread are from Sydney? Will be interested to see how it pans out even though I'm in Vic.

Our election was a total wash with Labor easily romping it in. NSW should be somewhat unpredictable despite pretty much every poll pointing to a Labor win. Wonder if you guys will end up with a minority govt though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Skyrazer said:

NSW election in 2 days.

Seems most regulars on this thread are from Sydney? Will be interested to see how it pans out even though I'm in Vic.

Our election was a total wash with Labor easily romping it in. NSW should be somewhat unpredictable despite pretty much every poll pointing to a Labor win. Wonder if you guys will end up with a minority govt though.

Perrottet and the Coalition are giving off late-cycle vibes of a government that is past its used-by date. They've gone on a spending binge and look a bit desperate. Chris Minns sounds like a reasonably sensible Labor leader, and I expect he'll win at least minority government. Generally NSW has had long stretches of one party in power with lots of changes at the end signalling doom (Bob Carr for a long time, then late-cycle Labor with Iemma/Rees/Keneally, then Coalition for a while with O'Farrell/Baird/Berejklian/Perrottet). So it's probably time for another change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we have a referendum question (wording of the Constitution pending):

Quote

A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?

What will our beautiful, perfect, fucked-up, weird-arse country decide? And what will our dear opposition leader decide for his magnificent party?

I'm hoping overseas electors will be eligible to participate. 

Edited by Paxter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Perrottet and the Coalition are giving off late-cycle vibes of a government that is past its used-by date. They've gone on a spending binge and look a bit desperate. Chris Minns sounds like a reasonably sensible Labor leader, and I expect he'll win at least minority government. Generally NSW has had long stretches of one party in power with lots of changes at the end signalling doom (Bob Carr for a long time, then late-cycle Labor with Iemma/Rees/Keneally, then Coalition for a while with O'Farrell/Baird/Berejklian/Perrottet). So it's probably time for another change.

I could still barely point out Chris Minns if I saw him amongst a crowd of people. Sounds like he's been taking pages out of the Albanese playbook of small targets. Up until the campaign started, I actually didn't know who the NSW opposition leader was.

But otherwise yes, it does feel like the NSW Libs have reached their use-by-date after 12 years in power. If they do lose, I wonder if Perrottet will stay as leader (unlikely) or if he'll be replaced and who will replace him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't think this is a slam dunk for Labor. The Libs have done a good job of clinging to power and maintaining respectability in the polls despite a very long time in office and many retiring Cabinet members (Hazzard, Elliott, Dominello, Stokes). The rotating Premiers has probably been a good thing and kept things fresh for voters. Plus the economy and various infrastructure projects have hummed along in the last decade.

I'll stick with predicting a very narrow Labor win. 

Kiss of death - sorry Minns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paxter said:

Yeah I don't think this is a slam dunk for Labor. The Libs have done a good job of clinging to power and maintaining respectability in the polls despite a very long time in office and many retiring Cabinet members (Hazzard, Elliott, Dominello, Stokes). The rotating Premiers has probably been a good thing and kept things fresh for voters. Plus the economy and various infrastructure projects have hummed along in the last decade.

I'll stick with predicting a very narrow Labor win. 

Kiss of death - sorry Minns. 

I'd hate for a hung parliament to actually end up handing more power and influence to One Nation, which I fear is going to do very well. I think there will be a bloc of disaffected Liberal voters who are going to flip to One Nation and that will be the bigger issue of the future government. Mark Latham has been getting a bit of a profile and he'll attract some votes.

I liked O'Farrell, Baird, and Berejiklian but Perrottet hasn't really resonated with me. The one thing he has had conviction on (cashless pokies) was good. But he's had some odd ideas (future fund for kids) and I'm not sure about the rest of the Liberal frontbench. I think back to the couple of times I've seen Minns in action and he seems reasonably sensible. I'm actually considering voting Labor for once! (I haven't voted Labor since the Bob Carr days...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing a bit of digging, my hopes of this referendum passing continue to wane. I am fairly confident the amendment will get majority support across the country, but of course we also need to consider the States (Guardian polling):

Quote

While there is a majority of support for the voice in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, the results are finely balanced in Queensland (49% in favour and 51% opposed) and Western Australia (55% in support and 45% opposed).

To be successful, the referendum requires a majority in the nationwide vote as well as a majority of states, meaning negative results in three states could sink the proposed change.

I assume we have no idea about Tasmania, though I would hope for a better result there than in QLD. The lineball polling in QLD and WA is extremely concerning. Sadly, those are two states with proportionally large indigenous populations. 

I wonder whether they should have left the Executive out of the wording. Might scare off a few doubters (though personally I am in favour of the more expansive Voice). 

Edited by Paxter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will it be unprecedented in modern times for a country to enshrine some sort of guaranteed indigenous influence on policy and law? I assume if passed this would become part of Australia's constitutional arrangement?

