Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Chinese imperialism and future Australian sovereignty

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36 ... 48, 49, 50  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:43 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

5 from the wing on debut wrote:
David wrote:
I think your problem, 5, is associating elements of the Labor Party with "the left". Whatever the rights or wrongs of the GST, it was never a "left" issue and never had the left's support. As it happens, there was rather a lot that Hawke/Keating considered or implemented that had nothing to do with progressive or redistributive economics, and indeed paved the way for the Australian variant of the Western neoliberal turn of the 1980s–1990s that we usually associate with conservative figures like Reagan and Thatcher.


That is quite condescending David.
I have a problem do I?
It seems to me that there is a problem here with people having no knowledge, or are just surmising, in relation to matters that they are commenting upon.
I can tell you for a fact what the position of the left was, because I sat there and listened to them argue with the right, about this very topic. It formed part of the syllabus in relation to tax reform.
What were you doing during that period in the early/mid 1980's which gives you your great insight into the issue?


I think I told you last time I asked. (Well, that was about my whereabouts in early 1988, specifically.) Wink

My post certainly wasn't intended as condescending ("your problem" here means nothing more than "the problem with what you're saying" – I was under the impression that that was a pretty commonly understood shorthand, but apologies if that didn't come through).

I have no doubt that you experienced these discussions firsthand. My issue is with your terminology. Whatever you thought constituted the left then or now, I feel pretty confident in saying that those pushing for the GST – from whichever faction of the militantly neoliberal Labor Party of the day – were not it.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:49 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, and I recalled your previous answer which is why I raised the issue again, as it was relevant to the discussion.
I suppose that you are also aware that the definition of "left" has changed over the years. It means something different now to what it used to mean in the 1980's, or indeed when GST was first being proposed by Hewson.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:03 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

However much those understandings have changed, I don't think they've shifted nearly as much as you're suggesting. In fact, this example is a pretty clear case in point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services_tax_(Australia)

Quote:
The idea of a broad-based consumption tax was again raised by federal treasurer Paul Keating at the 1985 Tax Summit, but was dropped at the behest of then Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke after pressure from the ACTU, welfare groups and business, which did not like its association with proposals for capital gains and fringe benefits taxes.


So the idea was proposed by a leading figure of the Labor Right (Keating) but opposed by the Labor Left faction and unions, among others on the progressive side of politics, which seems to me to be a pretty clear ideological split that persists today. Whatever we can gather from this about the flexibility of ALP and Liberal Party policy stances – and the paragraph above the one I quoted states quite clearly that it was first proposed by a key figure in the Liberal Party – it seems evident that people opposed or supported the GST based on more or less the same basic principles that shape views on the subject today.

Not all policies fit neatly across partisan/ideological lines (indeed, as noted in the Wikipedia article, business groups weren't in favour, which probably goes some way to explaining the Liberal Party's shifting views on the issue), and it's hardly surprising that parties should sometimes do 180 turns as societal values change or policies turn out to have unintended consequences. Maybe we can point to examples of such shifts that lend weight to your thesis that politics is cynical and devoid of meaning, but I don't think the GST makes a particularly strong case for that. I think it was a fairly clear case of more or less centrist/neoliberal economic policy (i.e. a "big tax", so statist and not exactly pro-market, but also non-progressive) that carried intermittent appeal for right-leaning politicians but was staunchly opposed by the left because of it being contrary to one of the most fundamental left-wing economic positions, as Tannin pointed out. That's why saying "the left" changed their mind on it doesn't make any sense.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:59 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have much interest in this debate (plainly the part of the ALP that should been in the Liberal Party supported the notion at one time - but was rightly smacked down by the actual Left) - but the following research paper prepared in 1997 for the Commonwealth Parliament has a very detailed chronology, if anyone cares: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/Background_Papers/bp9798/98bp01
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 3:50 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

5 from the wing on debut wrote:
Tannin wrote:
"Lefties in favour of a broad-based consumption tax."

Bullshiite of the highest order. No left-winger anywhere, ever was in favour of an increase in regressive taxation. (Any person in favour of an increase in a regressive tax to replace a progressive one is not left wing. The whole reason for being of the left wing viewpoint is that it favours a fairer, more even distribution of wealth and labour and income. Regressive taxes are the opposite of that and, by their very nature, cannot ever be "left wing" policies.


The fact that you and others within your echo chamber do not have knowledge of something does not mean that it did not occur. I understand that this is how internet forums work though. If you don't like something just say it's not true and set out senseless arguments to support a false conclusion. Some may be swayed by what you have said, but then children of kindergarten age are quite trusting.

I have no dog in the fight, I despise politicians and the fools that have strong political allegiances but I stand by my comments. I am certainly not going to be cowed by someone that most likely never studied the topic in question and has such a limited knowledge of history.

Economics wasn't my interest but I thought that as I was already at uni a double degree wasn't much more work than one degree, so that's what I did. You may care to pretend the world is as you would like it to be, but unfortunately for you, it isn't. Can you not recall the ALP faction in support of GST and the battle that took place between Treasurer Keating and PM Hawke over the issue? Apparently not.

Part of the argument of the "left" back then was that due to tax minimisation/avoidance systems and structures, the "rich" were not paying sufficient income tax, so they were being subsidised by the poor who did not have those options available tom them. They wanted to catch the rich on expenditure so a GST was their proposed way of doing it.

Of course, your response will be a simple "bullshit". Then you will perform a google search to look for information in relation to a topic in which you have no first hand knowledge.


I think the problem yuou might have is one of definition. The ALP are n ot left per se. The right of the ALP abd the so called left of the Libs have a bit in common.

However, the left do not and have not supported a broad based tax system. The right of the party certainly as David has pointed out through Keating. However Keating also wanted the so called safety net which has been eroding at a fast pace by the Liberal party (although thankfully restored albeit temporarily somewhat through jobkeeper and withdrawn today)

_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:40 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

So, in the end as stated: one faction does not a party make. Not only did the left not change its mind, even Keating threw the GST under a bus because for him it was always a technocratic rather than ideological argument.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:28 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pies4shaw wrote:
I don't have much interest in this debate (plainly the part of the ALP that should been in the Liberal Party supported the notion at one time - but was rightly smacked down by the actual Left) - but the following research paper prepared in 1997 for the Commonwealth Parliament has a very detailed chronology, if anyone cares: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/Background_Papers/bp9798/98bp01


Thanks for that, it reminded me of things that were so long ago I had forgotten. I really don't care about his topic either, it was just a throw away line by me in relation to something else that started this debate. It seems to have touched a nerve in some people though.

That article did specify though that in the Tax Summit both Treasury and the Hawke ALP government recommended a 12.5% GST be introduced but it was shouted down and CGT and FBT were introduced.

Which really takes me back to where I started. The lefties in the economics faculty in the early 80's, who described themselves as that, supported a consumption tax. Then the ALP supported it, or tried to. A few years later the ALP won an election by opposing it. That's history, not controversy or opinion.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:09 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

5 from the wing on debut wrote:
Tannin wrote:
"Lefties in favour of a broad-based consumption tax."

Bullshiite of the highest order. No left-winger anywhere, ever was in favour of an increase in regressive taxation. (Any person in favour of an increase in a regressive tax to replace a progressive one is not left wing. The whole reason for being of the left wing viewpoint is that it favours a fairer, more even distribution of wealth and labour and income. Regressive taxes are the opposite of that and, by their very nature, cannot ever be "left wing" policies.


The fact that you and others within your echo chamber do not have knowledge of something does not mean that it did not occur. I understand that this is how internet forums work though. If you don't like something just say it's not true and set out senseless arguments to support a false conclusion. Some may be swayed by what you have said, but then children of kindergarten age are quite trusting.

I have no dog in the fight, I despise politicians and the fools that have strong political allegiances but I stand by my comments. I am certainly not going to be cowed by someone that most likely never studied the topic in question and has such a limited knowledge of history.

Economics wasn't my interest but I thought that as I was already at uni a double degree wasn't much more work than one degree, so that's what I did. You may care to pretend the world is as you would like it to be, but unfortunately for you, it isn't. Can you not recall the ALP faction in support of GST and the battle that took place between Treasurer Keating and PM Hawke over the issue? Apparently not.

Part of the argument of the "left" back then was that due to tax minimisation/avoidance systems and structures, the "rich" were not paying sufficient income tax, so they were being subsidised by the poor who did not have those options available tom them. They wanted to catch the rich on expenditure so a GST was their proposed way of doing it.

Of course, your response will be a simple "bullshit". Then you will perform a google search to look for information in relation to a topic in which you have no first hand knowledge.


Clueless nonsense. You have advanced no evidence whatever to support your original claim that "lefties" supported a consumption tax. Being a member of the Labor Party certainly does not make you a "leftie" - consider the NSW Labor right as a shining example.

Mate, I don't need to search for this sort of thing. I was there.

_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:17 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

5 from the wing on debut wrote:
I suppose that you are also aware that the definition of "left" has changed over the years. It means something different now to what it used to mean in the 1980's, or indeed when GST was first being proposed by Hewson.


Wrong again. Left wing means, and has always meant, "in support of fairness and economic equality". Right wing means (and has always meant) "in support of wealth and privilege". The terms date to the arrangement of representatives during the lead-up to the French Revolution in 1789, aristocracy and royalists on the right, workers and intellectuals on the left.

Many and various other causes have been attached to each of these wings from time to time. These come and go. The competing core values of privilege vs fairness, however, are always with us.

_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:27 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

<snip – try again playing the ball, not the man. Thanks, David for BBMods.>
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:29 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
VICTORIA’S controversial Belt and Road deal with China has been binned by the Morrison government in a move that will inflame tensions with Australia’s biggest trading partner.


Good. Well done Morrison Et al.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/morrison-government-tears-up-victorias-belt-and-road-deal-with-china/news-story/54b7573fe2bd464ea8e43008410e2891

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto

PostPosted: Fri Apr 23, 2021 6:57 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Tannin wrote:
5 from the wing on debut wrote:
I suppose that you are also aware that the definition of "left" has changed over the years. It means something different now to what it used to mean in the 1980's, or indeed when GST was first being proposed by Hewson.


Wrong again. Left wing means, and has always meant, "in support of fairness and economic equality". Right wing means (and has always meant) "in support of wealth and privilege".


Nah. That's just a left wingers version of the world, justifying themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#:~:text=Generally%2C%20the%20left%2Dwing%20is,tradition%2C%20reaction%20and%20nationalism%22.

Quote:

The terms date to the arrangement of representatives during the lead-up to the French Revolution in 1789, aristocracy and royalists on the right, workers and intellectuals on the left.

Many and various other causes have been attached to each of these wings from time to time. These come and go. The competing core values of privilege vs fairness, however, are always with us.


The terms did originate there but the meanings you ascribe to them aren't right.

You may choose to see the world and your politics through that lens, you can even choose to believe it. Doesn't mean it's correct.

_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin Capricorn

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:44 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Use your own terms then. Still mean the same thing: one side wants the world to be fairer, the other side wants it to be less fair. And no, that doesn't mean that the other side is wrong, there may be good reasons why fairness is a bad thing, and right wingers all over the world have been very good at dreaming up such reasons since the dawn of time, but in the end it comes down to one basic disagreement: more fair or less fair. Everything else is decoration.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
5 from the wing on debut 



Joined: 27 May 2016


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:46 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Absolute rubbish.
Name one country where a “left” revolution has done anything other than redistribute wealth to those that then gain power. The useful idiots that supported those revolutions have always missed out.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:18 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
Quote:
VICTORIA’S controversial Belt and Road deal with China has been binned by the Morrison government in a move that will inflame tensions with Australia’s biggest trading partner.


Good. Well done Morrison Et al.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/morrison-government-tears-up-victorias-belt-and-road-deal-with-china/news-story/54b7573fe2bd464ea8e43008410e2891


Remember when this was done the county including the Federal Government was all over China. As you know Pollies couldn’t get enough of China.

I don’t know enough about the actual deal to see if it was good or not good. However, we need to examine the legislation that the c*nt Scotty from Marketing has used to be able to accord themselves with power to override the states; as I understand it extends much further than stopping twice elected Victorian state government.

_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36 ... 48, 49, 50  Next
Page 35 of 50   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group