SA MP Nick Champion wants Labor to impose 'iron discipline' on members to oppose increase in GST

A Federal Opposition frontbencher wants Labor's national executive to impose an "iron discipline" on all party members to oppose an increase in the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

The call, by South Australian MP Nick Champion, for a binding resolution is a direct challenge to SA Premier Jay Weatherill, who supports an increase in the GST as a way to fund health and education services in the future.

"We really need an iron discipline in the party to defeat what is a very regressive taxation measure," Mr Champion told the ABC.

"Sometimes Labor Party policy has to be settled and the national executive and national conference are the right organs of the party to do it."

He said the Australian Labor Party (ALP) needed to adopt a clear position opposing the GST before this year's federal election.

The Federal Government has left the option of an increase to the consumption tax on the table as part of its broader plans to overhaul Australia's tax system, but it has not yet made a decision.

Mr Weatherill is backing a proposal to allow the Commonwealth to keep the extra money raised from an increased GST, while states and territories gain a portion of income tax revenue.

"I support a solution which involves us getting our revenue needs and if that requires an increase in the GST I would be prepared to permit that as a trade-off to get what we need as a nation — that's a proper health and education care system," Mr Weatherill said on Monday.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-27/mp-nick-champion-calls-for-labor-to-oppose-gst-increase/7116582

SA MP Nick Champion = economic illiterate it seems   :D

Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin.

Swagman wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 9:06am:

SA MP Nick Champion = economic illiterate it seems   :D

Yep, a mini-Stalin!

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin.

Of course! They've had ample opportunity from 2007 to 2013 to get rid of or change the GST and what did they do? Sweet bugger all, that's what!

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin.

Politicians will always see the value of having more money to waste.

In 5 years time 20% will look prudent in order to do the same things that 15% will fail to achieve this time and many people will still be stupid enough to swallow the guff.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin.

Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake.



I doubt that anyone in the ALP would agree with that.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 1:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:24am: Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin. Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. I doubt that anyone in the ALP would agree with that.

Then you would be wrong - as you so often are. If you had been right, there would be moves to abolish the GST, a policy that disappeared 10 years ago.  Labor like the GST. After all, it was their idea first!

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 4:30pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:24am: Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin. Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. I doubt that anyone in the ALP would agree with that. Then you would be wrong - as you so often are. If you had been right, there would be moves to abolish the GST, a policy that disappeared 10 years ago.  Labor like the GST. After all, it was their idea first!

Once again you only show your lack of understanding.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:24am: Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin. Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. I doubt that anyone in the ALP would agree with that. Then you would be wrong - as you so often are. If you had been right, there would be moves to abolish the GST, a policy that disappeared 10 years ago.  Labor like the GST. After all, it was their idea first! Once again you only show your lack of understanding.

Then correct me. Show me by your amazing debating skills why Labor still hates the GST so much that it has never sought to make a single alteration to it, nevermind repeal it and now, with an increase in the GST under discussion, half the ALP is in support?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:41pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:24am: Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin. Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. I doubt that anyone in the ALP would agree with that. Then you would be wrong - as you so often are. If you had been right, there would be moves to abolish the GST, a policy that disappeared 10 years ago.  Labor like the GST. After all, it was their idea first! Once again you only show your lack of understanding. Then correct me. Show me by your amazing debating skills why Labor still hates the GST so much that it has never sought to make a single alteration to it, nevermind repeal it and now, with an increase in the GST under discussion, half the ALP is in support?

Half ? Link

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:41pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:24am: Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin. Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. I doubt that anyone in the ALP would agree with that. Then you would be wrong - as you so often are. If you had been right, there would be moves to abolish the GST, a policy that disappeared 10 years ago.  Labor like the GST. After all, it was their idea first! Once again you only show your lack of understanding. Then correct me. Show me by your amazing debating skills why Labor still hates the GST so much that it has never sought to make a single alteration to it, nevermind repeal it and now, with an increase in the GST under discussion, half the ALP is in support?

Show me by your amazing debating skills why Labor still hates the GST

If I get around the writing the book "Comprehension for Conservatives" I will send you a copy.

For your information Labor have not had any action against the GST in their policy since about 2003.

This fairly obviously does not mean that their original opposition to the GST was wrong in any way.

Labor's main opposition to the GST was in the unfair implementation of the tax. Obviously once it had been implemented a lot of Labor's original reasons for opposing the tax was gone. Labor had always supported the concept of a consumption tax but could never work out how it could be reasonable implemented, obviously reasonable implementation was never going to be an issue for the Liberals.

In 2003 Labor announced that it would be too costly and too difficult to unwind the GST. This position is not an indication of support for the tax or an indication that their original position was wrong in any way.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 11:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 8:34pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:41pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:24am: Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin. Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. I doubt that anyone in the ALP would agree with that. Then you would be wrong - as you so often are. If you had been right, there would be moves to abolish the GST, a policy that disappeared 10 years ago.  Labor like the GST. After all, it was their idea first! Once again you only show your lack of understanding. Then correct me. Show me by your amazing debating skills why Labor still hates the GST so much that it has never sought to make a single alteration to it, nevermind repeal it and now, with an increase in the GST under discussion, half the ALP is in support? Show me by your amazing debating skills why Labor still hates the GST If I get around the writing the book "Comprehension for Conservatives" I will send you a copy. For your information Labor have not had any action against the GST in their policy since about 2003. This fairly obviously does not mean that their original opposition to the GST was wrong in any way. Labor's main opposition to the GST was in the unfair implementation of the tax. Obviously once it had been implemented a lot of Labor's original reasons for opposing the tax was gone. Labor had always supported the concept of a consumption tax but could never work out how it could be reasonable implemented, obviously reasonable implementation was never going to be an issue for the Liberals. In 2003 Labor announced that it would be too costly and too difficult to unwind the GST. This position is not an indication of support for the tax or an indication that their original position was wrong in any way.

Wrong. Look at the Coalition and the carbon dioxide tax. They were against it from the outset and when they won office, they abolished it immediately. Labor had both the time and the means to get rid of the GST but chose not to. They simply want to use it as a wedge to divide voters and to create a scare campaign because they have no policies of their own other than to say "no, no, no!".

Didn't that get the abbott mob elected ... opposition, and not being labor?

The libs did it, then it's fair game for labor to copy.

Labor is only opposed to it as it sees it as a winner policy at the next election.

Similar to work Choices there will be a massive advertising campaign.

____ wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 8:39am:

Didn't that get the abbott mob elected ... opposition, and not being labor? The libs did it, then it's fair game for labor to copy.

It was a VERY rare day when Labor came up with a good policy or did something good for the country, hence the negativity.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27^th, 2016 at 11:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 8:34pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:41pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:24am: Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin. Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. I doubt that anyone in the ALP would agree with that. Then you would be wrong - as you so often are. If you had been right, there would be moves to abolish the GST, a policy that disappeared 10 years ago.  Labor like the GST. After all, it was their idea first! Once again you only show your lack of understanding. Then correct me. Show me by your amazing debating skills why Labor still hates the GST so much that it has never sought to make a single alteration to it, nevermind repeal it and now, with an increase in the GST under discussion, half the ALP is in support? Show me by your amazing debating skills why Labor still hates the GST If I get around the writing the book "Comprehension for Conservatives" I will send you a copy. For your information Labor have not had any action against the GST in their policy since about 2003. This fairly obviously does not mean that their original opposition to the GST was wrong in any way. Labor's main opposition to the GST was in the unfair implementation of the tax. Obviously once it had been implemented a lot of Labor's original reasons for opposing the tax was gone. Labor had always supported the concept of a consumption tax but could never work out how it could be reasonable implemented, obviously reasonable implementation was never going to be an issue for the Liberals. In 2003 Labor announced that it would be too costly and too difficult to unwind the GST. This position is not an indication of support for the tax or an indication that their original position was wrong in any way.

That was drivel. You rarely see any complaints about the GST from Labor at all. It was brilliantly implemented in a way the ALP could only dream of. Their complete lack of opposition to GST in any shape or form is a tacit admission that it is good policy. The fact that so many Labor heavy-weights are in support of the increase to 15% underlines that fact.

You are dead wrong.

Neither old party is geared for what is in the highest intent of the country and it's people ... it's all about jobs for it's boys, (and occasionally girls).

In that, Labor doesn't have popular leadership, it's behind in the polls, and the majority of the population decide their political alliance on election day on self interest and sound bites they have just heard.

A massive and unfair liberal party GST hike on everything will sway people. Question is, will it be enough to make labor competitive.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 8:44am:

Labor is only opposed to it as it sees it as a winner policy at the next election. Similar to work Choices there will be a massive advertising campaign.

Given the polls at the moment, it is hard to see why Labor thinks a GST scare campaign is going to work. Too many memories of workchoices and not enough idea of what is happening right now.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 9:31am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 11:28pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 8:34pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 6:41pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 4:30pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 1:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 27th, 2016 at 9:24am: Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. Now half of the ALP accepts that and sees the value of an increase to 15%. Now we get the see the ALP tear itself apart over the issue so that they can lose the next election by an even bigger margin. Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake. I doubt that anyone in the ALP would agree with that. Then you would be wrong - as you so often are. If you had been right, there would be moves to abolish the GST, a policy that disappeared 10 years ago.  Labor like the GST. After all, it was their idea first! Once again you only show your lack of understanding. Then correct me. Show me by your amazing debating skills why Labor still hates the GST so much that it has never sought to make a single alteration to it, nevermind repeal it and now, with an increase in the GST under discussion, half the ALP is in support? Show me by your amazing debating skills why Labor still hates the GST If I get around the writing the book "Comprehension for Conservatives" I will send you a copy. For your information Labor have not had any action against the GST in their policy since about 2003. This fairly obviously does not mean that their original opposition to the GST was wrong in any way. Labor's main opposition to the GST was in the unfair implementation of the tax. Obviously once it had been implemented a lot of Labor's original reasons for opposing the tax was gone. Labor had always supported the concept of a consumption tax but could never work out how it could be reasonable implemented, obviously reasonable implementation was never going to be an issue for the Liberals. In 2003 Labor announced that it would be too costly and too difficult to unwind the GST. This position is not an indication of support for the tax or an indication that their original position was wrong in any way. That was drivel. You rarely see any complaints about the GST from Labor at all. It was brilliantly implemented in a way the ALP could only dream of. Their complete lack of opposition to GST in any shape or form is a tacit admission that it is good policy. The fact that so many Labor heavy-weights are in support of the increase to 15% underlines that fact. You are dead wrong.

I will try to rush the book through for you, it may help.


Quote:

Labor has long ago recognised that their opposition to the GST was a mistake.

Quote:

is a tacit admission that it is good policy

Now it is a tacit admission when you started they were all openly declaring it was a mistake.


Quote:

You rarely see any complaints about the GST from Labor at all.

Yes but that is irrelevant - that has no relevance to them opposing it for the correct reasons from 1997 to 2003 and does not show that they have decided that they were ever wrong.


Quote:

It was brilliantly implemented

Yes the worse off paid the price and it almost put us into recession with 2 quarters of negative growth, we scraped out of recession by the skin of our teeth mainly due to a dodgy set of numbers.


Quote:

Labor heavy-weights are in support of the increase to 15% underlines that fact.

Not many Labor people support it who are not state premiers looking to get their hands on the cash that they need because the federal government ripped around $80 B out of their health and education budgets.

They were backed into a corner by the Liberals with nowhere else to go.

There was no recession or negative growth you twit. Inflation spiked briefly because of price rises but that is all. Labor opposed the GST in 2001 because they felt duty bound not to admit how good it was. By 2004, it was obvious that it was working well AND POPULAR they dumped their opposition entirely.

What is it with you and your opposition to the GST? welfare was all increased and income taxes cut to compensate so that no one was worse off. You deny that of course, but the facts dont support it.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 11:38am:

There was no recession or negative growth you twit. Inflation spiked briefly because of price rises but that is all. Labor opposed the GST in 2001 because they felt duty bound not to admit how good it was. By 2004, it was obvious that it was working well AND POPULAR they dumped their opposition entirely. What is it with you and your opposition to the GST? welfare was all increased and income taxes cut to compensate so that no one was worse off. You deny that of course, but the facts dont support it.

Quote:

The downturn of 2000-01 was comparatively mild, with unemployment rising just one percentage point (to 7.0%). The impact of the most recent downturn was more pronounced with the unemployment rate rising from 4.1% to 5.8%, .................................... ....................... While the rate of part-time employment has grown steadily throughout the past three decades, a shift to part-time employment was a defining feature of the downturn between July 2000 and July 2001 when around half of the decline in full-time employment (from 44.3% to 42.7%) was offset by an increase in the proportion of people employed part time (up 0.7 percentage points to 16.5%). Less than one-third of the fall in full-time employment was accounted for by increased unemployment. The downturn between July 2008 and July 2009 was similar in magnitude to that of 2000-01, with the proportion of people employed full time falling from 45% to 43%. However, unlike the previous downturn, it was increasing unemployment, as well as growing part-time employment, that accounted for the bulk of the decline.

Quote:

Indeed, Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens observed recently that "but for the vagaries of quarterly national accounting we might well have called the end of 2000 a recession; we would have called the end of 2008 one, in fact I would call it that ... I think we had a recession then, but it was a brief one. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/the-lessons-we-have-learned-on-recession-20141205-120vpw.html#ixzz3yV3LZT4PFollow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Indeed, Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens observed

You should be proud of yourself, you know more about it than the governor of the reserve bank.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 11:38am:

There was no recession or negative growth you twit. Inflation spiked briefly because of price rises but that is all. Labor opposed the GST in 2001 because they felt duty bound not to admit how good it was. By 2004, it was obvious that it was working well AND POPULAR they dumped their opposition entirely. What is it with you and your opposition to the GST? welfare was all increased and income taxes cut to compensate so that no one was worse off. You deny that of course, but the facts dont support it.

Labor opposed the GST in 2001 because they felt duty bound not to admit how good it was. By 2004,


Still irrelevant and I would bet good money you have no link to support this fantasy in any way.

What is it with you and your opposition to the GST?

Who ever said that I am opposed to the GST, I am just against you saying things which are not correct.

I am 100% against a dishonest increase to the GST done as the first option, IMO it should be very much a last resort.

Remember that this is the tax that Tony Abbott committed the Liberals to not increase as an election promise.

If you recall the Leaders debates from 2013 you find at the time the claim that Abbott won several of them if you replay them today you get to hear tony Abbott sprout about 3 hrs of consecutive lies of which not increasing the GST was just one.

IMO Labor should hold a high level meeting and finish with a united view to oppose any change to the GST.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 11:48am:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:38am: There was no recession or negative growth you twit. Inflation spiked briefly because of price rises but that is all. Labor opposed the GST in 2001 because they felt duty bound not to admit how good it was. By 2004, it was obvious that it was working well AND POPULAR they dumped their opposition entirely. What is it with you and your opposition to the GST? welfare was all increased and income taxes cut to compensate so that no one was worse off. You deny that of course, but the facts dont support it. Quote: The downturn of 2000-01 was comparatively mild, with unemployment rising just one percentage point (to 7.0%). The impact of the most recent downturn was more pronounced with the unemployment rate rising from 4.1% to 5.8%, .................................... ....................... While the rate of part-time employment has grown steadily throughout the past three decades, a shift to part-time employment was a defining feature of the downturn between July 2000 and July 2001 when around half of the decline in full-time employment (from 44.3% to 42.7%) was offset by an increase in the proportion of people employed part time (up 0.7 percentage points to 16.5%). Less than one-third of the fall in full-time employment was accounted for by increased unemployment. The downturn between July 2008 and July 2009 was similar in magnitude to that of 2000-01, with the proportion of people employed full time falling from 45% to 43%. However, unlike the previous downturn, it was increasing unemployment, as well as growing part-time employment, that accounted for the bulk of the decline. [quote]Indeed, Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens observed recently that "but for the vagaries of quarterly national accounting we might well have called the end of 2000 a recession; we would have called the end of 2008 one, in fact I would call it that ... I think we had a recession then, but it was a brief one. Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/the-lessons-we-have-learned-on-recession-20141205-120vpw.html#ixzz3yV3LZT4PFollow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Indeed, Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens observed

You should be proud of yourself, you know more about it than the governor of the reserve bank.[/quote]


OPINIONS dont count. Recessions are two quarters of negative growth. Until such time as that criteria is fulfilled, there is no recession. If you are going to define it subjectively and by guesswork, then the word loses all meaning.

BTW Glenn Stevens has been wrong far more often than right. What was he and the RBA doing as the GFC that everyone saw coming (except him)? That's right. RAISING INTEREST RATES to slow the economy.

Not exactly a clever move.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:01pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 11:38am: There was no recession or negative growth you twit. Inflation spiked briefly because of price rises but that is all. Labor opposed the GST in 2001 because they felt duty bound not to admit how good it was. By 2004, it was obvious that it was working well AND POPULAR they dumped their opposition entirely. What is it with you and your opposition to the GST? welfare was all increased and income taxes cut to compensate so that no one was worse off. You deny that of course, but the facts dont support it. Labor opposed the GST in 2001 because they felt duty bound not to admit how good it was. By 2004, Still irrelevant and I would bet good money you have no link to support this fantasy in any way. What is it with you and your opposition to the GST? Who ever said that I am opposed to the GST, I am just against you saying things which are not correct. I am 100% against a dishonest increase to the GST done as the first option, IMO it should be very much a last resort. Remember that this is the tax that Tony Abbott committed the Liberals to not increase as an election promise. If you recall the Leaders debates from 2013 you find at the time the claim that Abbott won several of them if you replay them today you get to hear tony Abbott sprout about 3 hrs of consecutive lies of which not increasing the GST was just one.

As a labor lover with a fond memory of the carbon tax election promise breach, do you really think you are in a position to say such a thing? Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election - something you naturally refuse to accept for your own inner-demon reasons.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 9:31am:

You rarely see any complaints about the GST from Labor at all.

so that means they approve?  :D :D :D

Did you see any complaints about right wing nut jobs? does that mean they approve of them too?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:54pm:

Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election -

wrong  ... he said he would take any CHANGES to the GST to an election  ...

and he then proceeded to  change the GST by applying it to internet purchases. :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:54pm: Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election - wrong  ... he said he would take any CHANGES to the GST to an election  ... and he then proceeded to  change the GST by applying it to internet purchases. :D :D :D

Why not just accept already that nobody even wants the GST?  Let alone any rise in it.... not an election issue - only another imposition on the people.

John Smith wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:54pm: Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election - wrong  ... he said he would take any CHANGES to the GST to an election  ... and he then proceeded to  change the GST by applying it to internet purchases. :D :D :D

Hey stupid. Yes, you. That STILL hasnt happened and if it does, it wont until after the next election. AS promised.

You really are incredibly ignorant of the world around you.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 2:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:59pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:54pm: Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election - wrong  ... he said he would take any CHANGES to the GST to an election  ... and he then proceeded to  change the GST by applying it to internet purchases. :D :D :D Why not just accept already that nobody even wants the GST?  Let alone any rise in it.... not an election issue - only another imposition on the people.

We could just get rid of the aged pension and the GST all at the same time. Fair swap. You okay with that?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 12:54pm:

Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election - something you naturally refuse to accept for your own inner-demon reasons.

Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election

Bet you can not find a link to a pre election story that supports this view.

This is a post election revision meant to change the fact of what he was actually saying.

His guarantee was an unambiguous no increase to the GST with no strings attached.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dovAyO4Ejs

Dnarever wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 6:45pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:54pm: Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election - something you naturally refuse to accept for your own inner-demon reasons. Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election Bet you can not find a link to a pre election story that supports this view. This is a post election revision meant to change the fact of what he was actually saying. His guarantee was an unambiguous no increase to the GST with no strings attached.

You are just incredible. Stupid, gullible, stubborn and utterly ignorant.

You only ever hear what you want to hear. You have a filter over your mind that prevents the access of facts and truth.

What he said about the GST being taken to an election is fact and reported by many commentators and media at the time, which was why there was no massive call of 'foul' from Labor when the GST was included in the Tax Review.

You will not believe that. You cannot believe that. It violates you beliefs and therefore no fact will ever be accepted.

The difference between you and Monk is not that much. He is a fool too.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 6:57pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 6:45pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 12:54pm: Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election - something you naturally refuse to accept for your own inner-demon reasons. Especially since he said that a GST rise would be taken to an election Bet you can not find a link to a pre election story that supports this view. This is a post election revision meant to change the fact of what he was actually saying. His guarantee was an unambiguous no increase to the GST with no strings attached. You are just incredible. Stupid, gullible, stubborn and utterly ignorant. You only ever hear what you want to hear. You have a filter over your mind that prevents the access of facts and truth. What he said about the GST being taken to an election is fact and reported by many commentators and media at the time, which was why there was no massive call of 'foul' from Labor when the GST was included in the Tax Review. You will not believe that. You cannot believe that. It violates you beliefs and therefore no fact will ever be accepted. The difference between you and Monk is not that much. He is a fool too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dovAyO4Ejs


Quote:

What he said about the GST being taken to an election is fact and reported by many commentators and media at the time,

Yet strangely you can't find a link to even one.


Quote:

You are just incredible. Stupid, gullible, stubborn and utterly ignorant

.

Yes the obligatory stream of insults.


Quote:

which was why there was no massive call of 'foul' from Labor when the GST was included in the Tax Review.

Your kidding right ? Labor went nuts about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdtpd8Ah2-w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc-Ch-T78h0


Hay Maria how is it going with one link to support what you are saying ? There seems to be any number of examples out there with the words coming straight out of Tony's mouth that don't support your view.

Longy just makes stuff up.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 7:14pm:

Maria how is it going with one link to support what you are saying ?

The 2013 election campaign? Remind me did the Coalition implement a GST increase after the 2013 election? Not that I have heard.

Will there be a GST increase in a 2016 election campaign? Who knows.

lee wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 9:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 7:14pm: Maria how is it going with one link to support what you are saying ? The 2013 election campaign? Remind me did the Coalition implement a GST increase after the 2013 election? Not that I have heard. Will there be a GST increase in a 2016 election campaign? Who knows.

Its like trying to explain it to a retard.

lee wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 9:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 7:14pm: Maria how is it going with one link to support what you are saying ? The 2013 election campaign? Remind me did the Coalition implement a GST increase after the 2013 election? Not that I have heard. Will there be a GST increase in a 2016 election campaign? Who knows.

But no link to support what Maria has said I notice ? If you want to post your statement why attach it to a question it is not relevant to ?

Do you think it honest to go to an election with a blanket promise to not increase to GST and to then start lobbying, pushing and planning to increase the GST virtually from day 1.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 7:54am:

lee wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 9:12pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 7:14pm: Maria how is it going with one link to support what you are saying ? The 2013 election campaign? Remind me did the Coalition implement a GST increase after the 2013 election? Not that I have heard. Will there be a GST increase in a 2016 election campaign? Who knows. Its like trying to explain it to a retard.

I support a very large percentage of what I say . You got that link yet or do you acknowledge that you were wrong again ?

lee wrote on Jan 28^th, 2016 at 9:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 28th, 2016 at 7:14pm: Maria how is it going with one link to support what you are saying ? Will there be a GST increase in a 2016 election campaign? Who knows.

The Liberals 2013 election commitment was that there would not be.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 9:33am:

The Liberals 2013 election commitment was that there would not be.

Will the 2016 liberal election commitment be the same?

Are you saying politicians should never change their minds?

How about KRudd's "root and branch" Henry Tax Review? Oh, don't look at GST, it is merely a twig on the branch?

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 10:56am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 9:33am: The Liberals 2013 election commitment was that there would not be. Will the 2016 liberal election commitment be the same? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? How about KRudd's "root and branch" Henry Tax Review? Oh, don't look at GST, it is merely a twig on the branch?

Are you saying politicians should never change their minds?

There is a significant difference between a change of mind and the expedient change of what they say.

The Liberals didn't change their mind they lied in order to improve their election chances, had they changed their mind it would have taken longer than a few days or weeks following the election.

When Abbott committed to not changing the GST and was asked if it referred to this term he kept repeating no change to the GST.

Abbott had committed to not changing the GST for more than 1 term in the leaders debate.

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 10:56am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 9:33am: The Liberals 2013 election commitment was that there would not be. Will the 2016 liberal election commitment be the same? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? How about KRudd's "root and branch" Henry Tax Review? Oh, don't look at GST, it is merely a twig on the branch?

Are you saying politicians should never change their minds?

Reminiscent of the original GST where Howard had promised to never ever introduce a GST. The commitment lasted about 4 months after being elected.

People made the excuse that he just changed his mind, fact is that he was a GST supporter for his whole life except for the 12 month period where the Liberal party said he could not be leader if he didn't kill any discussion about a GST stone dead. Howard never changed his mind just what he was allowed to say.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 1:12pm:

lee wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 10:56am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 9:33am: The Liberals 2013 election commitment was that there would not be. Will the 2016 liberal election commitment be the same? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? How about KRudd's "root and branch" Henry Tax Review? Oh, don't look at GST, it is merely a twig on the branch? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? Reminiscent of the original GST where Howard had promised to never ever introduce a GST. The commitment lasted about 4 months after being elected. People made the excuse that he just changed his mind, fact is that he was a GST supporter for his whole life except for the 12 month period where the Liberal party said he could not be leader if he didn't kill any discussion about a GST stone dead. Howard never changed his mind just what he was allowed to say.

WHY DO YOU LIE DNA

However, before the 1998 election, Howard proposed a GST that would replace all existing sales taxes, as well as applying to all goods and services. At the election, the Howard Government suffered a swing against it of 4.61% at the election, achieving a two-party-preferred vote of only 49.02%, compared with Labor on 50.98%. Nevertheless, the incumbent government retained a majority of seats in the lower house and Howard described the election win as a "mandate for the GST". Lacking a Senate majority, and with Labor opposed to the introduction of the GST, the government turned to the minor parties such as the Australian Democrats to gain the necessary support to get the necessary legislation through the Senate.

A prominent selling point of the legislation was that all the revenue raised by the GST would be distributed to the states. In 1999 an agreement was reached with the state and territory governments that their various duties, levies and taxes on consumption would be removed over time, with the consequent budget shortfall being replaced by GST income distributed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Furthermore, federally-levied personal income tax and company tax was reduced to offset the GST. >:(

bwood1946 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 1:18pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 1:12pm: lee wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 10:56am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 9:33am: The Liberals 2013 election commitment was that there would not be. Will the 2016 liberal election commitment be the same? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? How about KRudd's "root and branch" Henry Tax Review? Oh, don't look at GST, it is merely a twig on the branch? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? Reminiscent of the original GST where Howard had promised to never ever introduce a GST. The commitment lasted about 4 months after being elected. People made the excuse that he just changed his mind, fact is that he was a GST supporter for his whole life except for the 12 month period where the Liberal party said he could not be leader if he didn't kill any discussion about a GST stone dead. Howard never changed his mind just what he was allowed to say. WHY DO YOU LIE DNA However, before the 1998 election, Howard proposed a GST that would replace all existing sales taxes, as well as applying to all goods and services. At the election, the Howard Government suffered a swing against it of 4.61% at the election, achieving a two-party-preferred vote of only 49.02%, compared with Labor on 50.98%. Nevertheless, the incumbent government retained a majority of seats in the lower house and Howard described the election win as a "mandate for the GST". Lacking a Senate majority, and with Labor opposed to the introduction of the GST, the government turned to the minor parties such as the Australian Democrats to gain the necessary support to get the necessary legislation through the Senate. A prominent selling point of the legislation was that all the revenue raised by the GST would be distributed to the states. In 1999 an agreement was reached with the state and territory governments that their various duties, levies and taxes on consumption would be removed over time, with the consequent budget shortfall being replaced by GST income distributed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Furthermore, federally-levied personal income tax and company tax was reduced to offset the GST. >:(

You understand that calling me a liar and then posting absolutely irrelevant information makes you look rather silly ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 11:19am:

When Abbott committed to not changing the GST and was asked if it referred to this term he kept repeating no change to the GST. Abbott had committed to not changing the GST for more than 1 term in the leaders debate.

Actually all he did was reiterate that he had no plans to increase GST. Didn't mention 1 term, 2,3, carry it on.

And is Abbott still PM? Can't a new leader have a new policy?

BTW all your lovely videos have disappeared.

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 3:02pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 11:19am: When Abbott committed to not changing the GST and was asked if it referred to this term he kept repeating no change to the GST. Abbott had committed to not changing the GST for more than 1 term in the leaders debate. Actually all he did was reiterate that he had no plans to increase GST. Didn't mention 1 term, 2,3, carry it on. And is Abbott still PM? Can't a new leader have a new policy?

Actually all he did was reiterate that he had no plans to increase GST. Didn't mention 1 term, 2,3,


Yes when asked if his commitment covered only one term or more he continued to reiterate no increase in the GST.

And is Abbott still PM? Can't a new leader have a new policy?

I would think a government are locked into the policies that they promised in the election campaign irrespective of how they shuffle the deck chairs on the titanic.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 3:06pm:

I would think a government are locked into the policies that they promised in the election campaign irrespective of how they shuffle the deck chairs on the titanic. Posted by: lee  Mark & Quote Quote

So nothing like the change between Rudd and Gillard on the CPRS and the Clean Energy Bill?

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 3:20pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 3:06pm: I would think a government are locked into the policies that they promised in the election campaign irrespective of how they shuffle the deck chairs on the titanic. Posted by: lee  Mark & Quote Quote       So nothing like the change between Rudd and Gillard on the CPRS and the Clean Energy Bill?

I would need your spin on those things to see what you are talking about.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 5:05pm:

wo

CPRS was to start with $10/tonne. The Clean Energy Bill started at $23/tonne.

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 5:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 5:05pm: wo CPRS was to start with $10/tonne. The Clean Energy Bill started at $23/tonne.

Are they not 2 completely different policies several years an election and broken promise apart ?

I don't see any connection between the two options the first was a trading scheme sunk by the Liberals in conjunction with the greens and the Clean energy bill was the result of a deal done with the greens following the 2010 election for a fixed price scheme. Two completely different mechanisms.

Well perhaps you like better MRRT1 and MRRT2?

Then of course the about turn on asylum seekers - East Timor and Malaysia Solutions.

Different policies from different leaders.

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 10:56am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 9:33am: The Liberals 2013 election commitment was that there would not be. Will the 2016 liberal election commitment be the same? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? How about KRudd's "root and branch" Henry Tax Review? Oh, don't look at GST, it is merely a twig on the branch?

Not to mention that of the 120+ recommendations, Labor took heed of just 4 minor ones and ignored the rest.

If you want tax reform you need a party with comittment to principle. Labor doesnt do that very well and Rudd was perhaps the worst of all time.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 11:19am:

lee wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 10:56am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 9:33am: The Liberals 2013 election commitment was that there would not be. Will the 2016 liberal election commitment be the same? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? How about KRudd's "root and branch" Henry Tax Review? Oh, don't look at GST, it is merely a twig on the branch? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? There is a significant difference between a change of mind and the expedient change of what they say. The Liberals didn't change their mind they lied in order to improve their election chances, had they changed their mind it would have taken longer than a few days or weeks following the election. When Abbott committed to not changing the GST and was asked if it referred to this term he kept repeating no change to the GST. Abbott had committed to not changing the GST for more than 1 term in the leaders debate.

How exactly to you say that with a straight face after the EXPEDIENT Gillard carbon tax promise breach - and not years after the election but THREE DAYS.

We've been over that a zillion times and I'm not coming into the obvious comparison with Abbot.

I simply ask this.  Is it better to break a promise three, or four days after an election?  What is the time lapse at which it is acceptable, melielongtime?

Aussie wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:23pm:

I simply ask this.  Is it better to break a promise three, or four days after an election?  What is the time lapse at which it is acceptable, melielongtime?

Or go to an election, and possibly, with an increase the GST mooted. Wow. Let me think about that.

Aussie wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:23pm:

We've been over that a zillion times and I'm not coming into the obvious comparison with Abbot. I simply ask this.  Is it better to break a promise three, or four days after an election?  What is the time lapse at which it is acceptable, melielongtime?

THREE DAYS makes it rather obvious that the original promise was bogus - a lie if you will. It was a promise made with zero intention of being fulfilled. Two years down the track you can make all kind of explanations eg changed circumstances, but what changes over a weekend to cause a major policy breach? NOTHING.

Gillard lied and it destroyed her government.

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 6:23pm: I simply ask this.  Is it better to break a promise three, or four days after an election?  What is the time lapse at which it is acceptable, melielongtime? Or go to an election, and possibly, with an increase the GST mooted. Wow. Let me think about that.

I think that most people would consider that ANY policy, if taken to an election is a reasonable and responsible decision. If not, why do we have elections?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 6:23pm: We've been over that a zillion times and I'm not coming into the obvious comparison with Abbot. I simply ask this.  Is it better to break a promise three, or four days after an election?  What is the time lapse at which it is acceptable, melielongtime? THREE DAYS makes it rather obvious that the original promise was bogus - a lie if you will. It was a promise made with zero intention of being fulfilled. Two years down the track you can make all kind of explanations eg changed circumstances, but what changes over a weekend to cause a major policy breach? NOTHING. Gillard lied and it destroyed her government.

You are kidding me.  Perhaps you ought re-think that.

Aussie wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 6:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 6:23pm: We've been over that a zillion times and I'm not coming into the obvious comparison with Abbot. I simply ask this.  Is it better to break a promise three, or four days after an election?  What is the time lapse at which it is acceptable, melielongtime? THREE DAYS makes it rather obvious that the original promise was bogus - a lie if you will. It was a promise made with zero intention of being fulfilled. Two years down the track you can make all kind of explanations eg changed circumstances, but what changes over a weekend to cause a major policy breach? NOTHING. Gillard lied and it destroyed her government. You are kidding me.  Perhaps you ought re-think that.

You are going to excuse the Carbon Tax promise breach. Do your best. I've heard them all before.

Nah.  You asked what changed over a weekend.  I recommended you re-think that so you can answer your own question about the outcome of the relevant election.  Let us know when you've done that.

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

Well perhaps you like better MRRT1 and MRRT2? Then of course the about turn on asylum seekers - East Timor and Malaysia Solutions. Different policies from different leaders.

Everyone has been a disgrace on asylum seeker policy however in terms of the point you put I see no point in it at all.

After Malaysia was blocked they negotiated east Timor ? The change didn't relate to different leaders it related to one option not being available and setting another equally disgraceful policy instead.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 6:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 11:19am: lee wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 10:56am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 9:33am: The Liberals 2013 election commitment was that there would not be. Will the 2016 liberal election commitment be the same? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? How about KRudd's "root and branch" Henry Tax Review? Oh, don't look at GST, it is merely a twig on the branch? Are you saying politicians should never change their minds? There is a significant difference between a change of mind and the expedient change of what they say. The Liberals didn't change their mind they lied in order to improve their election chances, had they changed their mind it would have taken longer than a few days or weeks following the election. When Abbott committed to not changing the GST and was asked if it referred to this term he kept repeating no change to the GST. Abbott had committed to not changing the GST for more than 1 term in the leaders debate. How exactly to you say that with a straight face after the EXPEDIENT Gillard carbon tax promise breach - and not years after the election but THREE DAYS.

I'm sure we spent 3 years disagreeing about the fixed carbon price no point in derailing this topic on increasing the GST over it.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

lee wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 5:52pm: Well perhaps you like better MRRT1 and MRRT2? Then of course the about turn on asylum seekers - East Timor and Malaysia Solutions. Different policies from different leaders. Everyone has been a disgrace on asylum seeker policy however in terms of the point you put I see no point in it at all. After Malaysia was blocked they negotiated east Timor ? The change didn't relate to different leaders it related to one option not being available and setting another equally disgraceful policy instead.

Oh, oh but that's different. ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 10:09pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 8:34pm: lee wrote on Jan 29th, 2016 at 5:52pm: Well perhaps you like better MRRT1 and MRRT2? Then of course the about turn on asylum seekers - East Timor and Malaysia Solutions. Different policies from different leaders. Everyone has been a disgrace on asylum seeker policy however in terms of the point you put I see no point in it at all. After Malaysia was blocked they negotiated east Timor ? The change didn't relate to different leaders it related to one option not being available and setting another equally disgraceful policy instead. Oh, oh but that's different. ;D ;D ;D

Yes but only because it really is very different as in no similarities at all or not the same thing.

It came from a forced change and not a desired change or a lie that was really no change at all.

i.e. Malaysia was eventually ruled out when it was blocked by the courts.

The Liberals started pushing for a GST increase because it had always been their preferred option they just didn't know how to get away with it so they lied in the election campaign.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 30^th, 2016 at 5:52am:

Yes but only because it really is very different as in no similarities at all or not the same thing. It came from a forced change and not a desired change or a lie that was really no change at all. i.e. Malaysia was eventually ruled out when it was blocked by the courts. The Liberals started pushing for a GST increase because it had always been their preferred option they just didn't know how to get away with it so they lied in the election campaign.

Neither the Timor or Malaysian solution were part of KRudd. So the Timor solution was a desired change, although Timor said No. That in turn forced the attempted Malysian Solution.

lee wrote on Jan 30^th, 2016 at 3:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 30th, 2016 at 5:52am: Yes but only because it really is very different as in no similarities at all or not the same thing. It came from a forced change and not a desired change or a lie that was really no change at all. i.e. Malaysia was eventually ruled out when it was blocked by the courts. The Liberals started pushing for a GST increase because it had always been their preferred option they just didn't know how to get away with it so they lied in the election campaign. Neither the Timor or Malaysian solution were part of KRudd. So the Timor solution was a desired change, although Timor said No. That in turn forced the attempted Malysian Solution.

I was thinking you meant PNG - anyway still no difference, it  is still very much not the same thing, throw all three in if you like no difference.

Aussie wrote on Jan 29^th, 2016 at 7:18pm:

Nah.  You asked what changed over a weekend.  I recommended you re-think that so you can answer your own question about the outcome of the relevant election.  Let us know when you've done that.

Sounds like you are working your way up to an excuse for breaking a significant election promise virtually right after polls closed.

I look forward to your logic on that matter and trust you might discuss ethics and integrity while you are at it.