Support NeoGAF

[Elaugaufein]

I think we have a winner.

This seems a little weird honestly. High income earners who vote for the Greens are high incomer earners who vote for the Greens. That means that either a) they support increased taxes on the wealthy even to their personal detriment or b) they are incapable of reading and comprehending a party platform.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Just to clarify, we use the Westminster system, so yeah our cabinet sits in our House of Representatives.

Otherwise, a centrally planned spending budget is convention now, I don't think we'll ever get rid of it. It's something both sides will keep doing even if there is another crisis.

If you'd asked me 3 years ago, if we'd be marching towards abolishing universal healthcare , I would have thought you were crazy. And yet here we are. And to my even greater puzzlement, I suspect a current double dissolution would suggest that a majority of voters favor it. To say that I don't even begin to understand what is going on , is a vast understatement.

 

[hidys]

This seems a little weird honestly. High income earners who vote for the Greens are high incomer earners who vote for the Greens. That means that either a) they support increased taxes on the wealthy even to their personal detriment or b) they are incapable of reading and comprehending a party platform.

Greens voters may support increased taxes on the very wealthy but I suspect many would be against a tax on themselves (middle to upper middle income earners.)

I refer to John Quiggin on this matter who I think has hit the nail on the head:

Christine Milne’s decision to play politics on this measure is a disaster for the Greens, reducing them to the same level as the major parties. The lameness of the excuses she has put forward is indicative of the political cowardice at work here.

The most substantive objection is that the levy is only supposed to be temporary, but since it will outlive the current parliament, that is scarcely a major concern. When paired with the (correct) decision to support a return to indexation of fuel exercise, this decision will play into the worst stereotype of the Greens as focused on the interests of well-off inner-city dwellers.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Greens voters may support increased taxes on the very wealthy but I suspect many would be against a tax on themselves (middle to upper middle income earners.)

I refer to John Quiggin on this matter who I think has hit the nail on the head:

But that doesn't relate to the deficit levy at all which is only on the highest bracket of income earners. Unless there's some upper middle incomer earners that I am unaware of who are making $180k a year in what is effectively purely salary (since investment income is largely shielded by either being Capital Gains or Franked).

 

[Jintor]

I ah am not getting into specifics roosters, I am not getting into specifics but ah if this budget is blocked and blocked it might be then Australians should be worried. They have every right to be worried and ah Labor has the responsibility of putting that worry at ease. They must pass these budgetary measures in order to ah respect our mandate which frankly should have been respected since we formed government.

I can hear his smug dumbass tone in every word

 

[Dryk]

I frankly think this is ridiculous. As a non party of government (even if you believe they will one day be a party of government it won't happen soon)you have the option of supporting policy or rejecting it. This might not be exactly what they want but it is pretty close. They can still support it while criticizing it for not being big enough/permanent and attack Abbott's other budgetary measures.

The Green's have a history with shooting down measures that align with their policies for not meeting them well enough, it's dumb but not surprising.

 

[Elaugaufein]

The Green's have a history with shooting down measures that align with their policies for not meeting them well enough, it's dumb but not surprising.

The Good is the Enemy of the Perfect (in that it may be impossible to later muster the support to improve something from Good Enough)

(also too the Perfect is the Enemy of the Good (in that it may be impossible to ever get support for the Perfect))

Truly an ancient battle.

 

[hidys]

But that doesn't relate to the deficit levy at all which is only on the highest bracket of income earners. Unless there's some upper middle incomer earners that I am unaware of who are making $180k a year in what is effectively purely salary (since investment income is largely shielded by either being Capital Gains or Franked).

I'll admit I originally thought it applied to those earning $80,000 and above I must be going insane. But it is still true that Green voters are for the most part wealthy and it is true that this does play into the stereotypes of green voters.

The Green's have a history with shooting down measures that align with their policies for not meeting them well enough, it's dumb but not surprising.

Never this blatantly.

 

[Replicant]

If you'd asked me 3 years ago, if we'd be marching towards abolishing universal healthcare

So uhm, what's the likelihood that we can vote against this? This is really scary and stupid. I can't believe we're going that way. :/

 

[Jintor]

So uhm, what's the likelihood that we can vote against this? This is really scary and stupid. I can't believe we're going that way. :/

Hah! Surprise! The Australian public actually voted FOR this back in the last election, except then they said it was part of the budget emergency! (Even though the money is not actually going towards fixing the deficit lol)

 

[Replicant]

Hah! Surprise! The Australian public actually voted FOR this back in the last election, except then they said it was part of the budget emergency! (Even though the money is not actually going towards fixing the deficit lol)

I never asked for this and I certainly didn't vote for this/Liberal! ;_;

 

[Elaugaufein]

I'll admit I originally thought it applied to those earning $80,000 and above I must be going insane. But it is still true that Green voters are for the most part wealthy and it is true that this does play into the stereotypes of green voters.



Never this blatantly.

Nah, you're not going crazy. The original leak was $80 k + not the $180 k+ which was the actual budget announcement.

