The Politics Thread 2018

[papabear]

Is a tax grab still a tax grab if you're removing a tax concession

If you tax bananas at 20 percent no matter retail wholesale whatever keep it simple no credits.

Then the banana farmers all start going broke as people’s taste move towards pears and apples. The govt thinks that’s harsh we will bring that banana tax down and if you own your banana trees for a year you only have to pay half of the 20 percent tax. The govt of the day calls it the big banana concension.

Some banana players move on some survive but the market eventually falls into line.

Some time later a party announces **** banana farmers we a removing the big banana concession on old banana plantations but you can have it on new trees.

In my mind that is a big banana tax grab.

Only a Venezuelan communist would think otherwise.

Or you are so sensitive about housing you refuse to see logic on the issue.

People's taste in housing isn't going anywhere.

Also the policy doesn't effect those that are currently negatively geared, it just means in the future you can only do it on a new property and not an existing one.

So it just moves the incentives for investors into new developments that add stock to the market.

Investors are still free to buy existing property, it just means they'll have to be positively geared.

certain suburbs are going to have negatively geared property no matter how you roll the dice.

It is just unfortunate that those that invest in those suburbs will now have to pay more tax if this policy gets through.

[gerg]

Is a tax grab still a tax grab if you're removing a tax concession

If you tax bananas at 20 percent no matter retail wholesale whatever keep it simple no credits.

Then the banana farmers all start going broke as people’s taste move towards pears and apples. The govt thinks that’s harsh we will bring that banana tax down and if you own your banana trees for a year you only have to pay half of the 20 percent tax. The govt of the day calls it the big banana concension.

Some banana players move on some survive but the market eventually falls into line.

Some time later a party announces **** banana farmers we a removing the big banana concession on old banana plantations but you can have it on new trees.

In my mind that is a big banana tax grab.

Only a Venezuelan communist would think otherwise.

Or you are so sensitive about housing you refuse to see logic on the issue.

People's taste in housing isn't going anywhere.

Also the policy doesn't effect those that are currently negatively geared, it just means in the future you can only do it on a new property and not an existing one.

So it just moves the incentives for investors into new developments that add stock to the market.

Investors are still free to buy existing property, it just means they'll have to be positively geared.

certain suburbs are going to have negatively geared property no matter how you roll the dice.

It is just unfortunate that those that invest in those suburbs will now have to pay more tax if this policy gets through.

But isn't it grandfathered?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[Schifty]

It is, but that doesn't help the argument.

[gerg]

Posting for future reference - November 2018.

https://www.afr.com/real-estate/these-6 ... 115-h17yld


Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[papabear]

Another day, another crappy labor policy released. Why Bill Shorten doesnt just shup up shop close his mouoth and get elected on the failings of the coalition is beyond me. But he is determined to play winners and losers in the economy and stump up some more middle class welfare.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-to-of ... nergy-plan

My first thought was if you want to encourage renewables just remove all of the subsidies on coal, I presumed coal was heavily subsidised because I think it was our resident hippies on this website who keep proclaiming that to be the case.

So I went to friend google and down the bunny path of coal based subsidies which led me to this website:-
https://www.marketforces.org.au/campaig ... subsidies/

Now I sure as **** hope there is a lot more to coal subsidies then what was on this website because:-
- 1 - oil is not coal, oil powers cars, coal powers homes.
- 2 - a subsidy is the government giving money to a pig with their head in the trough. A subsidy is not the removal of legalised theft (taxation). A fuel tax credit which makes up the bulk of these "subsidies" (and tbh the rest on this list are pretty much the same) is just giving you a credit on the tax you paid (fuel excise) on the petrol you purchased.

Now I am not an expert on energy policy and will never claim to be. So I am not going to touch on what labor should or should not announce in respect of energy, but focus on this policy.

Look at what happened in child care when it was subsidised - child care prices went up, businesses charge as much as they can, if they know people are willing to pay 10k on batteries that is what they will charge, now that people receive an extra 2k no doubt the cost will go up.

I am not a fan of any discrimination whether it be why of marriage, or taxable income.

But **** me, another policy that **** you if you have a high income, I am not sure how you can justify such discrimination, thus you have a **** discriminatory policy.

Will it help the poor, I am note sure 2k cash back on an installation is an option for poor people.

Eitherway to me, whilst this might not be a toxic dump of a mess that labors policy on housing is, I fail again to see how they get votes from it? Maybe a few people who were getting solar anyways will now through them a vote but im not sure that offsets people who give a **** about govts not playing favourites in the market. Again IMO this another policy you do once elected (aka krudds 900 bucks, you dont lead with it into an election).

IMO you dont get the people who vote on renewables because they are going green over labor and not coalition already so no more votes there.

The more this goes on the more I am thinking, labors people think shortens problem is people dont know him or like him enough so they need to put on the camera more promising money so people will like him. IMO this is faulty, you win the election easier because people dont like the government not by trying to polish up old mate shorten.

[T_R]

It was a strange choice.

We looked at battery storage for our new place. The price was about $12,800 to buy and install. The installer was very frank in telling us that there is no way we would save that back in less than a decade, and the useful life of the battery was also about ten years.

Even with a couple of grand back in the pocket, it's way too early for these batteries to go mainstream quite yet.

[greeneyed]

Anything done on small scale at individual household level, is, almost by definition, going to be one of the most expensive ways of generating power or supplying water. If individuals want to do it, fine... and they find the investment worthwhile. And there might not be an option in remote areas. But it is never worthwhile for governments to invest in household level power generation or water supply.

[gangrenous]

Anything done on small scale at individual household level, is, almost by definition, going to be one of the most expensive ways of generating power or supplying water. If individuals want to do it, fine... and they find the investment worthwhile. And there might not be an option in remote areas. But it is never worthwhile for governments to invest in household level power generation or water supply.

What do you base that on GE? Hypothetically if solar and battery storage were to improve to be both cheap and efficient enough that a building can maintain itself then what’s the problem?

Centralised maintenance would potentially be offset by nil distribution costs.

[greeneyed]

It is because of economies of scale. If individuals want to invest in their own energy production and water supply for their households, fine. But if governments are going to subsidise "cleaner energy" and water production, it is much better to provide subsidy to large scale production (eg subsidise wind farms, build dams). Bottom line is... it is cheaper.

I don't actually think subsidies should be provided in any event. It is by no means clear that either water or energy are "public goods". Both are essentially private goods in their nature and can be provided by the market.

If you want to reduce carbon emissions due to concerns about climate change... well clearly there are externalties there that the market are not pricing in. So the appropriate government intervention, for this market failure is to put a price on carbon.

[gangrenous]

So essentially no logic in this particular instance then?

Because extending your logic broadly without considering the specifics suggests homes shouldn’t have airconditioners, as economies of scale are always more efficient. It would be better to create cool air somewhere else and pipe it to all homes.

[greeneyed]

So essentially no logic in this particular instance then?

Because extending your logic broadly without considering the specifics suggests homes shouldn’t have airconditioners, as economies of scale are always more efficient. It would be better to create cool air somewhere else and pipe it to all homes.

Sorry, but home air conditioning is a good that has completely different characteristics to the production of energy and water. You can't achieve economies of scale with home airconditioning. You can with the production of energy and water. It's pretty simple.

[gangrenous]

There are costs to balance in generation and distribution and I suspect there is likely to be a cost/efficiency point that would make home electricity generation economically sensible. Who knows what that is - I haven’t done the calculation, and I doubt you have - so ruling it out based on your ideology is pretty damn daft in my opinion.

[T_R]

There are costs to balance in generation and distribution and I suspect there is likely to be a cost/efficiency point that would make home electricity generation economically sensible. Who knows what that is - I haven’t done the calculation, and I doubt you have - so ruling it out based on your ideology is pretty damn daft in my opinion.

So is ruling it in

[gangrenous]

If you haven’t done the homework, absolutely.

[T_R]

If you haven’t done the homework, absolutely.

