The Canberra Raiders Supporters Forum
https://thegh.com.au/forum/
Why?The Rickman wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 10:42 amIf it were up to me (and let's all hope that one day it is), raw food, such as fruit/vegetables, meat and pasta would be tax-free, yet everything that's pre-packaged or fast food would be taxed at the normal rate.
Because you shouldn't tax people on basic necessities to live! Income taxes should be abolished completely and you charge people on their spending, not their earning. Basic human necessities like food, electricity and water should be exempt, so the lowest income demographics can still survive.greeneyed wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 11:01 amWhy?The Rickman wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 10:42 amIf it were up to me (and let's all hope that one day it is), raw food, such as fruit/vegetables, meat and pasta would be tax-free, yet everything that's pre-packaged or fast food would be taxed at the normal rate.
I see your point but I disagree with it.Sterlk wrote: ↑May 19, 2019, 9:09 pmAll other things being equal - I'd probably agree that the smaller states should have less Senate seats to make geographic seat distribution more equal for the population they have. I was referring to proportional representation by ideology, though.papabear wrote: ↑May 19, 2019, 5:14 pm Imo this is garbage for one the senate is less representative the house of reps due to state vote distortion with nsw voting in 6 senators and Tasmania also have long 6 senators. Which let’s be honest the smaller states ( tas / sa) do seem to do a bit more greens and labor then the states with people (except for our friendly victorians).
The Greens are probably the best example; they get around 10% of the vote nationally, and they don't get 10% of the seats in the House. They get 1, which these days makes 0.66%. Parties like One Nation also poll not-insignificantly, yet you won't find them with a presence.
Around 25% of voters select a non-major party/candidate as their first preference in the House; in 2016 something like 3.3% of HoR seats went to a non-major. In the Senate, if the ABC's predictions above are accurate, that'll be ~20% of seats going to non-majors - you'll never get an exact match, but it's a fair whack closer to representing the entire spectrum of opinions.
All food is processed its just the amount of process.greeneyed wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 11:01 amWhy?The Rickman wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 10:42 amIf it were up to me (and let's all hope that one day it is), raw food, such as fruit/vegetables, meat and pasta would be tax-free, yet everything that's pre-packaged or fast food would be taxed at the normal rate.
I mean raw ingredients. For a struggling family, you can make some pasta, meat and vegetables go a very long way, you shouldn't be taxed on that, in my opinion.papabear wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 11:13 amAll food is processed its just the amount of process.greeneyed wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 11:01 amWhy?The Rickman wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 10:42 amIf it were up to me (and let's all hope that one day it is), raw food, such as fruit/vegetables, meat and pasta would be tax-free, yet everything that's pre-packaged or fast food would be taxed at the normal rate.
Pasta for example is quite processed, quite a lot goes into making pasta.
Having things in and out of the GST does two bad things, makes it more complicated and generates less revenue.
If you tax one form of consumption, why not another. If you want to tax prepared food, or packaged food, why not other food?The Rickman wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 11:07 amBecause you shouldn't tax people on basic necessities to live! Income taxes should be abolished completely and you charge people on their spending, not their earning. Basic human necessities like food, electricity and water should be exempt, so the lowest income demographics can still survive.greeneyed wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 11:01 amWhy?The Rickman wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 10:42 amIf it were up to me (and let's all hope that one day it is), raw food, such as fruit/vegetables, meat and pasta would be tax-free, yet everything that's pre-packaged or fast food would be taxed at the normal rate.
T_R wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 9:13 amNot really. Think about the GST. Hewson tried to implement it, but constantly stumbled. Remember him being asked to calculate the GST on a cake...? " Well, it depends if there's a sales tax on it now, or...or...if there's a sales tax on a component of it or how's it's iced..." or whatever it was. Bang, election gone.PigRickman wrote: ↑May 19, 2019, 9:09 pm it'll have to be one hell of an orator to successfully sell that sort of message. Good luck waiting on that historical giant to appear.
Contrast to Howard a few years later, on the same 'gotcha' moment; "None. It's food. Next question?"
Unpopular (no one likes a new tax) policy, thoughtfully implemented but most of all, well explained.
It's possible, but wasn't for as limited a person as Shorten.
EDIT: Watch a man die, live on TV:
More so negotiating with the Democrats. Some claim it was the beginning of the end for that party.