We only have legal indigenous rights because the crown signed a treaty with most Maori back in 1840 and after over 100 years of it being left to largely languish in obscurity (and partly rat eaten) the treaty provisions have been applied and used to compensate for past injustices. But if that treaty from 1840 did not exist I wonder what our indigenous relations would be or if there would be anything in law that provided for a guaranteed indigenous voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Will it be unprecedented in modern times for a country to enshrine some sort of guaranteed indigenous influence on policy and law? I assume if passed this would become part of Australia's constitutional arrangement?

This isn't really guaranteed influence. The Parliament and Executive can ignore The Voice as much as they want. As for unprecedented, many countries (particularly in Latin America) recognize indigenous people's rights in their constitutions. But I'm not sure if those protections include something like The Voice. 

And yes, this requires an amendment to the Aussie Constitution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing my partner's postal ballot just made me laugh for the zillionth time. It is folded over 6 times and must about 1 metre in length. 

How have we, as a relatively advanced and modern democracy, not figured out a better way to vote for upper house members?

Anyway, enjoy your sausage sizzle today NSW folks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Perrottet government has fallen.

And I did end up putting a (1) in the Labor column for once to stick the boot in. Perrottet - I liked his conviction in things like the cashless pokies but not much else. He had a few other odd ideas (future fund for kids) and he never really recovered from his "let it rip" COVID stance. Furthermore, the rest of the Liberals are a rabble and most of the sensible experienced folks (Hazzard, Stokes, Dominello) were heading for the exits while others (Barilaro, Ayres, Elliot) had some question marks around ethics or incompetence - it isn't a strong lineup and it showed, with frequent train disruptions in Sydney, a ballooning public service "fat cat" layer of consultants, etc.

On the Labor side, what I heard from Minns was sensible and measured. The only question mark for me was the budget, releasing the wage caps on teachers/nurses/etc is a great thing, but it might end up costing quite a lot.

So, not a huge amount to make me vote Labor, but it was more a case of feeling the Coalition were tired and not likely to govern well. Time to give someone else a go and we'll see a bit more energy in government.

It's a shame because the Liberals generally have done quite a good job over the past 10 or so years. They had competent, moderate leaders in O'Farrell, Baird, Berejiklian and there is no doubt that they thoroughly invested in infrastructure - there has been more building and infrastructure development in the state than ever before. So they'll always have that legacy.

The One Nation swing hasn't happened, thank goodness. Labor also likely to win majority government so they won't need to rely on crossbenchers.

 

Edited by Jeor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Perrottet has stepped down as leader (as expected). I suppose Matt Kean will take the mantle from here? Can't see anyone else among their ranks as being a potential leader.

Wonder how Minns will go. Haven't been following him (or NSW politics in general) too much, but looks he'll be taking a similar approach to things as Fed Labor and playing it fairly safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Skyrazer said:

Looks like Perrottet has stepped down as leader (as expected). I suppose Matt Kean will take the mantle from here? Can't see anyone else among their ranks as being a potential leader.

Wonder how Minns will go. Haven't been following him (or NSW politics in general) too much, but looks he'll be taking a similar approach to things as Fed Labor and playing it fairly safe.

Turns out Matt Kean has refused the job. Not surprising really, it's a hard road picking up in Opposition and there would always be question marks (like there are with Dutton federally) as to whether the next leader lasts long enough to contest the next election, which in state terms is 4 years away. Kean is also still quite young with at least 20+ years in politics ahead of him if he wants it, and has the genuine excuse of having a young family.

Minns looks sensible, he hasn't announced anything outlandish and I suspect it will be a "steady-as-she-goes" type of Labor administration. Still, they've been out of power for a long time so there isn't much experience of governing, so they'll need to learn fairly quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 1:38 AM, Paxter said:
On 3/8/2023 at 1:18 AM, karaddin said:

They also act like slightly increasing the tax rate on super above that level would cap their retirement savings. You're still able to put more in, and you still have millions in other assets if you're making enough money to have that much super. You're going to be fine. They all like to see it as a nest egg for their kids when the entire point of it is to fund their own retirement and be used up, kids inherit whatever other estate you've got left.

True, it’s kind of a back-door inheritance tax (which I thoroughly support).

Not much of one.

I'm generally against inheritance taxes. Put in taxes to tax assets now. If I was the dictator of Australia I'd be (blue reductions, red increases):

