What would happen if a party won every seat

[Marty_d]

4 hours ago, Siso said:

Please supply me with a link to the relative costs. No politician is being straight forward with it. Intermittents are the cheapest form of electricity if you forget about the extra transmission, battery's, artificial inertia and the considerable amount of underutilized gas backup. Being Aircraft type dudes on this site we realize underutiliseded plant is expensive, still need to do a hundred hourly every year weather you do 98 or 2 hours. Having a lot of inertia on the grid also reacts relatively quickly, has for a hundred years. Synchronous plants give a nice consistant sine wave. Inverters work by very fast switching and produce a steeped sinewave by switching on and of quickly. This is filtered to give a smooth wave form. Ask Spain what happens when an inverter starts acting up with little inertia on the grid.

If you don't know the relative costs, why are you arguing that renewables are not cheaper?

 

Anyway this thread is about politics.  Happy to have a discussion about the relative costs and merits of various types of generation over on the climate change thread.

 

But getting back to politics, these are the facts:

 

1. The Libs had their arses handed to them by people voting for the Teals, and did not get those seats back when they went to the last election with their uncosted and unrealistic nuclear plans.
2. Compulsory voting in Australia means that overall, people go for the centre.
3. 65+% of people in Australia rate action on climate change as one of the top 2 issues.
4. Older voters are dying off and a massive proportion of younger voters want action on climate change (because guess what, they have to live on this earth a lot longer with the effects).
5. Apart from the few thousand idiots who watch Sky News, voters are not particularly interested in culture wars, DEI, wokeness (whatever that is), the colour of their neighbour's skin or other non-issues.

With those political facts, it seems clear that the Libs have decided to commit political suicide.

 

I don't actually want them to.  I'm not an LNP voter but I want a strong opposition with sensible, costed policies - backed up by science -  to hold the government to account.  They can't do that when the conservatives, desperate to keep suckling at the teat of the fossil fuel industry, throw out ridiculous ideas like government funded nuclear power plants, government funded propping up of elderly coal plants, inefficient and expensive carbon capture and storage.

The LNP is supposed to be the party of the free market.  There are plenty of players looking to provide wind farms, big batteries, solar farms, household solar & batteries.  There are zero players looking to build new coal and nuclear without it being funded by YOU the taxpayer.  Ask yourself why?

 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

I want a strong opposition with sensible, costed policies

It would be great to have the Party in government having the similar things.

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

It would be great to have the Party in government having the similar things.

Maybe they would if they had an effective opposition nipping at their heels!

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Despite their not being a credible alternative to the ALP at the moment (beyond the Teals and David Pocock - the Greens seem to have swayed a little to the activist side at the moment), the ALP seems to be doing a reasonable job. There will be stuff ups and vested interests to contend with, as well as powerful lobbyists, but compared to the previous governments, they could do a lot worse given how crap the others are. 

 

I didn't think Albo had it in him and the Voice referendum jusitifed my position. But to his credit, unlike Starrmer here, he has learned a pretty valuable lesson from that stuff up and seems to be far better than many people's expectations. 

 

He hasn't made decisions that will satisfy everyone - you can't do that in politics. But it seems, with a couple of exceptions, he is finding the correct balance. 

[Siso]

11 hours ago, Marty_d said:

If you don't know the relative costs, why are you arguing that renewables are not cheaper?

 

Anyway this thread is about politics.  Happy to have a discussion about the relative costs and merits of various types of generation over on the climate change thread.

 

But getting back to politics, these are the facts:

 

1. The Libs had their arses handed to them by people voting for the Teals, and did not get those seats back when they went to the last election with their uncosted and unrealistic nuclear plans.
2. Compulsory voting in Australia means that overall, people go for the centre.
3. 65+% of people in Australia rate action on climate change as one of the top 2 issues.
4. Older voters are dying off and a massive proportion of younger voters want action on climate change (because guess what, they have to live on this earth a lot longer with the effects).
5. Apart from the few thousand idiots who watch Sky News, voters are not particularly interested in culture wars, DEI, wokeness (whatever that is), the colour of their neighbour's skin or other non-issues.

With those political facts, it seems clear that the Libs have decided to commit political suicide.

 

I don't actually want them to.  I'm not an LNP voter but I want a strong opposition with sensible, costed policies - backed up by science -  to hold the government to account.  They can't do that when the conservatives, desperate to keep suckling at the teat of the fossil fuel industry, throw out ridiculous ideas like government funded nuclear power plants, government funded propping up of elderly coal plants, inefficient and expensive carbon capture and storage.

The LNP is supposed to be the party of the free market.  There are plenty of players looking to provide wind farms, big batteries, solar farms, household solar & batteries.  There are zero players looking to build new coal and nuclear without it being funded by YOU the taxpayer.  Ask yourself why?

 

My first sentence in my first post was "Its still up in the air weather renewables are cheaper." Not saying they aren't cheaper

[red750]

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

the ALP seems to be doing a reasonable job

Albo putting up a few more millions of taxpayer money for Dan Andrews/Jacinta Allen's Suburban Rail Loop which we won't see for 30 years or so. Won't say how much till the budget comes out. It's already cost $9 billion.

 

Reports that Pauline's support is rocketing.

[Jerry_Atrick]

What is wrong with supporting big infrastructure projects? They create economic value on two levels - one is directly/indirectly while the build is going on and then increaseing economic capacity. Many jobs are directly created, investment is made, and then the thing has to be operated and maintained. Then there is the indirect economic consequences of the industries that support it - again during the build and beyond. The second economic return is the capacity it adds to the economy and consumer through workforce mobility. They are far more efficient than adding highways and road networks alone. 

