BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

There's a small difference between slightly overstaying on a holiday visa and making a bogus claim for asylum when someone is really an economic migrant no?

That and overstaying on a valid visa =/= coming in illegally.

Again, we need to see some figures on poms lying on their visa applications, if you have any.

Can people stop engaging Dilbert on asylum seeker and immigration policy now? It's going nowhere.

Cybargs wrote:

youd be pretty surprised how well tony did ty

Looking at it now and I can't say I am surprised. That wasn't a debate, it was a joint press conference. There was very little pressure for either of them.

Both were boring, both said nothing new. Rudd came across as more competent but he brought along notes which was against the rules so he loses any points he might have gained there for being unprepared. Abbott wanted oh so much to say the Coalition would never make a move on GST without actually saying it - because with his planned audit he knows he can't - and this was noted by all I think. Also it seemed that his traditional talking points aren't winning him any points any more while Rudd scored a few easy points with his same-sex marriage support.

Three out of four networks say Rudd won, (Channel Seven claimed it for Abbott,) and the snap Morgan poll after the debate said 24% called it for Rudd, 23% called it for Abbott, 5% thought it was a tie and 48% didn't watch it. Objectively Rudd won but it was such a pointless and mediocre victory it won't mean anything for him. In fact the criticism of him for bringing notes is likely to have far more impact than anything he said.

I'm not sure who worked out the details and rules for the debate but it made the whole thing fucking tedious and pointless. Whoever won doesn't really matter, it's pretty clear that the electorate lost.

Ty wrote:

Rudd scored a few easy points with his same-sex marriage support.

Except most people are disnterested and tired of it, as Abbott pointed out, there was a vote a year ago which was soundly defeated so what new need is there to repeat the process?

Of course Kevin would argue that he backed same-sex marriage before he was the leader - though I would argue he only did it to show his colleagues how much of a marketable leader he was. Did anyone note what he did in the most recent same-sex marriage vote? It was a bit of a farce really. Everyone knew Julia Gillard didn't support it and despite wanting to come across as the more liberal one by allowing a conscious vote, knowing that Tony Abbott wouldn't allow one just meant she effectively bolstered the 'no' vote.

It's not going to be a major election issue though and most people are pretty much of the mind that it will happen eventually when someone's willing to put in the effort. It was a Labour Opposition who got it through here so if Labor is serious it won't matter whether they're in government or not, so long as there's a Coalition Government that's willing to budge on the issue, (so a Coalition that doesn't have Abbott as leader.)

I kind of have to wonder how long Abbott will be leader even if he wins. Christopher Pyne gave a Gillard-esque comment the other day over the GST, "There will be no GST increase under an Abbott Government". It may have been my imagination or wishful thinking but he seemed to stress the "Abbott" part. The other thing is that the GST will be included, as it should be, in the Coalition's review of taxation and most people in the know believe it will have to be increased. There is a pretty serious drop-off in tax revenue and a lot of fairly big-spending initiatives plus it can't be ignored that Australia's GST is comparatively low. Here in NZ it's 15% and the worldwide average is slightly above that even. Do you really think any Government wouldn't salivate at the thought of a potential 1.5x increase in revenue from goods and services? That amount would cover for the NDIS and education reform completely without any need to mess with Medicare payments. It's not actually a bad idea.

Problem is of course is that it's political poison. With the GST the states take the revenue and the Federal Government takes the political flak, it's not exactly a great position to take in a closely contested election. Also it would take political courage, something both major parties are devoid of. Most likely outcome is that the Coalition's review will recommend an increase and they'll take it to the next election, which still goes against Pyne's comment if Abbott is still leader by then but they'll bank on any backlash being manageable. The annoying thing is that their tactical dishonesty is fairly obvious but everyone's just expected to roll with it. We know the Coalition is being less than honest, they know we know they're being less than honest, but we all just go with it anyway.

Politics...