  • Scrapping CGT, stamp duty, rates, property taxes and payroll taxes
  • Reduce income taxes
  • Introducing an asset tax. All asset types. All Australian assets and international assets owned by Australians. With a provision for unlisted companies that when they state their value, that means other companies can buy that company with the same arrangements. Starbucks wants to say International companies want to say their Australian subsidiaries have no income and little value, someone else can buy them. The major exception is superannuation (to a limit) and the family home. 
  • Local councils receive money from the central area based on needs/area covered/population etc. basis. 
  • Tax trusts at a high level, with some exceptions for very special ones such as ones set up for vulnerable people with settlements, etc.
  • Increase taxes on religions. Anyone where tithing is either required, or they tithe but gain benefits from the religious entity/group, are automatically not treated as a religion and taxed accordingly. 
  • Broadening the coverage of GST
  • Introduce a GST like carbon/bad emissions/lead tax. Any part of the process that takes carbon in/out of the process adds/subtracts from the new tax. Imports receive an estimate based on their type and original location. Exports have it dropped. The focus is on capturing the 'inputs' into creating emissions, and then letting it flow through the system. 
  • With superannuation, the government takes out the money to pay for the pension when you reach retirement age, and everyone receives the pension (no means testing). The government also allows you to buy a higher pension with superannuation. Everything above that (with maybe some buffer) is taxed at normal levels. Both after and before retirement. Anything above that level with the buffer is also able to be withdrawn at any time. The government invests the money collected for the pension + higher pension, but with the benefits of grouped mortality, no capital requirements and higher grouping should achieve a cheaper pension in retirement than the private industry. 
  • On private health insurance, scrap the rebate and community rating, and have government funding be based on the likely cost of a person in the public system. Then have the private system fully cover all of that person's costs, whether emergency, GP, dental, out-of-pocket or other. If they can do it cheaper/better, good for them. However, also allow private health insurers to direct customers to their preferred providers and have some say/advice on treatment, where those plans are up-front and priced differently. 

The hope is that the new system would have a broader tax base, with less incentive for people to get into assets (such as property) and hold them with no use. The system would also systemically penalise people choosing non-green options, but not impact imports/exports. 

The new system should be much more egalitarian, with a reduced reliance on income tax reducing the "real" indexation thresholds as you go up income levels and lose benefits, while asset taxing and taxing trusts should reduce the ability of the rich to avoid taxes legally. 

Edited by ants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will always maintain that GST is evil and should not exist, with the possible exception that clearly expensive luxuries accessibly pretty much only to wealthy people could have GST applied as a way to tax wealth (luxury cars above X value, jewellery above Y value, superyachts etc). GST for things that are essential for modern day living is regressive and sucks up a larger proportion the income of people at the low end of the wealth scale.

Find your tax revenues currently coming from GST elsewhere in the system in a manner that is progressive rather than regressive.

I have mixed feelings on carbon taxes where there is no realistic alternative for low and middle income people. Wealthy people can buy EVs that have a long enough range that allows you to only use EVs for personal transport. Poor people continue to be stuck with only being able to afford short range EVs and petrol/diesel cars for long range travel, as examples. If you are going to use carbon taxes to price-match (i.e. heavily subsidise) non-emitting products with fossil fuel consuming products then OK, non-emitting options become available to all wealth levels and you can slap whatever tax you want on carbon emissions, because choosing to emit Co2 then becomes a choice rather than an economic necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sufficiently high GST is one of the few ways to catch tax cheats and criminals' money, and people who game the system (such as small businesses putting all the family items as purchases through the business/restaurant/store etc.). The GST should really be higher, but it doesn't need to be if we were also introducing a carbon tax alongside it. 

The tax system should try to be progressive, but the benefits of some features on regressive measures more than offset the issues with them. The reality is though that the tax system is only one arm, support for the poor should also be coming through the social security or other systems (such as help with housing). Anyone who wants to be fair/unfair can set up the entire system to work for or against the poor. The individual levers matter less than the overall intent. 

Edited by ants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GST on everyone and (almost) everything to ensure a few bad actors are at least paying some tax (but not nearly as much as the honest people who are paying their other taxes as well as paying GST) is a really poor justification for such a regressive tax. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

GST on everyone and (almost) everything to ensure a few bad actors are at least paying some tax (but not nearly as much as the honest people who are paying their other taxes as well as paying GST) is a really poor justification for such a regressive tax. 

I know most people on this thread aren't fans of the GST, and I acknowledge that it is regressive by definition which is not a good thing.

However, it is one of the very few taxes that is broad-based and I agree with @ants that this can be offset in other ways (e.g. government spending). The tax base in Australia is still heavily reliant on income tax and we shouldn't be leaning so heavily on one section of the population (workers) for revenue when that pool of people is demographically shrinking.

A GST in isolation is a terrible thing, but I would argue GST with low-income offsets or support, working in concert with much more progressive taxes (income tax with steep brackets, proper CGT, inheritance tax etc) can be a legitimate part of a fair system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm rather opposed to income tax as well, at least to any income tax below a particular threshold. I like re-distribution, but with income taxes at low/low-medium income levels and GST on everything (in NZ it's everything, in Aus it's not on food(?) and..?) means you are taking away and giving, which just creates churn in people's bank accounts. More efficiency in taxation and fewer / no loopholes is what's needed. I'd be fine with a very high GST but on fewer things at the luxury end of goods and services, high end jewellery, swanky hotels, fancy cars. But as with all taxes that get too high it just leads to avoidance and in the case of goods to black markets, cigarettes, alcohol, small luxury goods, dope if / when it becomes legalised.

And, not very popular here, greater decoupling of govt spending from taxation. Govt doesn't need tax to spend, it just needs tax to create private sector demand for the currency and manage money supply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...