 

[hidys]

Nah, you're not going crazy. The original leak was $80 k + not the $180 k+ which was the actual budget announcement.

Ah that's why.

 

[Arksy]

I don't think a $6 co-payment really is going anywhere towards abolishing universal health care....

Aside from privatising Medibank Private and the $6 co-payment, is there any other changes to our system of UHC?

 

[Elaugaufein]

I don't think a $6 co-payment really is going anywhere towards abolishing universal health care....

Aside from privatising Medibank Private and the $6 co-payment, is there any other changes to our system of UHC?

Nothing major no , a couple of things that if they happened in isolation, I would probably class as business as usual: $5 extra on prescriptions covered by the PBS. Significant cuts to health funding for states as well.

 

[mjontrix]

I don't think a $6 co-payment really is going anywhere towards abolishing universal health care....

Aside from privatising Medibank Private and the $6 co-payment, is there any other changes to our system of UHC?

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/t...-is-cutting-from-hospitals-and-schools-2014-5

Medicare safety net threshold change and the sneaky one - uncapped optimistrists charging fees!!!!

Gamers take note!

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Adding a copayment to doctor's visits already does abolish universal healthcare in Australia, though. Universal means for everyone, no matter whether they have a million bucks or are flat broke. A copayment system, by definition, is no longer universal.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Adding a copayment to doctor's visits already does abolish universal healthcare in Australia, though. Universal means for everyone, no matter whether they have a million bucks or are flat broke. A copayment system, by definition, is no longer universal.

Since ER care is still free Arksy is right that it doesn't actually abolish Universal Health Care.

 

[hidys]

Since ER care is still free Arksy is right that it doesn't actually abolish Universal Health Care.

Next time I have a cold I think I'll go to the emergency room.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Since ER care is still free Arksy is right that it doesn't actually abolish Universal Health Care.

ER care is only exempt from the copayment right now because the states control public hospitals, it's almost assured that once ERs start having to deal with an influx of patients hoping to avoid paying a copay they will need to add one themselves.

Edit: I live in the US by the way, I've had a little experience with the clusterfuck that is copayment based healthcare.

 

[hidys]

ER care is only exempt from the copayment right now because the states control public hospitals, it's almost assured that once ERs start having to deal with an influx of patients hoping to avoid paying a copay they will need to add one themselves.

Edit: I live in the US by the way, I've had a little experience with the clusterfuck that is copayment based healthcare.

So really it is the beginning of the end for universal healthcare.

 

[Elaugaufein]

So really it is the beginning of the end for universal healthcare.

That's how I perceive it yes. But I'm a sucker for technicalities.

 

[mjontrix]

And for those wanting to join the armed forces... They don't want you.

They only want either:

A) cyber defence/offence (but that's by the DSD) and their recruitment is through universities. And they want already skilled people - few fresh graduates unless they have some sort of aptitude for it which leads to:

B) already skilled people - but the smart ones they want don't want to deal with defence SHIT. Why be a doctor for defence when the private sector pays more? Heck this can be said for a lot of positions.

If they're going to do some sort of recruitment drive it's either under deep wraps, or not happening.

They don't want American style trigger happy fellas, they want skilled lean task forces.

The cuts to foreign aid will definitely affect their deployment.

So the young unemployed are either going down on two knees and an epidemic of lockjaw breaks out (the pollies will love that one), or gangs are about to get a huge boost in numbers rendering the entire fight against bikies moot. Or heck maybe a bit of both and we get our own Australian Pimps - there's an industry for us to become proud leaders of /s

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

I must admit, as a Liberal voter, I dont know how unemployed people under 30 are going to live.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Man, this really is the budget that just keeps on giving:

Schools will lose the option of appointing secular social workers under the national school chaplaincy program, for which the Abbott government has found an extra $245m in budget funding.

 

[Jintor]

I really don't understand the chaplaincy but not secular thing unless it really is just driven by culture wars bullshit

 

[DrSlek]

Man, this really is the budget that just keeps on giving:

It was pointed out on Triple J yesterday that the school chaplaincy program gets about 10-20 times more money than actual courses or student disability programs. I wish I had the actual quote at hand.

 

[bomma_man]

As I said in the other thread the chaplaincy program will more than likely be struck down by the high court (again) pretty soon. Not for the reason you'd think though!

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Well:

“Counsellors and social workers in schools are really the responsibility of the states and territories,” Pyne told Guardian Australia on Wednesday.

Whereas the funding of religious chaplains in state schools is one of the Federal Government's most sacred responsibilities. It's practically what this nation was founded for. This isn't about culture wars, it's about the states and territories growing up and emulating the stable, responsible adult government we now have at the federal level. If the states want counsellors and social workers in their schools they should use the many means of revenue raising they have available to find the funds for them. It should only be a drop in the ocean anyway since they're already going to be looking for $80bn to keep the schools open in the first place.

 

[Arksy]

Is Pyne insane? They changed it so that it accommodated a fairly landmark High Court Case.....(Williams v Commonwealth).

The whole argument that it wasn't a religious test for the office of the commonwealth was predicated on the fact that they could also hire secular social workers instead of chaplains..(At least from what I remember, it's been a good year since I took a look at that case).