Anyone catch Abbott's great suppository comment? Good to see that there's still humour in politics, even if it is unintentional.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Putting GST on overseas purchases below $1k might seem like a trivial act but ought to be done before or as part of increasing local taxes further.

nope.avi

fuck australian retailers, charging people double for the same shit as something in the states, especially digital content.

also, how are you going to track all shipments? most retailers just put in gift whenever a package is processed through customs or put a ridiculous low price. youre going to spend more money trying to tax people than you get in total revenue.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Under $100 might be reasonable.
How do you stop it happening? Confiscate undeclared goods, fine people who don't declare them, etc.

Prices are high here because we all enjoy a good standard of living, if we all pay third world prices we will all end up on third world wages very quickly.

lol yeah USA pays 3rd world wages right? not like we import most of our commercial goods from overseas. Tons of peolpe are buying shit from the states/europe.

People DO declare the goods. they just underdeclare it and there's no way you can track them. gl fining overseas company dilderp, all this to make a tiny 10% on goods under 1000.

the GST won't even stop people from purchasing online which is what the retailers want.

why the fuck is digital content double the price here compared to the US? its just retailers know they can fuck people hard here.

lawl merika.

my income is 23 an hour working in retail.

Cybargs wrote:

lol yeah USA pays 3rd world wages right?

Yes

not like we import most of our commercial goods from overseas. Tons of peolpe are buying shit from the states/europe.

Another reason to put the price up.

People DO declare the goods. they just underdeclare it and there's no way you can track them. gl fining overseas company dilderp, all this to make a tiny 10% on goods under 1000.

I'd just fine the person importing, Cyderp. Multiple $1,000 items bought abroad instead of locally -> Local retailers collapse with all the attendant problems, the 10% tax is irrelevant.

why the fuck is digital content double the price here compared to the US? its just retailers know they can fuck people hard here.

Yup, price according to what the market will bear.

my income is 23 an hour working in retail.

Would you be happier if it were $5/hr or $0/hr as long as you could buy cheap stuff from abroad?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-08-13 05:10:53)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

lol yeah USA pays 3rd world wages right?

Yes

not like we import most of our commercial goods from overseas. Tons of peolpe are buying shit from the states/europe.

Another reason to put the price up.

People DO declare the goods. they just underdeclare it and there's no way you can track them. gl fining overseas company dilderp, all this to make a tiny 10% on goods under 1000.

I'd just fine the person importing, Cyderp. Multiple $1,000 items bought abroad instead of locally -> Local retailers collapse with all the attendant problems, the 10% tax is irrelevant.

why the fuck is digital content double the price here compared to the US? its just retailers know they can fuck people hard here.

Yup, price according to what the market will bear.

my income is 23 an hour working in retail.

Would you be happier if it were $5/hr or $0/hr as long as you could buy cheap stuff from abroad?

Protectionism only benefits the established merchant class at the expense of everyone else.

Jay wrote:

Protectionism only benefits the established merchant class at the expense of everyone else.

And a race to the bottom means everyone drowns.
Not that its protectionism, if foreign companies don't pay the same sales tax as local companies thats just stupid.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-08-13 06:10:42)

And if a foreign company has lower costs, as they have a lower standard of living, and pays no tax where will the business go?

when the accc actually recommends that consumers be taught to circumvent geoblocks to access cheaper goods overseas, you know it's gotten absurd

Edit: By the way I'm loving the Gaffeathon. I know it's all inconsequential but they have been entertaining. In three days we've had "suppository' and 'sex appeal', I can't imagine what it will be next. This is what happens when you shy away from public exposure until the last possible moment. Tony's never been good at presenting himself in an unscripted environment and instead of working on it he's avoids it and/or been shielded from it. But that's no longer a possibility so he's just making a royal twit of himself.

Lengthy interview with Joe Hockey today. Very interesting to see his strategy which seems to be 'cover all the stances all the time'. On his plan to return to surplus he contradicted himself three times within three minutes, it was quite impressive. Then he did it again when discussing the GST. It's odd because he comes across as strong and competent and then you actually listen to the words he is saying and realise just how much he's tied himself in a knot with his rhetoric over the past year or so.