Because to be constantly driven by ideology is intellectually dishonest?

[gangrenous]

Because if you’re driven by ideology and not logic/evidence you make sub-optimal decisions. And sure, it’s not particularly intellectually rigorous is it?

[T_R]

Noted. Thanks.

[greeneyed]

If you haven’t done the homework, absolutely.

What makes you think I haven't done my homework?

[gangrenous]

Statistically speaking it’s unlikely. I’m all ears though.

You’ll note I never said you hadn’t.

[greeneyed]

Statistically speaking it’s unlikely. I’m all ears though.

You’ll note I never said you hadn’t.

I’ve actually already explained it. And my view is based on a considerable body of research.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gerg]

At least they are trying to do something about climate change. Let's not forget the current PM used a lump of coal as a prop during Parliamentary question time.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[T_R]

At least they are trying to do something about climate change. Let's not forget the current PM used a lump of coal as a prop during Parliamentary question time.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

What impact will this policy have on the clinate?

[gerg]

At least they are trying to do something about climate change. Let's not forget the current PM used a lump of coal as a prop during Parliamentary question time.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

What impact will this policy have on the clinate?

Hopefully more people using solar instead of coal with greater investment in renewables, making the technology cheaper and better will help in the longer term?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[T_R]

At least they are trying to do something about climate change. Let's not forget the current PM used a lump of coal as a prop during Parliamentary question time.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

What impact will this policy have on the clinate?

Hopefully more people using solar instead of coal with greater investment in renewables, making the technology cheaper and better will help in the longer term?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

With what measurable impact, best case?

[greeneyed]

The vast weight of scientific evidence indicates that carbon pollution is causing climate change. The measures that are being proposed will do very little and will be expensive. What is needed is to place a price on carbon, so as to reduce emissions... that's the cheapest and most efficient way of doing it. World wide action is needed, as what Australia does by itself doesn't do much. But every country has to play its part if the problem is to be addressed. Unfortunately, the state of public debate is so low, the fringes of the political spectrum have hijacked the whole debate... we see it in a whole range of areas, unfortunately... from climate change to anti vaxers.

[Dr Zaius]

Social media has given everyone the opportunity to shout their opinion to the world, and has created the misconception that all opinions are equal.

[gerg]

At least they are trying to do something about climate change. Let's not forget the current PM used a lump of coal as a prop during Parliamentary question time.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

What impact will this policy have on the clinate?

Hopefully more people using solar instead of coal with greater investment in renewables, making the technology cheaper and better will help in the longer term?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

With what measurable impact, best case?

I have absolutely no idea. But coal is bad and solar is good right?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[T_R]

At least they are trying to do something about climate change. Let's not forget the current PM used a lump of coal as a prop during Parliamentary question time.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

What impact will this policy have on the clinate?

Hopefully more people using solar instead of coal with greater investment in renewables, making the technology cheaper and better will help in the longer term?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

With what measurable impact, best case?

I have absolutely no idea. But coal is bad and solar is good right?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

One would imagine, yes. But at any cost?

[Green eyed Mick]

The Liberals hammered in Victoria.

[greeneyed]

Absolutely massive victory. Predicting over 60 seats for Labor on ABC News coverage.

[gangrenous]

What impact will this policy have on the clinate?

Hopefully more people using solar instead of coal with greater investment in renewables, making the technology cheaper and better will help in the longer term?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

With what measurable impact, best case?

I have absolutely no idea. But coal is bad and solar is good right?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

One would imagine, yes. But at any cost?

If the world depended on it?

[gangrenous]

I heard an apparently true story that T_R and 99 mates were beaten up by one guy as they correctly assessed he was a better fighter than all of them and their individual contribution would be no good.

[Botman]

Boy that's a bad analogy.
Unless the 1 is Mike Tyson, and we're talking about TR and his 99 mates as daycare toddlers. In which case it's pretty accurate.

[gangrenous]

How about if the 1 was Jack Wighton?

[Schifty]

Lyle Shelton thinks the election result is because the Libs weren't right wing enough