 

[bomma_man]

Is Pyne insane? They changed it so that it accommodated a fairly landmark High Court Case.....(Williams v Commonwealth).

The whole argument that it wasn't a religious test for the office of the commonwealth was predicated on the fact that they could also hire secular social workers instead of chaplains..(At least from what I remember, it's been a good year since I took a look at that case).

Wasn't that case more dependant upon the fact that the fed can't appropriate and spend money for any reason it sees fit? That it has to come under a head of power? 116 was brushed over with minimal discussion (from memory, and still don't understand why tbh).

The way the government of the day got around that decision (basically "it's under a head of power because we say it is) is being challenged now in Williams 2: The Revenge. It seems pretty likely that the court will strike it down again, if my understanding is correct.

 

[Arksy]

Wasn't that case more dependant upon the fact that the fed can't appropriate and spend money for any reason it sees fit? That it has to come under a head of power? 116 was brushed over with minimal discussion (from memory, and still don't understand why tbh).

The way the government of the day got around that decision (basically "it's under a head of power because we say it is) is being challenged now in Williams 2: The Revenge. It seems pretty likely that the court will strike it down again, if my understanding is correct.

Yes, it's probably better to put it like this, there were two main arguments put forth by the plaintiff.


1) Freedom of Religion

The plaintiff argued that chaplaincy program infringed on freedom of religion by basically establishing religion and requiring a religious test for an office of the commonwealth which is prohibited by s 116 of the Australian Constitution.

The High Court rejected this argument.

2) Section 51 executive power.

The plaintiff also argued that the executive can not spend any money without firstly the approval from parliament, which also requires as a secondary corollary that any spending the government does comes within their normal legislative power. The parliament has never had unlimited power to spend, so therefore neither does the executive.

I don't have too much time to explain it right now, I'd be happy to give more info a bit later but basically it boils down to 'no taxation without representation' - Only our elected representatives (the parliament) has the power to levy taxes and spend money. This judgment is a logical extension of Pape v Commonwealth....which did delve into the history of the fact that the ENTIRE point of Parliament was to restrain the executive.

Edit: The issue in Pape was that the government couldn't just hand out oodles of money (this was the stimulus cash back program) because they didn't have the power to, the High Court agreed that normally the Federal Government DOESN'T have the power (which was a huge shock to the Federal Government) but they did have the power on this occasion as it was an economic emergency that required quick action.

In other news, the government won the battle in that case but badly lost the war.

 

[bomma_man]

And even in Pape the dissent of Heydon was actually fairly compelling (oh god I can't believe I just typed that). It's difficult to see the emergency power - at least in this situation - as anything other than a pragmatic political cop out.

 

[Arksy]

And even in Pape the dissent of Heydon was actually fairly compelling (oh god I can't believe I just typed that). It's difficult to see the emergency power - at least in this situation - as anything other than a pragmatic political cop out.

Agreed, although I can see why the High Court squirmed a flimsy justification out...

"Highest Court robs everyone of $900."

 

[Shaneus]

Rebuttal by Shorten on right now. With the ammunition he's got, it's like he's rocked up with the Konami code.

 

[Jintor]

He's driving hard.

I know opposition traditionally has the edge, especially against a tough budget, but this is an astounding performance from someone who has been almost invisible for the past few months.

 

[Shaneus]

He's driving hard.

I know opposition traditionally has the edge, especially against a tough budget, but this is an astounding performance from someone who has been almost invisible for the past few months.

It really is. It's a fucking bloodbath.

 

[munchie64]

Is Pyne insane?

Yes. Most of them are.

 

[Jintor]

climate change, digital infrastructure, multiculturalism vs bigots/idealogues, global citizenry... gosh. This is a speech.

 

[Jintor]

"Try us"

Jesus, what an ending

 

[senahorse]

Great speech, nice to finally see something from Shorten.

 

[Omikron]

That was far better than expected from Shorten. Gotta say.

 

[Yagharek]

Only caught the final minute. Replay time.

 

[i_am_ben]

It was quite wonky at the start but he kept ramping up the heat. It was a very good speech

However it was very light on details for what are very complicated matters.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

It was quite wonky at the start but he kept ramping up the heat. I t was a very good speech

However it was very light on details for what are very complicated matters.

That's generally the nature of budget replies.

 

[Dryk]

So I take it from these reactions that he's been writing this speech since the election explaining his complete absence?

 

[Jintor]

As a vision of hopefully what Labor will be doing it was very effective. Obviously not much of a policy speech besides 'we're in opposition and we oppose this' but yeah.

 

[i_am_ben]

That's generally the nature of budget replies.

I know.

 

[Yagharek]

It was quite wonky at the start but he kept ramping up the heat. It was a very good speech

However it was very light on details for what are very complicated matters.

So were the past 6 years of Liberal election campaign arguments. Apparently that was sufficient for more than 50% of the country.

 

[Shaneus]

lol, after a month of silence, @LiberalAus Twitter account tweeted five times in the space of a minute: