As a young person do you feel disenfranchised by the two major parties? (1 Viewer)

[jennyfromdabloc]

Lefties don't achieve anything but throwing money at feel-good initiatives and awareness programs. And to throw money around we need to collect a little bit more.

The money that has been already spent needlessly on shelved programs could be better spent to get nuclear energy started in Australia. Meanwhile, we'll be paying more for electricity bills for no reason.

You can be all 'progressive' and smoke pot all you want, but if you want to keep the money that you earn in your pocket, be able to buy and drive a car and generally live in a quality western society you need to vote right.

Hmmmm so who do we vote for that will let us keep our money?

The LDP is the only party in Australia that I'm aware of that has proposed significant tax cuts.

 

[SylviaB]

Lol at people who advocate private security firms as a replacement for government

sigh...if you're not going to take the time to understand something, don't criticise it

The two most common arguments made against private defence agencies is that they would be corrupt and ineffective.

...which is exactly what government is, except the private firms wouldn't be a monopoly like government

 

[Chavi1]

Def prefer liberals. At least they have a sustainable economic approach and they permit dissent and freedom of ideas within the party.
It's either labour or Greece 2010
K.Rudd '11 and a bailout from the EU

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

Def prefer liberals. At least they have a sustainable economic approach and they permit dissent and freedom of ideas within the party.
It's either labour or Greece 2010
K.Rudd '11 and a bailout from the EU

vote liberal all you want but stop with the goddamn hyperbole

Rudd is a shit pm but we are not in the same league as Greece or Spain

plz can you discuss politics on a sensible level plz plz plz

 

[PH011]

Do we vote for the ALP, with it's terrible social policies (censorship, batts, asylum seekers, laptops for schoolkids -_- ) but good-ish economic management or the Coalition, with it's bad social AND economic policies .....

Hmmmmmmmm

 

[Existential]

in my view, both labor and liberal fail on assylum seekers full stop.

 

[SylviaB]

Do we vote for the ALP, with it's terrible social policies (censorship, batts, asylum seekers, laptops for schoolkids -_- ) but good-ish economic management or the Coalition, with it's bad social AND economic policies .....

Hmmmmmmmm

because a 40% tax on our most important industry is a "goodish" economic policy?

you are a complete fucking retard

 

[Existential]

because a 40% tax on our most important industry is a "goodish" economic policy?

you are a complete fucking retard

it's not all 40%. there is a proposed variation % of tax between small and big mining companies.

 

[scaredytiger]

in my view, both labor and liberal fail on assylum seekers full stop.

Well, calling them 'illegal immigrants' is their first problem...

 

[Existential]

Well, calling them 'illegal immigrants' is their first problem...

AKA "persons who don't deserve human rights"

 

[scaredytiger]

AKA "persons who don't deserve human rights"

That's not what I was saying, but okay.

I simply mean that illegal immigrants are people who overstay their visas, not "boat people"/asylum seekers.

 

[PH011]

IMO, yes... Although I would have thought something like that would have come from Howard...
-More people benefit from the resources
-Minerals always going to be there
-Its not going to kill the industry, just slow growth

 

[SylviaB]

-More people benefit from the resources

Unless they're omehow involved with thewse companies, people don't deserve any benefit from the resources because they're not spending any time, money or effort on them and they're not choosing to take any financial risks (which is exactly what mining companies do when they explore for new mining locations)

-Minerals always going to be there

So if you could sign a contract with your employer saying that he could never fire you in return for a 40% pay cut, would you sign?
I mean, after all, your job will always be there....

-Its not going to kill the industry, just slow growth

It will destroy jobs and destroy wealth.

 

[PH011]

Never said it was perfect at all, I would prefer it if it was alot less than 40% but the general principle is there.
Also, if mining companies make a loss on a certain project, they can be reimbursed in part... I think that's correct... Not enirely sure..

And:
1. Yes, partly agree BUT who owns the minerals which have been in the ground for all those years?
It's not like someone setting up a computer business and getting taxed like this. Mining is extraciting raw materials out of the ground, minerals which have always been there.

The tax also (kinda) puts a cost on the negative externalities of mining (pollution, land degradation, CO2...)

2. This example isn't a good analogy. It's 40% on PROFITS, not income. And it's profits above a certain rate of return on investment (~6%)
The example should be more like : I have a job and after living expenses + 6%, I am taxed on 40% the remainder, which in this case would be disposable income. In return, I would never get fired.

3. Does not "destroy" jobs and wealth. Destroys POTENTIAL jobs/wealth. There is a difference.

 

[Lolsmith]

Unless they're omehow involved with thewse companies, people don't deserve any benefit from the resources because they're not spending any time, money or effort on them and they're not choosing to take any financial risks (which is exactly what mining companies do when they explore for new mining locations)

Was extremely funny/unsettling when some politician said "So every Australian gets a share". Slowly becoming more Communist.

 

[SylviaB]

Not enirely sure..

this uncertainty stems from something called economic illiteracy

And:
1. Yes, partly agree BUT who owns the minerals which have been in the ground for all those years?

NOBODY owns them until they do something with them.

To claim that everyone who happens to be arbitrarily born in a certain geographic area has a stake in all of the property in that area, regardless of whether they have ever touched the land, let alone improved upon it in any way, is completely fucking absurd.

2. This example isn't a good analogy. It's 40% on PROFITS, not income. And it's profits above a certain rate of return on investment (~6%)

I know, but who the fuck are the government to decide how much profit a company can make?
they don't own the country, the land or the businesses in it.

3. Does not "destroy" jobs and wealth. Destroys POTENTIAL jobs/wealth. There is a difference.

In practical terms the difference is meaningless because there is still a long term loss i.e. we'll be worse off than what we could have been

 

[TacoTerrorist]

1. Complete equality is a stupid idea. people don't deserve the same amount of money. If I'm better at supplying demands then I deserve a higher income.

That's bullshit. Everybody is entitled to the same standard of living, regardless of how well they can manipulate some exploitative free market. Being better at supplying demands is not as important as being a contributive member of society. Some cunt ANZ CEO is a parasite on the human race, but makes far, far, far more money than someone who actually contributes positively to society, like a paramedic, a teacher, etc.

2. Government helps the super rich become and stay super rich, stop the working rich (i.e. doctors engineers etc) from using their wealth in a way that would benefit society, and make the poor dependant upon government and stops them from lifting themselves out of poverty.

I agree with the first half of this, but disagree with the second. Newsflash: companies don't give a shit about anything but maximising profit. The reason people are poor or unemployed is because there is no incentive for a business to hire them or pay them better wages.

You're halfway there with the 'Anarcho-' prefix but to uphold and defend the capitalist system which has kept so many in chains and extreme poverty is to discard the welfare of society as a whole.

 

[Kim Il-Sung]

That's bullshit. Everybody is entitled to the same standard of living, regardless of how well they can manipulate some exploitative free market. Being better at supplying demands is not as important as being a contributive member of society. Some cunt ANZ CEO is a parasite on the human race, but makes far, far, far more money than someone who actually contributes positively to society, like a paramedic, a teacher, etc.

omfg

 

[Rothbard]

someone mentioned batshit insane?

economic and environmental issues aren't mutually exclusive, but it's a little difficult to have a thriving economy in a dying environment. but hey, make your own bed.

Well the conservation movement came from the Right Wing and the Whigs initially.

 

[Rothbard]

which is why i initially said 'type properly'. i also never referred to you as dumb. personally, i place environmental and social issues before economic ones, i'm not ill informed or ignorant. it's my choice.

The thing is the they're all actually hand in hand. Environmental issues require strong property rights, the same for social issues.

People have to own property and own their own selves and be free from coercion, in a way that will enable these other issues to be solved through simple legal cases.

~in a session~ ~bored~