Plibersek has withdrawn I see. There goes my second leg.gangrenous wrote:So, what do we think for tomorrow? Libs to hold on and Plibersek to take the reigns as opposition leader?
....yet we see Chris Bowen announce he will run. That would be a classic double down on their loss if the ALP elected hom.gangrenous wrote: ↑May 21, 2019, 12:45 pmPlibersek has withdrawn I see. There goes my second leg.gangrenous wrote:So, what do we think for tomorrow? Libs to hold on and Plibersek to take the reigns as opposition leader?
Makes sense. Too tied up in this campaign and given where they lost Albo makes more sense. Poor pick by me.
After seeing where the swings were it looks like more Australians said yes to racism than in previous years, while they may not have won seats their votes unfortunately increased which got the Libs over the line.The Rickman wrote: ↑May 19, 2019, 9:33 am Make no mistake people, yesterday’s result was a great one for our nation. Australia pretty much overwhelmingly said NO to racism.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
A bloke who boycotted the National apology, another who hangs out with Reclaim Australia and Malcolm Roberts were all re-elected, some of them on bigger margins.Manbush wrote: ↑May 21, 2019, 5:57 pmAfter seeing where the swings were it looks like more Australians said yes to racism than in previous years, while they may not have won seats their votes unfortunately increased which got the Libs over the line.The Rickman wrote: ↑May 19, 2019, 9:33 am Make no mistake people, yesterday’s result was a great one for our nation. Australia pretty much overwhelmingly said NO to racism.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You might be right. A completely fresh start wouldn't be a bad tact. Appears to have no baggage from the Rudd/Gillard leadership coups and no close ties to Shorten.
Even that Stuart Bonds "the only thing worse than a gay person is a woman" prick while not winning a seat got a tonGreen eyed Mick wrote: ↑May 21, 2019, 7:38 pmA bloke who boycotted the National apology, another who hangs out with Reclaim Australia and Malcolm Roberts were all re-elected, some of them on bigger margins.Manbush wrote: ↑May 21, 2019, 5:57 pmAfter seeing where the swings were it looks like more Australians said yes to racism than in previous years, while they may not have won seats their votes unfortunately increased which got the Libs over the line.The Rickman wrote: ↑May 19, 2019, 9:33 am Make no mistake people, yesterday’s result was a great one for our nation. Australia pretty much overwhelmingly said NO to racism.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
On top of that, one party proposed a suite of policies to address a range of issues that would bring this country closer to meaningful reconciliation and the other has a policy of dismissing concerns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people as 'culture wars'.
To be fair, the LNP self-describe as a broad-tent. There's people representing centrist values, like your Malcolm Turnbulls, all the way to your Cory Bernardis on the right.papabear wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 11:12 am I see your point but I disagree with it.
The greens for example if they finish with 9 or 10 seats thats more then 10% of the 76 seats.
Equally the fair right divided amongst 4 or so parties get about the same amount of the vote yet might end up with 2, 3 or 4 seats.
Now I am sure if the far right One nation / Cory / United Australia ended up with 10 seats you would think it is a joke.
The simple fact is 9/10 people dont want the far left or far right with any power and to be honest I agree with this. Otherwise if non vaccine gets a percent you would be asking for those loonies to get a seat.
See this is a garbage argument, these people would've voted Liberal anyway.
Agree with everything your saying and more parties does make it harder for that persuasion.Sterlk wrote: ↑May 22, 2019, 9:00 amTo be fair, the LNP self-describe as a broad-tent. There's people representing centrist values, like your Malcolm Turnbulls, all the way to your Cory Bernardis on the right.papabear wrote: ↑May 20, 2019, 11:12 am I see your point but I disagree with it.
The greens for example if they finish with 9 or 10 seats thats more then 10% of the 76 seats.
Equally the fair right divided amongst 4 or so parties get about the same amount of the vote yet might end up with 2, 3 or 4 seats.
Now I am sure if the far right One nation / Cory / United Australia ended up with 10 seats you would think it is a joke.
The simple fact is 9/10 people dont want the far left or far right with any power and to be honest I agree with this. Otherwise if non vaccine gets a percent you would be asking for those loonies to get a seat.
Whatever exists on the left seems quite equally matched on the right by a combination of Bernardi + One Nation + Conservative LNP. There's pretty much just the one political brand on the far-left, there's a multitude of them competing for the far-right vote.
The thing is the liberals arent aiming for the conservative they aimed for the middle.Manbush wrote: ↑May 22, 2019, 8:53 am Looks like we’re following the American path where the uneducated bogans vote conservative and the more educated vote progressive.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl ... MP=soc_567
Thats a key point and one of the reasons Labor are beginning to struggle in their former blue collar heartlands. They have shifted from a party representing traditional union values to one thats trying to appease the Greens and it's socialist agenda.The Rickman wrote: ↑May 22, 2019, 10:40 amSee this is a garbage argument, these people would've voted Liberal anyway.
At the end of the day, Labor lost the mine workers, who have traditionally ALWAYS voted Labor due to Union influence... but this time around, Labor and the Greens were perceived to be anti-mining. Rightly or wrongly, people voted with the perception that if Labor got in, they may lose their jobs.
That's huge for 99% of people.
This so much this.Northern Raider wrote: ↑May 22, 2019, 12:06 pmThats a key point and one of the reasons Labor are beginning to struggle in their former blue collar heartlands. They have shifted from a party representing traditional union values to one thats trying to appease the Greens and it's socialist agenda.The Rickman wrote: ↑May 22, 2019, 10:40 amSee this is a garbage argument, these people would've voted Liberal anyway.
At the end of the day, Labor lost the mine workers, who have traditionally ALWAYS voted Labor due to Union influence... but this time around, Labor and the Greens were perceived to be anti-mining. Rightly or wrongly, people voted with the perception that if Labor got in, they may lose their jobs.
That's huge for 99% of people.
Playing this class warfare against the "top end of town" is no longer working as most of the blue collar workers are up in the higher wage brackets now. Labor now act like champions of the minimum wage earners and welfare recipients. As a result a lot of those traditional Labor supporters now relate more to the LNP policies, particularly in this last election.
CFMEU have been natural enemies of the LNP for so long it's really just a habit for them to campaign against the coalition and support the ALP. It's somewhat ironic that on a policy level their members are better off under the current government.The Rickman wrote: ↑May 22, 2019, 12:20 pm It's evident up here in Queensland that absolutely NOBODY in the mining industry voted Labor, and those guys have always been dyed-in-the-wool Labor voters.
Extraordinary stuff that Labor decided to go against the very industry that probably would've delivered them government in the past.
Assume that will be around 9pm and you'll be maggoted.The Rickman wrote: ↑May 22, 2019, 1:59 pm I actually read a pretty interesting article the other day that most of the progressive social changes in Australian society have occurred on the Liberal/conservative parties’ watch. While Labor agitates about it, they never actually get anything done, and the Libs just quietly make it happen when they’re in power
I’ll post the article when I get back in from lunch if I can find it. Will be interesting to see GeM, gangy and Manbush’s heads explode at the very least.
Reading he comment is interesting. There's a lot of backlash about ignoring the topic of climate change. To quote the most recent which is fairly typical:The Rickman wrote: ↑May 22, 2019, 4:01 pm Here's the article itself:
https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election ... 51p34.html
To hit some of the high notes here:
- The United Australia Party under Herbert Payne made voting compulsory; Australia is among only a handful of nations where voting is mandatory.
- Under the Menzies administration in 1962, voting rights were extended to Indigenous Australians. Granted this was horribly late, but that was an indictment on the nation not the conservative party.
- Harold Holt deserves a notable mention; in 1967 he held a referendum on the right for Indigenous Australians to be counted in the census.
- The Liberal Party was also the first political party to have an Indigenous person in Parliament. Neville Bonner joined the Senate and served in the Liberal Party for 12 years.
- Malcolm Fraser established SBS, accepted Vietnamese refugees after the war and strongly opposed apartheid.
- John Gorton introduced a parliamentary motion from the Opposition supporting the legalisation of same-gender sexual relations.
- John Howard enacted reform on guns.
- Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Liberal Party passed laws legalising gay marriage. Many will say there was an issue with the process but, as it stands, the "right" side of government passed the bill on same-sex marriage not the "left".
The Australian "right" has passed nation-changing laws that were not part of its mandate as a conservative party. It did so because the Liberal and Nationals coalition understands what is right for Australia. On countless occasions the "right" of Australia has followed a moral compass and passed legislation more progressive then the "left" in many other countries.