Author Topic: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!  (Read 43658 times)

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
#Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« on: April 10, 2019, 03:40:32 PM »
Can we throw all politicians into that black hole that was photographed for the next 5 weeks?

Seriously though, both sides start well behind the 76 seats required to form majority government, and with many big retirements on both sides there will be a lot of new faces in the next parliament.

Judging from the budget papers there are still one or two sweetners still to announce from the Government, whilst all I hope from the opposition is that they decide it's already a lay down misere, promise nothing more but paying down national debt. Seems everytime Bill opens his mouth it's removing another tax concession that I benefit from haha.

I live in the seat of Hughes. We have a coal-loving-climate-change-denying-Tony-Abbott-cheerleader as our local member. Probably for the best he gets turfed but it's a reasonably conservative area so he may cling on.

Anyone live in a marginal and enjoying a few barrels of pork being thrown their way?

Todge

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 35
  • Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2019, 07:25:13 PM »
Seems everytime Bill opens his mouth it's removing another tax concession that I benefit from haha.

Yep, as an early retiree, I'll get hit by Labour's franking credits change. That said, "if" it goes through, I will simply change my asset allocation to reduce the damage: sell off some shares - using the cgt to offset the franking credits; my portfolio is currently overweight Oz, so I'll change this (more into pvp lending, Intl markets etc) to get the balance right. I'll take a small hit, but nowhere near the damage if I don't act.

I've had emails from banks etc over the last weeks inviting me to seminars and webinars about the different tax policy changes proposed under each party. I know a lot of investors will be changing the way they do things to reduce Labour's impact. Hell, even my neighbour who has a financial advisor look after everything has told me in his yearly meeting recently he asked the advisor what the plan was to avoid losing out on his franking credits. I didn't ask details but he works and his wife is a stay at home mum. I'm guessing their set up means they'll be hit. This is a guy who normally talks to me about how our respective plants are going and lamenting the time we spend mowing ... out of the blue he brings up franking credits!

I don't like the term 'smart money' but I guess it really just means people who are paying attention and adapt to maximise returns. So, the 'smart money' will simply move around and the policy will not reap anywhere near the promised returns it advertises.

Labour's 'estimates' don't seem to include the behavioural changes people will enact. They just say $x billion dollars (at current levels) because that headline figure plays well with certain people. Any economist worth their salt can draw on abundant historical examples to show the mitigating effects when stating the real impact of a policy change. The number is never going to be correct, but it will be more accurate than the current unrealistic figure.

So the issue here is, people will vote based on a set of assumptions, but they will not get what they voted for because those assumptions are flawed. I'm talking about Labour here, but ALL parties are guilty of this, but rather than tell the truth they continue with the lie, hoping their lies are more attractive than the other party's. Recent One Nation revelations and Chinese weddings show just how insidious this is. I guess it's just as much our fault for not calling non-partisan bullshit on them more often.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2019, 01:49:51 AM »
You know the policy actually does make an assumption about the number of investors that will change their behaviour... the figure Labor has cited already takes it into account.

No tax policy is ever accurate though - lots of other factors will impact the figure, such as the level of company tax being paid, the marginal tax brackets of investors, the death rate of superannuants, the level of dividends being paid (especially form private companies).

The numbers are all wishy washy until after the fact. Even with ScoMo's $144 billion of income tax cuts over 10 years - it's all make believe numbers until you actually get to those outer years.


Gremlin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2019, 04:59:54 PM »
Seems everytime Bill opens his mouth it's removing another tax concession that I benefit from haha.

I don't like the term 'smart money' but I guess it really just means people who are paying attention and adapt to maximise returns. So, the 'smart money' will simply move around and the policy will not reap anywhere near the promised returns it advertises.


Iím not so sure about this with the franking credits issue.  The tax take is relatively well known, since it comes from businesses not individuals.  The businesses will still be paying their taxes, subject to them performing adequately in their markets.  Itís just a proportion of those taxes wonít be redirected from Govt back to investors.  Yes investors are likely to restructure their affairs to be the most effective, but with this potential policy changes you are not changing the behaviour of the ones actually providing the Govt with their revenue stream (notwithstanding short term initiatives to feed back franking credits this FY).

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7089
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2019, 05:08:54 PM »
I live in a safe as houses labor seat. No spare pork barrels coming here. I often donkey vote, but sometimes I even vote Liberal to take a contrarian stance.
As for Hughes, it should be compulsory to vote labor, TA needs to go.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2019, 01:21:51 AM »
I'm looking forward to paying even more tax under Labor, only then to be told I'm a tax dodging high income earner. Even though I pay more tax than most people earn.

Sigh, all I want to do is retire early.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2019, 01:53:18 AM »
I live in a safe as houses labor seat. No spare pork barrels coming here. I often donkey vote, but sometimes I even vote Liberal to take a contrarian stance.
As for Hughes, it should be compulsory to vote labor, TA needs to go.

Abbot is in Warringah (thank god I'm far enough away from that circus). Hughes is held by Craig Kelly, who is famous for such lines as "old people are dying because of wind power" and "fossil fuels protect us from the climate".

I'm looking forward to paying even more tax under Labor, only then to be told I'm a tax dodging high income earner. Even though I pay more tax than most people earn.

Sigh, all I want to do is retire early.

Didn't the Liberals raise taxes on the "wealthy" by putting the deficit levy in place and lower threshold for the Div 293 tax* on super contributions?

* Yes this was put in by Labor in 2012, but the Liberals didn't get rid of it, they extended it to a wider group...
« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 01:56:38 AM by marty998 »

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2019, 04:17:32 AM »
I live in a safe as houses labor seat. No spare pork barrels coming here. I often donkey vote, but sometimes I even vote Liberal to take a contrarian stance.
As for Hughes, it should be compulsory to vote labor, TA needs to go.

Abbot is in Warringah (thank god I'm far enough away from that circus). Hughes is held by Craig Kelly, who is famous for such lines as "old people are dying because of wind power" and "fossil fuels protect us from the climate".

Seems like Hughes would be a good seat for a challenge by an independent.

I live in Warringah and I am doing my best to make sure that TA is not re-elected :) Most independents last one term, so if we can oust TA, I would assume that the liberals will pre-select someone a little more representative (something like a third did not vote for TA this time round even though no other candidate was nominated) and in then in the next election it will be business as usual and it won't matter who I vote for.

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7089
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2019, 06:27:44 AM »
Quote
Abbot is in Warringah (thank god I'm far enough away from that circus). Hughes is held by Craig Kelly, who is famous for such lines as "old people are dying because of wind power" and "fossil fuels protect us from the climate".

LOL, I must have been half asleep when I misread your first post. I remember thinking something like I didn't know Hughes was up near Warringah.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12045
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2019, 03:18:58 PM »
I lived in Wills for a long time. You may remember it was Bob Hawke's electorate. When he was in, it was so very blue ribbon Labor that I used to vote for an independent so they would retain their deposit - there was no other way to make my vote count. But he left, and the whole electorate had a problem with the next candidate (I forget who that was), and in the manner that Bob Hawke left, and voted in Phil Cleary twice (once at the by-election, and again at the general election) as an independent.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2019, 03:21:31 PM »
Is anyone in Wentworth? I wonder if Dr Phelps will get back in.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2019, 07:57:01 PM »
I live in a safe as houses labor seat. No spare pork barrels coming here. I often donkey vote, but sometimes I even vote Liberal to take a contrarian stance.
As for Hughes, it should be compulsory to vote labor, TA needs to go.

Abbot is in Warringah (thank god I'm far enough away from that circus). Hughes is held by Craig Kelly, who is famous for such lines as "old people are dying because of wind power" and "fossil fuels protect us from the climate".

I'm looking forward to paying even more tax under Labor, only then to be told I'm a tax dodging high income earner. Even though I pay more tax than most people earn.

Sigh, all I want to do is retire early.

Didn't the Liberals raise taxes on the "wealthy" by putting the deficit levy in place and lower threshold for the Div 293 tax* on super contributions?

* Yes this was put in by Labor in 2012, but the Liberals didn't get rid of it, they extended it to a wider group...

I don't care about super contributions; I think super is a true rort that needs to be tightened. Besides I'll never see my super, which is why I don't contribute a cent.

The Libs at least ended the deficit levy; Labor will impose it through 2023, and then won't put in stages 2 or 3, leaving high earners to pay even more than they do now, via bracket creep. Australia's tax is already too progressive (gross wage Gini: 0.43; post-tax-and-transfer Gini: 0.24) and they want to make it even more progressive.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2019, 06:03:13 PM »
I hadn't realised just how big the gap is between Coalition and Labor's tax plans.

For someone on $200k a year, in the next 5 years the Coalition will do nothing and Labor will impose a small deficit levy. No biggie either way. And if you're a high earner with a modest-earning partner, the partner will be slightly better off under Labor so that will mostly offset the deficit levy.

But from 2024 onwards, the gap between the two parties is $11k in tax a year. Holy shit. That's a lot of money. Compounded over a decade it's $150k. Compounded over the rest of my working life (14 years) it's close to $200k. That would allow me to retire 1 year earlier than planned.

One whole year of my life just dependent on the whims of the voting population...it's a bit scary really. I guess all I can say is that if it doesn't come to fruition I have lost nothing since I never had anything in my hand. But if it does come to fruition I can do a little dance for joy.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2019, 06:24:46 PM »
Your planning seems a bit overcooked to me Bloopy. I don't even know what I'm having for dinner. I guess it's just a nice problem to have tho?

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2019, 06:29:40 PM »
I don't know what I'm having for dinner either. I'm better at pie-in-the-sky forecasts than I am at real life things.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2019, 06:45:01 PM »
Anyone live in a marginal and enjoying a few barrels of pork being thrown their way?
I don't eat pork, I'm Jewish.

But seriously, we're well-off. We don't need money tossed our way. Most of us don't need less taxes, we just need the money to be spent better.

I'm in Hotham, a fairly safe ALP seat. Lots of migrants and children of migrants, and among the non-voters, lots of Indian and Chinese students and skilled migrants. But yeah, the electorate's largely working class and leftie middle class, the recent migrants are pretty conservative but they don't vote. Technically the non-citizens don't count, but you're influenced by your peers and community. I mean, it's not the town where every second person you meet speaks with a foreign accent where people vote for One Nation, it's the town where nobody you meet has a foreign accent.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12045
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2019, 07:39:35 PM »
I don't want a government that will legislate tax cuts so far in advance. I want one that will be fiscally responsible in their own term of office.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2019, 01:40:18 AM »
I hadn't realised just how big the gap is between Coalition and Labor's tax plans.

For someone on $200k a year, in the next 5 years the Coalition will do nothing and Labor will impose a small deficit levy. No biggie either way. And if you're a high earner with a modest-earning partner, the partner will be slightly better off under Labor so that will mostly offset the deficit levy.

But from 2024 onwards, the gap between the two parties is $11k in tax a year. Holy shit. That's a lot of money. Compounded over a decade it's $150k. Compounded over the rest of my working life (14 years) it's close to $200k. That would allow me to retire 1 year earlier than planned.

One whole year of my life just dependent on the whims of the voting population...it's a bit scary really. I guess all I can say is that if it doesn't come to fruition I have lost nothing since I never had anything in my hand. But if it does come to fruition I can do a little dance for joy.

I would expect there to be a number of revisions to the tax brackets presented at the 2022 election. Including more tinkering with superannuation and the age pension.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2019, 05:10:02 AM »
Super and the age pension are both massive rorts and I think they should be heavily curtailed. Not the concept of super, obviously, but the tax benefits for wealthy retirees are problematic. (They are problematic because they are not natural incidents of the tax code, but rather arbitrary rules that give certain retirees or near-retirees a massive advantage.) And don't get me started about the silliness of paying the vast majority of the population a generous pension when they've had a whole life to save up for retirement and are often sitting on a valuable unencumbered asset.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #19 on: April 17, 2019, 03:40:36 AM »
Bill Shorten got caught out today with something about no extra taxes on super. Technically he is right that he is not raising taxes in a material way (except for the minor impost of reducing the div 293 threshold). Franking is not super specific and cutting some of the concessional and non-concessional caps is not an additional tax.

But if you are going to have higher taxes overall than your opponent, at least have the balls to own it.

Curiously, the $387 billion number that is bandied about is enough to pay off the national net debt*. I would be interested to see how the Liberals plug the gap and pay off the debt in the absence of those taxes.

Super and the age pension are both massive rorts and I think they should be heavily curtailed. Not the concept of super, obviously, but the tax benefits for wealthy retirees are problematic. (They are problematic because they are not natural incidents of the tax code, but rather arbitrary rules that give certain retirees or near-retirees a massive advantage.) And don't get me started about the silliness of paying the vast majority of the population a generous pension when they've had a whole life to save up for retirement and are often sitting on a valuable unencumbered asset.

Always bufuddled me that retirement and old age comes as a surprise to some folks.

I know there are a lot out there who through no fault of their own don't have the capacity to save for retirement, but there's a big cohort who intentionally game the system.

*Of course we all know Labor will spend most of it instead :(

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7089
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2019, 05:31:32 PM »
Super and the age pension are both massive rorts and I think they should be heavily curtailed. Not the concept of super, obviously, but the tax benefits for wealthy retirees are problematic. (They are problematic because they are not natural incidents of the tax code, but rather arbitrary rules that give certain retirees or near-retirees a massive advantage.) And don't get me started about the silliness of paying the vast majority of the population a generous pension when they've had a whole life to save up for retirement and are often sitting on a valuable unencumbered asset.

Superficially its easy to agree with you, but as always trying to fix some of this is not as simple as it looks.

Quote
In December 2015, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) published that average super balances at retirement were $292,500 for men and $138,150 for women; and for households $355,000. Jun 14, 2017
Firstly there are actually not many so called wealthy retirees. Thats why the caps went on without too much of an outcry. So the problems is not one of massive rorts but that after some decades of superannuation the "tax lurks" are still not sufficient incentive for the average Joe to save more. The carrot on a stick hasn't worked very well, and I suspect that  the general public will only respond to the sting of the whip: ie when the OAP is either harder to get or whittled away closer to the starvation line.

The issue of "fairness" of wealth in the one's PPOR is even more gnarly. Consider the consequences if elderly folk are required to sell their home and relocate to a lower COL area: there would be huge social consequences. firstly this would tend to create concentrations of elderly folk in lower cost areas...areas where arguably there are already not sufficient community resources to go around. Secondly there would be a huge personal cost if those folk are removed from their communities, that would likely result in all sort of negative health/social issues, that would probably cost the community more yet again. And how to introduce such a measure? What figure is reasonable? If you couldn't get the OAP if your house was worth over a million, then in Sydney there would be a mass exodus....no old folk in all but the cheapest parts of Sydney? And more old folk around the edges of Sydney...oh there's not enough public transport, hospitals etc in these areas: old folk can push their own wheelchairs to get where they want to go right? Such social disintegration is surely an ageist policy...is this a good way to treat people who have by and large been productive members of society and paid plenty of tax in their lifetime? And I suspect such a policy would be manifestly unpopular with the children of the elderly. Already families in Sydney consider their parents home to be their retirement nest egg (consciously or unconsciously). There is huge resistance to sending old folk to nursing homes due to the misbelief that "the gubbmint will take their house". So the idea of the gubbmint making old folk sell their PPOR to pay for their pension will be viewed in a similar fashion.

I do agree though that we have a looming problem..we just can't afford the projected increase in welfare payments due to the ageing population...some unpleasant decisions will need to be made. I hope that some are made sooner rather than later before it gets to a crisis, but I suspect our selfish politicians won't because they can't see beyond the next elected term.
end rant/

Back to the political discussion....

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1330
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2019, 06:57:44 PM »
Labor is planning on extending the superannuation guarantee to 12%, which the liberals stopped at 9.5%. This would help with retirement super balances in the longer term, along with the recent royal commission driving many to industry funds.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2019, 09:07:28 PM »
Lot of good points you make there @happy about "forcibly" moving old people out of these high asset value homes.

Expanding the pension loans scheme is one way to address this - to be repaid upon sale of the home after death. Sure it doesn't make the kids happy, but the government shouldn't be in the business of facilitating large inheritances at the expense of the taxpayer. You can see this by looking at the existing Centrelink rules about gifting assets and the effects on pension entitlements.

Labor is planning on extending the superannuation guarantee to 12%, which the liberals stopped at 9.5%. This would help with retirement super balances in the longer term, along with the recent royal commission driving many to industry funds.

It would also means employers say "thank you very much, we'll reduce your future pay rises accordingly".
There's no correct answer here - there'll be tradeoffs whatever the % is.
______________

I took vote compass today. It recorded me pretty much in the exact centre, halfway between Liberal and Labor, ever so slightly to the economic left, and bang on the middle horizontal line between social conservative and social progressive. I found that grossly unhelpful!

Nonetheless, I will vote Labor.

I am ok with my current level of taxation, not pleased, but not angered. My investments are now positively geared, so I'll shrug my shoulders at the changes to negative gearing.
I want something done about encouraging renewable energy. Humans are smart, the grid can be fixed, battery tech will get better and cheaper, just like the cost of solar power is now cheaper than coal. The current mob are basically standing in the way of progress with their obsession over coal, and these new industries which do provide more jobs and business investment than coal plants have been left to wither away,
I am ok with the taxation changes for family trusts (this rort should have been stopped decades ago),
However I don't think franking changes are a good idea, rather, there should be a 15% tax on pension fund earnings.

Fully expect a few asylum boats to start coming through again, but I don't think that's reason enough to re-elect coalition governments in perpetuity.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2019, 09:19:15 PM »
I don't think anyone would suggest forcibly removing oldies. A government subsidised reverse mortgage scheme would work wonders.

It really surprises me that we have a society where we assume that over a 45 year working life most people can't even save up for a 20 year retirement and they need government help despite having blown money on frivolities along the way and despite having their own home! Meanwhile prudent folks who might retire at 55 with a paid off home and an investment property find themselves with nil government support.

It seems that in this country we promote, and reward, stupidity, idleness and fecklessness among the populace. I'm not talking about 'dole bludgers', I'm talking about the wasteful middle-middle class.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2019, 09:24:54 PM »
I do agree though that we have a looming problem..we just can't afford the projected increase in welfare payments due to the ageing population...some unpleasant decisions will need to be made.
The unemployment benefit is $489.70 a fortnight, and the aged pension $826.20. It is unclear to me why when a man is 64 years and 364 days his needs are deemed to be satisfied by one amount, and a day later he requires an extra $168.55 weekly, or almost $9k annually. His needs have not significantly changed in that time, except perhaps medically; but we have a free public healthcare system anyway, and medicines are heavily subsidised.

If we are saying that a person's needs can be satisfied with $489.70 a fortnight, then why are the aged getting $826.80? And a single parent gets $776.40. If we say that $826.80 is needed, then why are some people only getting $489.70? Are we seriously saying that a 65yo man has greater financial need than a single parent and their child? Evidently we are making a moral judgement about the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. If we set aside our moral judgements, then we can cut the aged pension to $489.70 and save billions of dollars. If this amount is deemed insufficient for a man of 65, then it is insufficient for a man of 64 and 364 days, or a man of 55 or 25, let alone a 30yo with a 4yo child, and that needs to be raised, and then we have other problems.


I emphasise: I don't know the right rate for benefits. I simply point out that the very different levels of benefits shows that they are not based on need, but on moral judgements.

I suspect, though, that a growing financial burden will be less the aged, and more the disabled. I know a disability care worker, he tells me that a client of his with severe cerebral palsy and retardation has an $18,000 electric wheelchair (for someone who sits in them all day, they must be individually moulded for comfort and to avoid bedsores etc) and a total service budget of $383,000 annually. 24 hour care costs a lot. Physiotherapists for the severely disabled cost a lot. And so on. And just as when a place supplying something knows it's a wedding all prices triple, so too when a place knows it's a government contract. And then the media will run a series of pieces on how disability care workers are underpaid and should get $35 an hour instead of $25, and so on.

I expect that the disability part of the social welfare bill will grow much faster than we expect.

If we want a welfare state, we have to pay for it. I don't mind this. Obviously we can quibble with the exact costs of this and that, but I'd rather pay for a welfare state than a military state or a prison state.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2019, 09:33:39 PM »
The age pension is a massive, massive rort all around. I'd much rather see the two payments flipped around (a more generous Newstart and a less generous Age pension, other than for disability pensioners).

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7089
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #26 on: April 19, 2019, 01:08:48 AM »
I do agree though that we have a looming problem..we just can't afford the projected increase in welfare payments due to the ageing population...some unpleasant decisions will need to be made.
The unemployment benefit is $489.70 a fortnight, and the aged pension $826.20. It is unclear to me why when a man is 64 years and 364 days his needs are deemed to be satisfied by one amount, and a day later he requires an extra $168.55 weekly, or almost $9k annually. His needs have not significantly changed in that time, except perhaps medically; but we have a free public healthcare system anyway, and medicines are heavily subsidised.

If we are saying that a person's needs can be satisfied with $489.70 a fortnight, then why are the aged getting $826.80? And a single parent gets $776.40. If we say that $826.80 is needed, then why are some people only getting $489.70? Are we seriously saying that a 65yo man has greater financial need than a single parent and their child? Evidently we are making a moral judgement about the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. If we set aside our moral judgements, then we can cut the aged pension to $489.70 and save billions of dollars. If this amount is deemed insufficient for a man of 65, then it is insufficient for a man of 64 and 364 days, or a man of 55 or 25, let alone a 30yo with a 4yo child, and that needs to be raised, and then we have other problems.


I emphasise: I don't know the right rate for benefits. I simply point out that the very different levels of benefits shows that they are not based on need, but on moral judgements.

I suspect, though, that a growing financial burden will be less the aged, and more the disabled. I know a disability care worker, he tells me that a client of his with severe cerebral palsy and retardation has an $18,000 electric wheelchair (for someone who sits in them all day, they must be individually moulded for comfort and to avoid bedsores etc) and a total service budget of $383,000 annually. 24 hour care costs a lot. Physiotherapists for the severely disabled cost a lot. And so on. And just as when a place supplying something knows it's a wedding all prices triple, so too when a place knows it's a government contract. And then the media will run a series of pieces on how disability care workers are underpaid and should get $35 an hour instead of $25, and so on.

I expect that the disability part of the social welfare bill will grow much faster than we expect.

If we want a welfare state, we have to pay for it. I don't mind this. Obviously we can quibble with the exact costs of this and that, but I'd rather pay for a welfare state than a military state or a prison state.

Really good points. In past decades they were much closer to the same figure. At one point I was researching Austudy options for my kids, if I were to move rurally...I was really surprised how much the dole had dropped in comparison to the OAP. I would imagine someone decided to provide more incentive to "dolebludgers" to work.

I don't know what the "right" figure is either, but a number of folk on here can live frugally but without too much discomfort on roughly the amount of a single person's OAP. At one stage I projected how much it would cost me to live once my kids moved out and was a couple of thousand over the single OAP.  Its said that couple on the OAP have it a bit better than singles since its cheaper pp to live as a couple. This tells me it could/should probably be a bit tighter than it is.

Lot of good points you make there @happy about "forcibly" moving old people out of these high asset value homes.

Expanding the pension loans scheme is one way to address this - to be repaid upon sale of the home after death. Sure it doesn't make the kids happy, but the government shouldn't be in the business of facilitating large inheritances at the expense of the taxpayer. You can see this by looking at the existing Centrelink rules about gifting assets and the effects on pension entitlements.

Well, I didn't actually use the word "forcibly".
I don't agree with reverse mortgages from the usual lenders (banks etc) because of the potential fiasco of compounding interest if you live too long. But I would support some sort of government scheme where one's OAP is repaid  from sale of PPOR at time of death with little or no interest due.

I don't think anyone would suggest forcibly removing oldies. A government subsidised reverse mortgage scheme would work wonders.

It really surprises me that we have a society where we assume that over a 45 year working life most people can't even save up for a 20 year retirement and they need government help despite having blown money on frivolities along the way and despite having their own home! Meanwhile prudent folks who might retire at 55 with a paid off home and an investment property find themselves with nil government support.

It seems that in this country we promote, and reward, stupidity, idleness and fecklessness among the populace. I'm not talking about 'dole bludgers', I'm talking about the wasteful middle-middle class.

Its true there is  some sort of dichotomy between the self funded retiree and the "poor people" on a pension. I saw this play out first hand amongst some aunts and uncles. The self-funded couple paid full price for everything, including health insurance which they had paid into formally decades. They complained about how often they were asked for their pension card and then were hit with full price for not having one.  The lower middle class couple retired with their own home on the OAP, and it seemed were eligible for endless subsidies. When sick the self funded couple used their health insurance and were hit with high out off pocket expenses. The other used got just as, or nearly as good as care for nothing. With elderly aids like hearing aids, again state of the art aids were subsidised. The main negative seems to be some loss of choice but its hard to know whether this is really an issue. It seems that to be self-funded you really require quite a lot more money than if you are on the OAP. In any case with the way our system is designed its no surprise that many people spend up and expect the OAP to look after them since being self funded appears to be much more daunting.  I'd be interested if anyone knows of any figures.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2019, 11:48:46 PM »
Here's another thing about the election that irks me: false sloganeering.

Coalition - taxes are always lower under the Coalition. Only applies to income tax, not the overall mix.

Labor - "everything's going up except wages." Not really. More accurate to say "Everything's going up very slowly, including wages, such that there is no real wage growth." The slogan makes it seem like wages are actually falling, when they're merely stagnant.

The only party that I trust is the Greens - they are too awesome for words. But no one votes for them.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12045
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2019, 11:56:36 PM »
The greens lost me when they voted against the emissions trading scheme. I think that is the root cause of our political problems over the past decade.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2019, 03:06:18 AM »
That's the left, deborah. They'll vote for the right side of politics rather than vote for lefties who aren't lefty enough. Thus the Communist Party in the 60s directing preferences to... the Liberal Party.

The right just splinter into 400 different parties instead, thus One Nation and KAP and UAP and so on and so forth.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #30 on: April 20, 2019, 04:20:49 AM »
I think Bloop Bloop is being sarcastic - meaning that you can trust the Greens to do exactly what they say they will, which is to basically ruin the country. Though I could vote for many of their reasonable environmental policies if that is all they stuck to.

That's the left, deborah. They'll vote for the right side of politics rather than vote for lefties who aren't lefty enough. Thus the Communist Party in the 60s directing preferences to... the Liberal Party.

The right just splinter into 400 different parties instead, thus One Nation and KAP and UAP and so on and so forth.

This is quite funny all things considered.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12045
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #31 on: April 20, 2019, 05:15:35 AM »
Especially when there was a quiz here recently that included the Australian parties (which party do you have the most in common with...), and the only one party on the left were the Greens. Labor was right, Liberals weíre more to the right...

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7089
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #32 on: April 20, 2019, 04:18:18 PM »
I think Bloop Bloop is being sarcastic - meaning that you can trust the Greens to do exactly what they say they will, which is to basically ruin the country. Though I could vote for many of their reasonable environmental policies if that is all they stuck to.

I shudder when I recall that one year the unbelievable happened, Labour lost our  seat to the Greens. In one term they created chaos and some of their green agenda was incredibly unrealistic/impractical and got up peoples noses. They won't be returned here again in a hurry.

I still also remember some decades ago when the balance of power was held by 2 folk, I think one was a green and one an independent who really weren't up to the job (or maybe 2 Greens). Basically they ran the country and were clearly not across anything other than their own little pet areas. I love the concept of independents, and to be sure there have been some outstanding ones. I wish we could clone them and take over parliament that way! But it did make me realise that one needed to be careful when voting independent as a backlash - it takes a particularly talented individual to be across every area of government and make sensible decisions.

mjr

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 461
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Brisbane, Qld
  • Retired at 52
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2019, 03:49:44 PM »
Lots of left-wing folk on the forum.  I live in Dickson and will be happily voting for Dutton.

I also love coal - not because I'm a knuckle dragger or have financial interests in it, but because I'm an electrical engineer and like baseload power at the flick of a switch and our industries need it.  If Australia would pull its head out of its arse and look seriously at nuclear, I'd be keen on that too.  Windmills and solar and batteries will never be viable for our country and economy.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2019, 05:13:32 PM »
Lots of left-wing folk on the forum.  I live in Dickson and will be happily voting for Dutton.

I also love coal - not because I'm a knuckle dragger or have financial interests in it, but because I'm an electrical engineer and like baseload power at the flick of a switch and our industries need it.  If Australia would pull its head out of its arse and look seriously at nuclear, I'd be keen on that too.  Windmills and solar and batteries will never be viable for our country and economy.

You may find very quickly that this will be untrue as your electrical engineering peers continue to refine and develop the battery storage technologies, and as solar panels become more and more cheaper and efficient. Surprised to see an engineer say something will "never be viable", usually you guys are much more problem solving oriented.

FWIW I think we could do nuclear well (and it would be great new source of employment for our physicists who have to look offshore for careers), but I doubt there is the long term political will to make it happen. Things seem to have gone quiet after the 2015 South Australia Royal Commission into the prospect of expanding the Nuclear Industry.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1330
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2019, 06:46:09 PM »
Lots of left-wing folk on the forum.  I live in Dickson and will be happily voting for Dutton.

I also love coal - not because I'm a knuckle dragger or have financial interests in it, but because I'm an electrical engineer and like baseload power at the flick of a switch and our industries need it.  If Australia would pull its head out of its arse and look seriously at nuclear, I'd be keen on that too.  Windmills and solar and batteries will never be viable for our country and economy.

You may find very quickly that this will be untrue as your electrical engineering peers continue to refine and develop the battery storage technologies, and as solar panels become more and more cheaper and efficient. Surprised to see an engineer say something will "never be viable", usually you guys are much more problem solving oriented.

FWIW I think we could do nuclear well (and it would be great new source of employment for our physicists who have to look offshore for careers), but I doubt there is the long term political will to make it happen. Things seem to have gone quiet after the 2015 South Australia Royal Commission into the prospect of expanding the Nuclear Industry.

As an engineer myself, I also found @mjr response disappointing.  Renewable power is, and will continue to be cheaper than coal or nuclear for generation, particularly when you take waste into account.  It is storage where the challenges lie.  I would have thought an engineer would relish the challenge, but obviously some just want last centuries solutions to problems.

As for Dutton, he is of despicable character and I hope he is removed from our political discourse as soon as possible.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2019, 10:00:57 PM »
It is storage where the challenges lie.
Not really. It's networks. You are not going to find that it's overcast and still air all over the country at once. Already the eastern states back each-other up energy-wise, with Tasmania sending hydro power to Victoria, and Victoria sending coal power to Tasmania. Sweden and Denmark have a nice arrangement where Denmark's excess wind power goes to pumped hydro in Sweden, and comes back to Denmark on still days. Italy gets excess nuclear power from France, and so on.

Across the world, power plants go down for maintenance, sometimes going down unplanned, and other power plants take up the slack. So we have a fair amount of practice in co-ordinating over outages. It's actually just as much a challenge that sometimes we'll produce more power than needed, but this is what pumped hydro is for, and of course we can have industries which are energy-intensive and can pump up production on those days.

Of course this is all hard to co-ordinate, and we need to hook up WA and NT to the eastern states networks. WA has a lot of geothermal energy potential, and of course there's ocean and tidal power potential everywhere. People make a big noise about the cost, but the fact is that whatever power generator you use, after 40 years or so they have to be replaced, shit just wears out. So in 40 years almost all of our current power generators will be replaced, the only question is with what?

Anyway, the real challenge is networks and co-ordinating things. Luckily, some perverse incentives by government with the privatised systems a decade or so back led to "gold-plating" the system, building more networks than we needed. This led to excessive power prices, but at least now we have the network base.

This requires co-ordinating and planning ahead, which are very unaustralian things to do. They are nonetheless doable.

We can also consume less, which is also very unaustralian. I mean, 62% of us are overweight or obese, up to 82% among 50yo males - so the biggest consumers are from the same demographic that makes the political and business decisions in this country. But cultures do change.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1330
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2019, 10:18:39 PM »
It is storage where the challenges lie.
Not really. It's networks. You are not going to find that it's overcast and still air all over the country at once. Already the eastern states back each-other up energy-wise, with Tasmania sending hydro power to Victoria, and Victoria sending coal power to Tasmania. Sweden and Denmark have a nice arrangement where Denmark's excess wind power goes to pumped hydro in Sweden, and comes back to Denmark on still days. Italy gets excess nuclear power from France, and so on.

Across the world, power plants go down for maintenance, sometimes going down unplanned, and other power plants take up the slack. So we have a fair amount of practice in co-ordinating over outages. It's actually just as much a challenge that sometimes we'll produce more power than needed, but this is what pumped hydro is for, and of course we can have industries which are energy-intensive and can pump up production on those days.

Of course this is all hard to co-ordinate, and we need to hook up WA and NT to the eastern states networks. WA has a lot of geothermal energy potential, and of course there's ocean and tidal power potential everywhere. People make a big noise about the cost, but the fact is that whatever power generator you use, after 40 years or so they have to be replaced, shit just wears out. So in 40 years almost all of our current power generators will be replaced, the only question is with what?

Anyway, the real challenge is networks and co-ordinating things. Luckily, some perverse incentives by government with the privatised systems a decade or so back led to "gold-plating" the system, building more networks than we needed. This led to excessive power prices, but at least now we have the network base.

This requires co-ordinating and planning ahead, which are very unaustralian things to do. They are nonetheless doable.

We can also consume less, which is also very unaustralian. I mean, 62% of us are overweight or obese, up to 82% among 50yo males - so the biggest consumers are from the same demographic that makes the political and business decisions in this country. But cultures do change.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't really agree with you entirely.  Yes, spreading the renewable generation throughout the network would help, but there is still a clear time-shift issue.  Most of our renewable generation comes a few hours before our consumption.  Hooking up WA could help the eastern states, but it won't help WA.  Also, the WA network is still government owned, and any attempt to sell it off has been hugely unpopular with the public.

Consumption is also part of the issue, and Australia is not good at this.  Incentives, maybe a few "carrot and stick" type solutions could help push people to think more about their consumption.  I always am stunned when people talk about their power bills as if they can't do anything to change them.

Fundamental issues remain in the eastern states "national grid".  The incentives are always for the consumer to be ripped off one way or another.  We no longer have the possibility of voting out those who mess up our essential services. State governments are responsible for the service delivery, but it is across a national market.  Many issues.

Storage will help with the time-shift issues.  Storage doesn't have to be batteries.  Large scale pumped hydro is cheap and fairly efficient (around 90%).

Ultimately it is a problem that needs the right regulations and incentives to solve.

urbanista

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Location: Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2019, 04:32:00 AM »
Energy issues can be solved by VPP. Trials already on the way in SA and ACT. It is a much cheaper (and greener) solution than hooking up WA into the network. In fact, relying on the interconnection network can turn into a disaster, just look up what happened to Tasmania when BASS was down for several months a few years ago. Tassie had to run diesel on enormous scale.

Problem is, energy is very hard to understand. It requires a lot of maths and years of experience. Politicians simply do not understand it, most have to rely on advisors opinions who each have their own agenda. Decision making is very painful therefore.

alsoknownasDean

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2019, 04:16:40 AM »
I'm in Cooper (previously Batman). In previous elections I saw far more Greens signs here than I have this time around. I believe it was the seat with the lowest Coalition primary vote in the country in 2016. I suspect the seat will remain held by Labor, likely with a swing to the ALP.

No pork barrelling for me, although I've got plenty of family members in other seats which are seeing far more attention.

With the Libs, it seems that a number of the members of the moderate part of the party are leaving (Pyne, Bishop, O'Dwyer, etc). That may involve some policy shifts of the party longer term. Would this result in some seats seeing a larger threat from independent candidates (as per Indi, Wentworth and Mayo), where voters may be economically conservative but socially progressive and environmentally conscious?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 04:29:41 AM by alsoknownasDean »

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2019, 08:42:43 PM »
Unfortunately, while there are socially liberal and conservative parties about these days, there are only economically liberal parties, no economically conservative parties. The political consensus is for economic rationalism. We're like the Chinese getting to choose which particular communist represents their district. "You can choose between someone who believes in selling everything off overseas and reckless public spending, OR someone who believes in selling everything off overseas and reckless public spending. But hey, they disagree on what they should sell off and spend recklessly on!"

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2019, 09:42:50 PM »
That might have been true between the Keating and Rudd years, but Labor of late has become very progressive economically.

Their policy includes:
- Higher taxes on the rich
- Direct intervention in setting penalty rates
- Direct intervention in setting childcare workers' wages
- Reduction in skilled migration

None of those are economic rationalist.

When you consider that the pre-taxes & transfers Gini is 0.45 and the post taxes & transfers Gini is 0.24 (meaning the state reduces nearly 50% of true inequality), it is hard to say that our State is particularly rationalist.

There is probably no better country to live in, if you fall in the lower half of the ability/talent/luck distribution, then (*oops - than) Australia.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 11:14:47 PM by Bloop Bloop »

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2296
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2019, 11:10:15 PM »
There is probably no better country to live in, if you fall in the lower half of the ability/talent/luck distribution, then Australia.

And that's why it's such a great country. Higher life expectancy, lower crime, all thanks to the low gini coefficient. Low inequality benefits everyone. You might not get to keep as much money as you might have if you lived in another country but you'd spend it all on rapid response alarm systems ;)

-----

I am getting quite jittery now polling has opened. Apparently 40% of people vote early now! In some recent polling apparently Zali Steggall has 44% of the primary vote in Warringah and Tony Abbott 34%. Assuming the die-hard Greens and Labour voters fill in all the boxes and mark ZS second, she should win. But then again, those voters would surely vote tactically just this once and put her number 1?

Could go either way in Warringah still, and we should never believe the polls, eh? #stillnotoverbrexit

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #43 on: May 01, 2019, 12:33:27 AM »

That might have been true between the Keating and Rudd years, but Labor of late has become very progressive economically.

Not really. I'm using the "conservative" and "liberal" terms in their literal sense, of one who wants to control things, and one who wants them to be free.

Socially conservative vs liberal is authoritarian (we must control people for their own good, this can be a "women should be in burkas" thing or a "women should be prohibited from wearing burkas") vs libertarian, but you can be economically conservative or liberal, too. These days, economically liberal ("let companies and people do as they see fit, it'll be good for everyone in the end") is the default.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2019

This video explains the concepts,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg27BOmVbR4

It's possible to have democracy with a restricted market, and an authoritarian government and a free market, plus the other two combinations. Where the parties in Australia differ is in exactly what people should be made to do; they are agreed that the market should be more-or-less free. However, the consensus in Australia is that the government should control people for their own good, and that markets should be more-or-less free
. The nature of consensus is that you don't even realise it, it becomes implicit.
As the above graph shows, we don't have a lot of choice in Australia. Whoever you vote for, an authoritarian right-wing person is likely to get in, as those are the two major parties, they simply differ in degree. It's like having a choice between the Socialist Worker's Party and the Worker's People's Party. You are not judging their positions on an absolute scale, but relative to each-other. I am judging them on an absolute scale. Do not confuse the bitterness of the fighting with the presence of substantial differences. In fact, political parties are like families: being so close they fight more than strangers would. They have to fight bitterly to make the few differences they have stand out. "No! Really, we're different! Honest." It's like the Catholics and the Protestants, to a non-Christian the differences are mostly cosmetic, but that didn't stop them chucking bombs at each-other in Belfast for forty years, and the Thirty Years' War was a brutal one.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 05:25:01 PM by Kyle Schuant »

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7252
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2019, 01:59:51 AM »
There is probably no better country to live in, if you fall in the lower half of the ability/talent/luck distribution, then Australia.

And that's why it's such a great country. Higher life expectancy, lower crime, all thanks to the low gini coefficient. Low inequality benefits everyone. You might not get to keep as much money as you might have if you lived in another country but you'd spend it all on rapid response alarm systems ;)

-----

I am getting quite jittery now polling has opened. Apparently 40% of people vote early now! In some recent polling apparently Zali Steggall has 44% of the primary vote in Warringah and Tony Abbott 34%. Assuming the die-hard Greens and Labour voters fill in all the boxes and mark ZS second, she should win. But then again, those voters would surely vote tactically just this once and put her number 1?

Could go either way in Warringah still, and we should never believe the polls, eh? #stillnotoverbrexit

Yep - I'd rather here than say, South Africa, where if you want to keep your wealth you have to wall yourself into a compound and have a loaded gun at hand at all times.

I'm pretty sure Labor and the Greens are running dead in Warringah. Just like in Wentworth where some of them were manning the booths for Kerryn Phelps at the last by-election.


That might have been true between the Keating and Rudd years, but Labor of late has become very progressive economically.

Their policy includes:
- Higher taxes on the rich
- Direct intervention in setting penalty rates
- Direct intervention in setting childcare workers' wages

- Reduction in skilled migration

None of those are economic rationalist.

When you consider that the pre-taxes & transfers Gini is 0.45 and the post taxes & transfers Gini is 0.24 (meaning the state reduces nearly 50% of true inequality), it is hard to say that our State is particularly rationalist.
There is probably no better country to live in, if you fall in the lower half of the ability/talent/luck distribution, then (*oops - than) Australia.

Important to remember that not everyone in the economic top half has gotten there on their merits...

Society probably isn't ever going to recognise the intangible benefit that childcare provides to the economy, but fast as lightening there is a pile-on from politicians, the media and parents whenever a child has the misfortune of not receiving top notch care.

How would you propose to pay child care workers an appropriate wage without making the cost prohibitively expensive for parents? Unless you really believe that caring for 4-5 babies and toddlers non-stop for 8 hours a day is worth only 20 bucks an hour?

Please do not say yes to that and that the market has determined it. The market has been proven not to be able to cost this appropriately because it doesn't take into account the economic benefits to both women, the family unit, and the country from having dual income families. Hence why both sides of politics pay out ever increasing tax rebates to families to make the system work.

You can argue "one parent should stay at home" if you like, but that requires a fundamental rethink of the changes that have occurred in society for the last 50 years.

Note by the way that I do not have children, so my taxes are going towards funding this and I don't directly benefit... but perhaps I do indirectly via a more prosperous economy.

It's a hard one, but if I was handing over my baby to someone to look after for 8 hours a day, 250 days a year, I'd want to know they are highly engaged at their work and not spending the days worried about making ends meet themselves.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2019, 05:21:32 AM »
You can argue "one parent should stay at home" if you like, but that requires a fundamental rethink of the changes that have occurred in society for the last 50 years.
Not really. Especially if you're implying the woman needs to be the one at home.

Australia has 24.6 million people, 9.46 million households and 2.6 people per household.

We have 8,781,800 full-time workers, and 4,008,200 part-time workers [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0]. In other words, we have a bit short of one full-time job per household, and every second household has a part-time job besides.

So there are already a lot of people staying at home, and some people only doing paid work part-time.

Obviously, these jobs are not evenly-distributed. You'll have two full-time professionals in some households, and neither parent doing paid work in others. But I have spoken already about the problems of unevenly-distributed paid work.

I am a stay-at-home parent, and I work part-time in my own business, while my wife goes out and does a full-time professional job. Our son is at school and our daughter has childcare twice a week. In the absence of childcare rebates she'd done one day, or none, but there'd be no major dramas for us otherwise. Really the rebates are not necessary for professional couples, so long as they don't go for Gucci childcare with glutenfree yoga classes or some shit, they can afford full-price childcare; the rebates are financially necessary for people like casual part-time cleaners, but of course they're not aimed at them, being as they are middle-class welfare.

I don't think you have a grasp on what's really happening in the country, or what's possible. You're eminently qualified to be a politician.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #46 on: May 02, 2019, 05:30:49 AM »
Childcare workers are paid a living wage. I know this because one of my family members worked a large part of her career in the field. The money is not great, but it's not min wage, and childcare centres have no trouble recruiting for workers. So I don't see why there needs to be any intervention in their wages.

It's simply using and abusing the 'halo' effect that a "think of the children" campaign gives a political party.

Added to this fact is that a wage subsidy PLUS a childcare subsidy is simply going to lead to massive profits for the childcare centres, and status quo for everyone else - it's like having NG + CGT introduced close in time to each other - just leads to massive increases for pre-existing property owners while everyone else gets taken for the ride.

I also don't think there are necessarily economic benefits to having everyone plop their kids into childcare, or encouraging that. I think we'd be better off, if we had to subsidise anything, subsidising parental leave (which we already do) and poor parents with children's expenses (which we already do). If we really have to subsidise childcare expenses, we're better off giving a more generous subsidy to a much smaller set of parents who actually need them. A couple on $150k a year does not need any welfare or subsidies, full stop.

The fact is, parents of children get a free pass from all political parties - they are the sacred cow. It's quite ridiculous, and it's leading to adverse outcomes.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12045
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2019, 05:38:30 AM »
You can argue "one parent should stay at home" if you like, but that requires a fundamental rethink of the changes that have occurred in society for the last 50 years.
Not really. Especially if you're implying the woman needs to be the one at home.

Australia has 24.6 million people, 9.46 million households and 2.6 people per household.

We have 8,781,800 full-time workers, and 4,008,200 part-time workers [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6202.0]. In other words, we have a bit short of one full-time job per household, and every second household has a part-time job besides.

So there are already a lot of people staying at home, and some people only doing paid work part-time.

Obviously, these jobs are not evenly-distributed. You'll have two full-time professionals in some households, and neither parent doing paid work in others. But I have spoken already about the problems of unevenly-distributed paid work.

I am a stay-at-home parent, and I work part-time in my own business, while my wife goes out and does a full-time professional job. Our son is at school and our daughter has childcare twice a week. In the absence of childcare rebates she'd done one day, or none, but there'd be no major dramas for us otherwise. Really the rebates are not necessary for professional couples, so long as they don't go for Gucci childcare with glutenfree yoga classes or some shit, they can afford full-price childcare; the rebates are financially necessary for people like casual part-time cleaners, but of course they're not aimed at them, being as they are middle-class welfare.

I don't think you have a grasp on what's really happening in the country, or what's possible. You're eminently qualified to be a politician.
Actually, you seem to have forgotten about the number of retired households. There will be quite a few more of these than your figures suggest, as they will generally have one or two people in them. The ABS itself appears to have problems working out how many such households there are, since they donít include retirement villages in their data.

Childcare workers are paid a living wage. I know this because one of my family members worked a large part of her career in the field. The money is not great, but it's not min wage, and childcare centres have no trouble recruiting for workers. So I don't see why there needs to be any intervention in their wages.

It's simply using and abusing the 'halo' effect that a "think of the children" campaign gives a political party.

Added to this fact is that a wage subsidy PLUS a childcare subsidy is simply going to lead to massive profits for the childcare centres, and status quo for everyone else - it's like having NG + CGT introduced close in time to each other - just leads to massive increases for pre-existing property owners while everyone else gets taken for the ride.

I also don't think there are necessarily economic benefits to having everyone plop their kids into childcare, or encouraging that. I think we'd be better off, if we had to subsidise anything, subsidising parental leave (which we already do) and poor parents with children's expenses (which we already do). If we really have to subsidise childcare expenses, we're better off giving a more generous subsidy to a much smaller set of parents who actually need them. A couple on $150k a year does not need any welfare or subsidies, full stop.

The fact is, parents of children get a free pass from all political parties - they are the sacred cow. It's quite ridiculous, and it's leading to adverse outcomes.
Unfortunately this isnít true - child care work is, and always has been, grossly underpaid for the work thatís done, and the training required.

Parents do get a free pass.

alsoknownasDean

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #48 on: May 02, 2019, 08:03:38 AM »
Just wondering on the whole childcare topic (and this is from the ignorant position of someone without kids).

We have publicly owned primary schools, secondary schools and universities. Yet do we have public childcare centres? If we do not, is it something worth introducing?

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7089
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #49 on: May 02, 2019, 04:24:29 PM »
Childcare workers are underpaid as its largely seen as women's work: in spite of 50 years of bra burning we are still inappropriately sexist as a society in some arenas. If it was a male dominated field the pay would  be much higher.

Public childcare is a great idea, but I suspect we'd need to move to a Scandinavian socialist model to get there.

As a previous user  I would have preferred the money spent on other social engineering first...a one stop shop so to speak...putting childcare and before and after school care all on the one site, or at least very close together would make a huge difference to the devilish drop off and pickup routine. Trying to run (drive frantically actually)  between 4 sites..childcare, before school care, after school care( at different sites) and the actual school as a sole parent was a nightmare. Co-location would have allowed either more working hours or more time with the kids. I see this idea is at last starting to catch on.

And who designed the system whereby workers get 4 weeks leave, plus 2 weeks sick leave, whilst the public school system is closed approx 14 weeks (more if its a private school, plus those pesky pupil free days and the odd strike day), childcare centres all close for 2 weeks over Xmas/New year, and vacation care is woefully inadequate? The math just doesn't add up.

Finally once said child reaches high school, suddenly there is no care and a 12 year old is able to be unsupervised and uncared for, for 40-50-60 hours a week for up to 14 weeks a year.

end rant/.