 

The plan is to build it in stages and each stage will start operation - starting with the airport rail link in 2033, then the Cheltenham to Box Hill in 2035, then two more stages after that. It can take up to 30 years to deliver it all,yes, but operation will start much sooner, and benefits to the economy have already started. 

 

So, why would bebe an issue - especially if the federal government are footing some of the bill.. About time somewhere else other than NSW got the lions share (under SFM and Abbot) If the money wasn't being spent on the SRL, it would be spent on something else. Frankly, the investment is a good thing. 

Edited 20 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

One Nation is increasing in popularity - that is true. A 2% jump to be precise: https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/9951-federal-voting-intention-november-16-2025,. However, it did fall in two states. QLD, unsurprisingly, registered its biggest gain. And yes, ALP is down 2%. The reality is more and more people do feel left behind, the product if an increasingly unfair distribution of wealth. I would also say it is the disproportionate taxation and burdening middle classes that is also contributing. 

 

Couple tha with the owners of both mainstream and social media pedalling the message of their donors/sponsors/advertisers that distract from the real issue and lay blame on various "-ism's", and along comes parties that have policies to suppress democracy and sew further hatred, and you have people like Chump, Farage, etc getting prominance and ultimately power. 

 

None of their policies will solve the problems. However, the mainstream parties do have to lift their game, and that also means fighting with fire. 

 

Here's an example of the Chumps, Hansons, et al of the world work.. The major parties have to realise the messaging modes have changed and fight back sometimes using the tactics, if not the lies or misleading statements put out by those who will ultimately make lufe hell for many they purport to be the saviour of: 

 

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Many jobs are directly created, investment is made, and then the thing has to be operated and maintained.

Put another way, 'money is made round to go around'. For argument's sake, let's say that each person employed on these projects pays income tax at 25%. That's a lot of moeny being returned to the Treasury. Then, of the other 75% of take-home pay, quite a lot more is returned to Treasury in the form of GST payments arising from living costs. 

 

One way for the costs of these major projects to be recouped might be to encourage Austrlian companies to replicate the international construction countries so that the profits from creating the projects remains in Australia. The reason we have foreign investment in these projects is simply because ther are no Australian players in the game.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

I could win all the seats in Parliament with just three main policies ...

 

1) A big beautiful medical Super Trouble Shooting team - powerful and nation wide, to stop all the nonsense in hospitals, etc.

 

2) The biggest and most powerful Consumer Complaints Commission you've ever seen - one phone call will fix your complaint in a day.  

 

3) Establish a Truth Tribunal, to prosecute politicians caught lying and distorting the truth.

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

Another policy for winning all the seats would be: A substantial partial refund of CTP insurance would be given to motorists who never make a claim during their whole motoring life and when they hand their license in, or it's taken away from them because of incapacity.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Nothing stopping you from trying. Let's see how many votes you get.

[facthunter]

Remove the Inflation Part of Capital gain. It's stealing money when it is worth Less but numerically greater. Automatically Index Tax rates in line with inflation. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

Isn't the idea that the value of money drops over time.. So, according to Google AI $100,000 AUD in the year 2000 is worth almost $208,000 today:

 

Assuming no cost of maintenance/works over time nor other allowable deducations, if you don't discount for inflation and simply deduct sale price (let's say $500,000) from the purchase price you will get $400,000 gain you have to pay tax on. However, you are comparing a different dollar today than in the year 2000, where the value of the dollar less than 1/2 of what it was back then. To work out the value of your capital gain as opposed to the amount of the capital gain, you would either have to convert your original purchase price to today's value (almost $208K) oir convert the sale price of $500,000 to the value in year 2000 (c. $240k). If course doing it the latter way will mean you have to convert the difference back to today's dollars to calculate the income in today's numbers to allocate the correct tax; the former method converts to tody's values. 

 

If you don't convert the to today's value, you are overstating the value of the capital gain by almost $108,000. The raw difference  (in this case $400K) does equal value (in this case, c. $292k). The only way to work out today's value of yesterday's dollar is to apply the inflation rate (or if there is some other price index more reliable indicator of purchasing power/value, than that should be used). 

 

The it comes down to the objective. Taxation policies are used to impact behaviour and therefore are not always applied fairly. For example, if you want to take hot air out of the house price market, taxing on values so more tax is being paid is one way to do it. If you want to simply tax fairly, so it is more about revenue generation than market correction, deducting inflation seems fairer as it is on value. But, of course, if like the UK, the country is broke and it needs to maximise revenue, taking out inflation should be dropped.. It will be a progressive tax as the more you make on a captial gain, the more proportionately you will pay. 

 

Personal income tax is a problem in this area (I know this is not a capital gain). As the purchasing power of money drops over time, the taxation thresholds at which different rates of tax kick in should be increased to cover the reduction in purchasing power. Famously, as in the UK, they have delayed this well beyind the current thresholds. This means you start paying tax, or paying higher rates of tax on lower values of money. This hurts the lower income earners more, because as the value of money decreases, wages tend to increase pushing say non=payers into paying tax on the same value, not amount of money.

 

[Edit] I think a better option would be to eliminate the capital gains tax relief on property:

 

Funny how this won't happen - just check the assets held my many senior politicians in the country - they have proven very unlikely to vote to eliminate that little deal. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick