Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Political Parties >> Sustainability Party of Australia >> Sustainability Party of Australia
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177228122

Message started by freediver on Apr 22nd, 2007 at 5:48pm

Title: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 22nd, 2007 at 5:48pm
What do you all think?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/sustainability-party.html

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by pender on Apr 22nd, 2007 at 7:11pm
noble idea, all i can say is dont give up cuz its really hard, it takes a long time for anything to happen.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 22nd, 2007 at 8:00pm
Kangaroo farming and breeding programs should be looked into. Kangaroos are a menace to farmers and I think we should treat them like cattle and sheep. They were a food source for indigenous people there is no reasons why they can't be a food source for us all.

I'm sure Canada chops a maple tree or two down.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 22nd, 2007 at 10:23pm
I'm in.

On some of your ideas anyway. The other ones we can discuss.  :)

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 9:09am
Sprint could you please PM me your email address. The first thing I need to do is start an email list of everyone who is interested.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 12:09pm
The problem I foresee with this is that your answer to everything is TAX. Making everybody accountable via their pockets will only build corruption. A socially aware program would have a better effect but, this is just my opinion.

I see that SprintCyclist is quick to jump on board but you are missing many factors like the effect of your policies on inflation and interest rates.

I understand that if your not wealthy you don't want the wealthy to get any wealthier. That's called jeolousy. I personally support a flat tax right accross the board like GST (being an advocate of equal rights). This way incentives to grow are not restricted. The problem is that the wealthy need to put back into society, at their own choice, what they take out. Maybe if you said that they will have an extra 10% tax on them if they don't show 10% of their profits going back into society via education, health, employment etc. (just an idea). This way they can feel good about paying money out because they have a choice of where it is going.


Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 12:20pm
It is not an answer to everything, only a select set of problems, though it is a set which is becoming more important. It will not lead to corruption any more than arbitrary taxation does.

I want to avoid changes like a flat tax that are considered 'regressive.' That is, changes that increase the wealth gap between rich and poor (or that do the opposite). That turns it into a strongly partisan issue which would divide a lot of potential supporters. I am trying to stick to issues that traditional supporters of both major parties and both sides of politics can see the benefit of.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 12:38pm
But how are the wealthy going to see benefits to a higher tax for themselves when, as you stated previously, 99% are wealthy? ;D

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 12:58pm
The idea is to keep it neutral, so that neither the wealthy nor the poor face an increased overall/average tax burden. It is a change in what is taxed, not a change in who is taxed.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 1:19pm
You state;

Tax reductions will be targeted at low income earners in order to avoid regressive shifts in the tax burden (ie shifts that increase the wealth gap by benefiting the wealthy more than the poor).

This means the wealthy are paying more tax. Considering the true wealthy are only a small percentage in the high bracket of income tax, what detrimental effect will lowering of taxes to the majority have? Obviously the government needs to get money from somewhere to pay for our services? maybe you plan to tax businesses higher to compensate?


Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 1:24pm
No, it does not mean the wealthy are paying more tax. Shifting the tax burden from income to greenhouse emissions would increase the tax burden on the poor, unless the income tax reductions were targetted at the poor. If you increase the tax free threshhold it targets the tax reduction at the poor, but the rich also pay less income tax.

Obviously the government needs to get money from somewhere to pay for our services? maybe you plan to tax businesses higher to compensate?

I plan to tax greenhouse emissions.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 3:05pm
Please explain how shifting the tax burden from income to greenhouse emmissions would increase the tax burden on the poor?

By taxing greenhouse emmissions just adds another cost to business. Businesses who exist in an industry which is competitive on price will have to find other means to cut costs. Keeping in mind that production and increasing production is what businesses are all about and your concept would decrease production due to having an extra tax thrown at them. This would see a businesses closing, businesses relocating overseas and increase of unemployment.

Most of the wealthy are wealthy because they own successful businesses, or atleast own shares in successful businesses. I feel that what you suggest would only cripple our industries.

Your proposal to put the burden on business's wont help you get business backing. Most parties of today would be nowhere if they didn't have the financial backing of business.

A greenhouse emmissions tax needs to be offset, not in income tax but in other taxes that business pays like corporate tax. Then you will recieve applaud from the business district and it won't stifle growth, in fact it will do the opposite and create business wealth, by way of business saving programs,  not individual wealth (more incentive to keep the money in the business for savings instead of paying directors/owners an unneeded high income to escape corporate tax).

I have used corporate tax but I may actually mean company tax, I cannot remember exactly what it's called but I'm sure you will get the gist of what I am talking about.

You need to ask yourself, what is more important, a few extra dollars in peoples pocket or job security?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 3:33pm
Please explain how shifting the tax burden from income to greenhouse emmissions would increase the tax burden on the poor?

It's like a switch from income tax to GST. It would tend to tax everyone at closer to the same rate than income tax, where the rate increases with income.

By taxing greenhouse emmissions just adds another cost to business. Businesses who exist in an industry which is competitive on price will have to find other means to cut costs. Keeping in mind that production and increasing production is what businesses are all about and your concept would decrease production due to having an extra tax thrown at them. This would see a businesses closing, businesses relocating overseas and increase of unemployment.

Businesses would lower wages where necessary:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q2

Offsetting it with a reduction in company tax could be reasonable, but the income tax reduction for low income earners would be more netural in terms of the distribution of the tax burden between rich and poor. The reason is that an emissions tax is effectively a consumption tax, whereas the company tax is a tax on profit. Company taxes are not passed on to the consumer. Emissions taxes are. Company taxes reduce the return on investment for the company's investors. They cannot pass this cost on because that would make them uncompetitive. An emissions tax will be passed on. For example, if you tax petrol, it makes no difference whether you charge the tax to the fuel company or the end consumer, the end consumer pays the higher price.

Another problem is that there is a lot of interaction between company tax and income tax. If some tax has already been charged on profits, investors can count that towards the income tax which they pay on profits. If you reduce company tax, the investors just have to pay tax when they register the profit as income. I think the only people who escape this are foreigners. You would be giving them a tax break. You may end up effectively subsidising foreign owned businesses.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 3:39pm
Keep in mind that the goal is to reduce some economic activities. Some sectors of the economy will shrink slightly (coal fired power stations, petrol from fossil fuels). Other sectors will grow.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 4:19pm
The first home buyers grant is another handout that should go:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Not-all-first-homeowners-need-grant/2007/04/23/1177180548064.html

Releasing its plan to make the housing market fairer, National Shelter said the grant was working against low income households by artificially pushing up house prices.

"The first homeowners' grant provides valued assistance to many younger households struggling to get a foothold in the housing market," the paper says.

"However, because it is not means tested, it also subsidises many people who don't need it, and many believe it has an overall inflationary effect on the housing market, which ultimately makes it self-defeating."

Looks like the coalition is gearing up for more handouts this election:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-cashed-up-for-election-promises/2007/04/23/1177180515111.html

The federal government has an additional $2.3 billion available for pre-election promises on top of an estimated $12 billion surplus from this year's budget.

The extra funding exists in government discretionary spending programs, which have yet to be revealed, Fairfax newspapers report.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 4:25pm
Exactly right, businesses would lower wages to stay competitive and of course this would be the first step to the decline of that business. It also would make a mockery to the individual with the income tax reduction because he would be no better off and probably have even less job security.

Company tax is a tax on net profit which forces companies to spend and pay extravagant director fees to beat the tax man. If company tax was reduced to the same percentage as income tax then companies would more likely create saving plans with their net gain which is good for the whole economy of this country. This in effect would help with decreasing of interest rates due to less spending and debt because the overal savings of the country would increase dramatically giving us an even more secure future.

freediver stated
Quote:
...if you tax petrol, it makes no difference whether you charge the tax to the fuel company or the end consumer, the end consumer pays the higher price.


It actually does make a difference. By taxing the fuel company you force them to cut costs, cut wages, increase production or increasing prices. Generally they will do all 4, this way dispursing the extra burden right throughout their business model with minimum noticeable effect to the end consumer. By taxing the end consumer direct doesn't allow dispursement of the tax. It is 100% payed by the end consumer. The end consumers only option is to buy less.



Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 4:36pm
Exactly right, businesses would lower wages to stay competitive and of course this would be the first step to the decline of that business.

Not necessarily. All businesses would face some rpessure to reduce wages. Some would become less competitive in the employee market - the ones you want to decline.

It also would make a mockery to the individual with the income tax reduction because he would be no better off and probably have even less job security.

The goal is not to make people better off. People won't have more to spend because income taxes are reduced. It will be offset by an increase in price in some goods and some decrease in wages. As some industries shrink and some grow there would obviously be less job security in the shrinking industries and more in the growing ones.

If company tax was reduced to the same percentage as income tax

It's 30% isn't it? That is, less than the marginal rate for most investors.

By taxing the fuel company you force them to cut costs, cut wages, increase production or increasing prices.

No, production decreases. Competition forces them to cut costs. There will be competiton before and after the new tax.

Generally they will do all 4, this way dispursing the extra burden right throughout their business model with minimum noticeable effect to the end consumer. By taxing the end consumer direct doesn't allow dispursement of the tax. It is 100% payed by the end consumer. The end consumers only option is to buy less.

Wrong. Ask an economist about this if you don't believe me. Please.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 4:47pm
I have added a policy on the dodgy first home owner scheme.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 6:36pm

freediver wrote on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 4:19pm:
The first home buyers grant is another handout that should go:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Not-all-first-homeowners-need-grant/2007/04/23/1177180548064.html

Releasing its plan to make the housing market fairer, National Shelter said the grant was working against low income households by artificially pushing up house prices.

"The first homeowners' grant provides valued assistance to many younger households struggling to get a foothold in the housing market," the paper says.

"However, because it is not means tested, it also subsidises many people who don't need it, and many believe it has an overall inflationary effect on the housing market, which ultimately makes it self-defeating."


An overall inflation rate effect? If it wasn't for the first home owners grant the building industry would not have taken off in the first place. A bit like the baby bonus. As soon as people were given an opportunity they embraced it creating activity within the sectors. Activity creates activity.

Freediver you seem to be attacking all the good things that the Howard government has implemented which has worked beyond a doubt under their good economic management. People just don't know when they have it good. While you spend the next decade waiting for a bust in the boom cycle I'll be taking advantage of today.

I feel your policies will be better supported when people are looking for economic change. The time is not right. 15 years ago people would listen to you en mass  but not today. Howard has already set us on a road of protecting our future as well as giving benefit for today. His focus has been on Increasing our birthrate, reducing immigration (allowing time for assimilation), giving everyone the opportunity of home ownership (giving our children security), advocating nuclear power (creating a new industry (more jobs available for our children as they come of age from the baby boom), advocating principles in education (all to have same curriculum, teachings of Shakespear etc.), Murray Darling Control, AWA (which has given Australia the lowest unemployment rate this country has ever seen). Pretty much he has led this country by listening to the peoples concerns and has adopted policies to benefit all Australians.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 6:44pm
If it wasn't for the first home owners grant the building industry would not have taken off in the first place.

Any subsidised industry will take off. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Freediver you seem to be attacking all the good things that the Howard government has implemented which has worked beyond a doubt under their good economic management.

I disagree that they are good. I agree that they have changed things and 'worked' in a narrow sense, but overall they are bad ideas. I am not attacking all of his ideas, only the bad ones.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 6:48pm
In your mind they are bad, and yet you still cannot show evidence to back that up, in my mind they are good and evidence is already there.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 6:54pm
Do you have any evidence that the 'good' outweighs the cost to society of raising the funds for those handouts through taxation?

I will put up an article about it all soon. In the meantime, consult a microeconomics textbook, or an economist.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 7:04pm

Quote:
Howard has already set us on a road of protecting our future as well as giving benefit for today. His focus has been on Increasing our birthrate, reducing immigration (allowing time for assimilation), giving everyone the opportunity of home ownership (giving our children security), advocating nuclear power (creating a new industry (more jobs available for our children as they come of age from the baby boom), advocating principles in education (all to have same curriculum, teachings of Shakespear etc.), Murray Darling Control, AWA (which has given Australia the lowest unemployment rate this country has ever seen). Pretty much he has led this country by listening to the peoples concerns and has adopted policies to benefit all Australians.


This is all based on evidence. Open your eyes up and look at things logically and you too might see what I see. read a 12 books on microeconomics concerning these issues and I'll get 12 opinions, not one will be the same and they'll all have an sometype of workable solution.

Costello knows what he is talking about and I believe he is a lot more switched on than Keating.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 7:11pm
This is all based on evidence.

I didn't deny it was based on evidence. I asked you supply evidence that the benfits of handouts justified the cost to taxpayers, not that they had an impact

read a 12 books on microeconomics concerning these issues and I'll get 12 opinions, not one will be the same and they'll all have an sometype of workable solution

No you won't. Try it. You'd be surprised how consistent the theory is.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 8:57am

freediver wrote on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 7:11pm:
This is all based on evidence.

I didn't deny it was based on evidence. I asked you supply evidence that the benfits of handouts justified the cost to taxpayers, not that they had an impact


Not all handouts can justify the cost to taxpayers but the aforementioned handouts do justify the cost, not in immediate financial cost but something more important e.g.

Social Benefits

Baby boomer bonus has many social benefits for example;

Keeping our birthrate above our death rate, considering we are still an aging society.
Immigration reduction allowing assimilation of all the current ethnics reducing tension and possibility of terrorism from rascism.

Financial Benefits

Financial benefits can be gained in the future. If we have a decline in births, which was happening before the baby boomer bonus our current infrastructure would still have to be paid for, our housing development would be reduced (long term), cost of terrorist attacks due to increasing immigration to a non assimilation point etc.

I could list benefits for all Howards policy with the big picture in mind. I understand that you would prefer to means test all policies but means testing is an attack on equal rights. If you work hard all your life for your country and are successful why should you be consistently penalised by your country.

I come from a low socio economic background and it is hard work digging yourself out of the gutter to achieve. Those people that do should not be penalised by your policies.

As for reading a book, I have built two successful businesses up from nothing to lead in their industries over the last 8 years and the industries I talk about have plenty of competition. I didn't read a book to do this I listened to people on what their needs were, I listened to the market, I listened and took action.

If you think you can learn everything out of a book I've got news for you. If you havn't got natural talent in that particular area you are wasting your time. Reading a few books does not make you an expert it just makes you the carrier of someone elses ideas and opinions.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:13am
But we don't actually want a constantly increasing population. It isn't sustainable.

As for reading a book, I have built two successful businesses up from nothing to lead in their industries over the last 8 years and the industries I talk about have plenty of competition. I didn't read a book to do this I listened to people on what their needs were, I listened to the market, I listened and took action.

Sure, that qualifies you to be a strong participant in the economy, but it does not qualify you in any way to judge the broader implications of tax policy.

If you think you can learn everything out of a book I've got news for you. If you havn't got natural talent in that particular area you are wasting your time. Reading a few books does not make you an expert it just makes you the carrier of someone elses ideas and opinions.

There is a large field of knowledge out there called economics. It is not about how to run a business. If you think you can improve on it without even knowing what it is, based on some 'natural talent' then you are very wrong. I would much prefer to put my faith in someone who incorporates other people's ideas and knowledge into their policy than someone who thinks their natural talent is somehow better. Some of the worst suffering in human history has come about through people placing their own ideas, born from ignorance, above the accumulated wisdom of countless others through history. Knowledge such as this is not a subsititute for practical experience, it just enables you to understand it better and put it in perspective.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:31am
So what your saying is vote for Freedivers policies but read a book first. Do you have any argument at all that supports your policies? I have given you plenty of factual evidence, which you have not nullified and you still give no evidence to why your policies are of benefit.

You cannot just tell your constituents to go and read a book. How do you ever expect to get support for your policies if you cannot highlight the benefits. Your tactics seem to be to ridicule anyone with an opposing voice.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:38am
So what your saying is vote for Freedivers policies but read a book first. Do you have any argument at all that supports your policies?

I have put together a string of articles on the green tax shift idea. I am working on something on taxation in general, and an intro to microeconomic theory. I hadn't thought this was necessary as I thought the public generally understood the cost to the economy of the government taking with one hand and giving with the other.

You cannot just tell your constituents to go and read a book. How do you ever expect to get support for your policies if you cannot highlight the benefits. Your tactics seem to be to ridicule anyone with an opposing voice.

That is a genuine problem - how to get the public to see the benefits of policies which they do not understand. I suspect we may have to resort to argumentum ad populum. Either that, or just wield our power as a minority group very effectively. Given that our views do not represent any kind of extreme that should be doable.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 11:00am

Quote:
I hadn't thought this was necessary as I thought the public generally understood the cost to the economy of the government taking with one hand and giving with the other.


Isn't this called fair distribution of funds?


Quote:
That is a genuine problem - how to get the public to see the benefits of policies which they do not understand. I suspect we may have to resort to argumentum ad populum. Either that, or just wield our power as a minority group very effectively. Given that our views do not represent any kind of extreme that should be doable.


Your views are extreme;

The abolishment of the Baby Bonus
The abolishment of First Home Owners grant
Reduction of income tax or increasing tax free threshold (I'm still not sure what you are advocating in this area).

Have you atleast looked at the negative impact of these extremes?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2007 at 11:02am
With tax reduction, I am advocating a decrease in the total tax burden. That means all taxes. It will probably mean a slight decrease in government revenue.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by deepthought on Apr 24th, 2007 at 4:20pm
I wouldn't trust an economist to get it right.   Generally I hear what they have to say and then conclude the opposite will be the result.   They're a little like the weather forecaster for reliability.

I agree that real experience counts in understanding an economy.  If you understand a little one (like your profit and loss) you'll understand a big one.   Not necessarily be able too manage it but the concept is the same.   Money in, minus costs = profit.

I haven't read the section on this new party freediver but I did say over at D & R where I found your link the name needs to go.  How attached are you to it?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2007 at 4:27pm
I'm not deeply attached to it, but other people have indicated they like it. Perhaps sustainability has been given a bad name by the extreme left. I prefer the approach of people like Jared Diamond. Do you have a better suggestion? I just added a slogan "economically literate environmentalism."


Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 5:54pm
I thought it was going to be "economic literate enviro" ;D ;D ;D

Deepthought is right. You have to understand your audience and don't make the mistake of thinking you are only speaking to academics. Everything you write and the image you protrude has to be understood by the uneducated or you won't go very far. As for your slogan, I personally have no idea what it means but i am sure an academic will.

Don't give up trying freediver as I admire people who strive to achieve. Remember the secret is listening, not dictating and you will go a long way. It is also how we do things, not what we do.

A good party needs to work and debate between themselves and be open to change when their policies are wrong. No matter how much you believe in them you have to approach it constantly with an open mind. That is the most difficult for anyone to do. The people that can achieve this go on to bigger and better things. We generally call these people wise.

Thanks for popping in DeepThought I hope you pay us a visit from time to time as your views and opinions are important to all of us.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 24th, 2007 at 8:41pm
yes, the name for a business or party can sink it.
Some of my friends started up a company years ago, one wanted to call it "S and S".
They are called Steve and Stan. That name is useless.
The other guy wanted  to call it "Brisbane Rigging Service."

Yes, in 3 words he has said where they are, what business they are in and that they are a service.

Will think of some names, throw them into the melting pot

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by deepthought on Apr 25th, 2007 at 8:02am
See I'm new to this so I still haven't got my head around freediver's plan.    If in fact it is some kind of handbag bashing Greens type of Party forget it.    At least as far as I'm concerned, though good luck to you.   But all you need do is see how the Greens willingly stay at the sidelines with policies which are economically unsustainable and mostly sheer lunacy.  Though they do get more than their fair share of news time so I suspect they are more about exposure for their members than about substance.

It's not enough to say we should have (anyone should have) environmentally sustainable policies, you have to ask if they are viable.  Will they work?

An economy comes first.   Not an environment.    Humans (like every other species on earth) consumes - if we don't we die.   What we need to ensure is that we do so cleanly, and without damage.

Build the economy first and consider the by-product of it.   People don't give a fecal matter for a tree if their family is hungry.

Forget economics majors and other bookish types.   If you want to be successful listen to the people when they speak.   The silent people - not the noisy rabble.    You could actually use the noisy rabble as a gauge of a policy success because they are usually opposed to the success of the nation because they don't feel a part of it.   I have no understanding of it but they seem to hate their country.   So if they protest it must be good for the nation.

I'm sure World Leaders know they're on the right track when buttheads throw (figurative) eggs.    George Bush would have been ecstatic when Bob Brown squawked in the Australian Parliament during his address in 2003.   That would have told him his ideology was mainstream Australian as only the rabble barfed up their vitriol.

The same Bob Brown who so opposes George Bush was also quick to rush up and shake his hand so he could get his mug on the telly though - thereby demonstrating the fame over substance style of political lightweights like himself.

Steer well clear of any association, naming or otherwise, unless that is what you are aiming for.   It is certain doom.

Now there's a thought for a name.   'Doom For The Green's' Party - DFTG.   But that gives me an idea for another name.   The 'Liberty Or Lunacy' Party  - LOL.    Sounds like a hoot.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:17am
Deepthought, what is that guy in your avatar doing? I'm hoping it's something to do with golf.

An economy comes first.   Not an environment.

The economy is ultimately dependent on the environment, but not vice versa. It's not possible to put the economy first.

People don't give a fecal matter for a tree if their family is hungry.

It depends what sort of tree it is. You try going into a thrid world country and chopping down their trees and see how far you get. It's when people get hungry that they realise you can't eat money.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by deepthought on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:29am

freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:17am:
Deepthought, what is that guy in your avatar doing? I'm hoping it's something to do with golf.

An economy comes first.   Not an environment.

The economy is ultimately dependent on the environment, but not vice versa. It's not possible to put the economy first.

People don't give a fecal matter for a tree if their family is hungry.

It depends what sort of tree it is. You try going into a thrid world country and chopping down their trees and see how far you get. It's when people get hungry that they realise you can't eat money.


It's a policewoman (from behind) and she is fiddling about in her back passage for some inexplicable reason.   It is of course possible she has a golf ball lodged in there.

I disagree.   The environment depends on an economy.   You can't buy stuff with inedible branches and leaves.

Third world nations log at an extraordinary rate to get money to buy stuff because they don't have an economy.   They sell their trees to nations with economies.    Take a look at Africa and or the Middle East.    See many trees where all those refugees and desert folk are?

You have to start with a structure that sustains people first, then consider the by product.   If you plan on attempting it the other way around good luck to you.   I'll see you and Bob Brown shaking hands with real leaders some time.   ;)

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:33am
The environment depends on an economy.   You can't buy stuff with inedible branches and leaves.

Those branches do not depend on you being able to buy anything. They are quite happy without the economy.

Third world nations log at an extraordinary rate to get money to buy stuff because they don't have an economy.

This sounds like a generalisation to me. Many of the poorest nations are so poor because they failed ot realise that you cannot place the economy above the environment. Jared Diamond gives a few really good examples in Collapse.

You have to start with a structure that sustains people first, then consider the by product.

The environment is the structure which sustains people. The economy is the by product.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by deepthought on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:54am

freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:33am:
The environment depends on an economy.   You can't buy stuff with inedible branches and leaves.

Those branches do not depend on you being able to buy anything. They are quite happy without the economy.

Third world nations log at an extraordinary rate to get money to buy stuff because they don't have an economy.

This sounds like a generalisation to me. Many of the poorest nations are so poor because they failed ot realise that you cannot place the economy above the environment. Jared Diamond gives a few really good examples in Collapse.

You have to start with a structure that sustains people first, then consider the by product.

The environment is the structure which sustains people. The economy is the by product.


Jared Diamond's examples show exactly what I'm talking about.   Those societies had no sustainable economies.

So they sold nothing, bought nothing, made nothing (but stone statues or boats) and raped the environment until there was nothing left.

That is what is the result of no economy.    Eventually you just use all your resources.

But they lived (and died) in quite different times from today's global environemt and marketplace.    The nations which built sustainable economies also protected their resources as they knew they needed them for a sustainable economy.


Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:05am
Those societies had no sustainable economies.

Because the economy ultimately depended on the environment. It was nothing inherent to their economy that caused their collapse.

That is what is the result of no economy. Eventually you just use all your resources.

No it isn't. That was not Diamond's conclusion either.

The nations which built sustainable economies also protected their resources as they knew they needed them for a sustainable economy.

When you say resources, you mean the environment don't you?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Scaly on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:19am
If we were to go back in time and apply sustainability and the precautionary principle, would we still be mapping out which stones we are allowed to chip pieces off to make a basic tomahawk?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by deepthought on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:25am

freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:05am:
Those societies had no sustainable economies.

Because the economy ultimately depended on the environment. It was nothing inherent to their economy that caused their collapse.

That is what is the result of no economy. Eventually you just use all your resources.

No it isn't. That was not Diamond's conclusion either.

The nations which built sustainable economies also protected their resources as they knew they needed them for a sustainable economy.

When you say resources, you mean the environment don't you?


Yes I do.  

It was Diamond's conclusion as I recall as he speaks of the desperate times that must have been faced at the end as people starved to death after chopping down all their trees to make boats to plunder more resources.   Once the boats fell apart they had nothing.   With no industry (food production) to sustain them they ate all their resources and perished.

So they had no trees because they had built boats.   They plundered the seas for fish to eat.   As soon as the boat broke they could not build another as they had no trees and they could no longer get produce to eat as it was in the ocean.

Let's say those same people built fish farms.   Instead of chopping down the trees to make innumerable boats they harvested the trees for fibres, branches, blah blah to construct netted areas to hold live fish, and they farmed them.    After they have the farms working they need never build boats as the supply of food is at hand and they are mindful of the need to keep the trees growing to supply the replacement fibres etc to repair netting/fencing.

Now they have an industry which supplies produce (fish) that requires an environment (trees) to keep it functioning.

But the industry (the economy) must come first to justify keeping the environment (trees).   It's pretty simple and only works one way - not in reverse.

But I'm beginning to get the idea you're thinking Greeny and that's not for me.   Nor is it for most Australians.   The polling percentages prove I'm right.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:33am
Let's say those same people built fish farms.

Have you ever seen Easter Island? And it wasn't boat building that caused them to loose all their trees.

It was Diamond's conclusion as I recall as he speaks of the desperate times that must have been faced at the end as people starved to death after chopping down all their trees to make boats to plunder more resources.

That doesn't mean that lack of an economy results in consumption of all your resources. With the exception of small islands, people only ever began to live unsustainably when they tried to feed a large economy.

But the industry (the economy) must come first to justify keeping the environment (trees).

That's absurd. You don't need an economy to justify keeping the trees. It's like you think people are happy to die, but won't tolerate damage to their economy. Diamond gave an example of another island in a similar situation where they did make a conscious choice to live sustainably. It had nothing at all to do with protecting their economy.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:34am
If we were to go back in time and apply sustainability and the precautionary principle, would we still be mapping out which stones we are allowed to chip pieces off to make a basic tomahawk?

No.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Scaly on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:49am
No.

So definitive! Perhaps we'd be struggling to get through the bronze age? No way we'd be anywhere near the industrial revolution.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:52am
With the benefit of hindsight, we could have prevented the collapse of several societies, or at least delayed it, as there were probably multiple potential causes of their collapse. We could have prevent the recent collapse of several large fisheries. I'm sure there are several other big mistakes we could have avoided that will cause us long term problems.

Sustainability is not about living in caves.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Scaly on Apr 25th, 2007 at 12:05pm
Sustainability is not about living in caves.

No, but when applied with the precautionary principle it restricts access to resources which may or may not be a good thing with respect to the human race. If there was a definitive way of measuring sustainability of all resources?...but there isn't AFAIK

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 12:13pm
It does not restrict access to resources. The thing is, people don't know what sustainability is. It is crystal ball stuff. It basically asks what does a society have to do in order to remain viable and maintain it's standard of living. The tree hugging hippies do not have a monopoly on sustainability any more than the people who want a stronger defense force. Just because they claim we have to stop mining in order to be sustainable does not mean that they can support their arguments on the ground of either sustainability or the precautionary principle.

However, just because we can't pin it down exactly does not mean we shouldn't make it a priority. The alternative is the collapse of our society.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Scaly on Apr 25th, 2007 at 12:18pm
However, just because we can't pin it down exactly does not mean we shouldn't make it a priority.

That's precisely why it shouldn't be a priority, but that's not to say it's something that shouldn't be worked towards

The alternative is the collapse of our society.

How dramatic.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 12:23pm
You don't think figuring out what our society needs to do in order to survive is a priority? Because we don't already know the answer?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Scaly on Apr 25th, 2007 at 12:37pm
Our society already does what it needs to in order to survive- sometimes that's at the expense of the environment and until there is a definitive way of measure the sustainability of all resources, that's the only way the human race can continue to advance (and with advancement comes knowledge of sustainability issues and environmental protection) without having one hand tied behind it's back.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 12:53pm
There has been a significant change recently in the way we approach this problem. Until fairly recently in human history, the environment could safely be assumed to be an infinite resource. Of course, there are at least a few notable exceptions which are illuminating. Societies took an expansionist view point, especially in the Americas and Australia. Survival and wealth depended on expanding faster than competing countries. It was human labour rather than natural resources that were most often the limiting factor in economies. Now that is all changing, and our survival as a society depends on our ability to adapt to the new situation. Simply doing what our society has historically done in order to survive is bound to fail, quite spectacularly. Finding the right balance is only going to get harder in the future as our society and the problems which undermine it become more complex. There will be an increasing need to consciously choose the path of sustainability rather than deal with problems after they have begun to impact on society.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Scaly on Apr 25th, 2007 at 1:06pm
That is true, but it is something govts are already tackling with ESD and biodiversity measures. Change is happening already, it's just the rate of change that seems to be the source of angst between conflicting ideals

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 1:17pm
ESD - environmentally sustainable development?

As far as the party policy is concerned, it is not just the rate of change we have a problem with. In my opinion the left wing parties have a fairly sensible approach for global warming, and the coalition has a good approach on many of the local issues (eg the great barrier reef). It is the method of change that is our major policy. As far as global warming and the water shortage is concerned, the tradeoff between the environment and short term economic interests has been overplayed. The stern report backs this up. All parties have a tendency to prefer grand schemes where the government steps in and plays a role it probably shouldn't be playing. This looks good and most citizens can easily make the connection, but it comes at considerable economic cost. By 'pulling the right economic levers' the government could achieve the same thing at far less cost.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by deepthought on Apr 25th, 2007 at 1:27pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:33am:
Let's say those same people built fish farms.

Have you ever seen Easter Island? And it wasn't boat building that caused them to loose all their trees.

It was Diamond's conclusion as I recall as he speaks of the desperate times that must have been faced at the end as people starved to death after chopping down all their trees to make boats to plunder more resources.

That doesn't mean that lack of an economy results in consumption of all your resources. With the exception of small islands, people only ever began to live unsustainably when they tried to feed a large economy.

But the industry (the economy) must come first to justify keeping the environment (trees).

That's absurd. You don't need an economy to justify keeping the trees. It's like you think people are happy to die, but won't tolerate damage to their economy. Diamond gave an example of another island in a similar situation where they did make a conscious choice to live sustainably. It had nothing at all to do with protecting their economy.


I think we are having trouble with definitions.    You don't feed a large economy - as far as I am aware the collapsing societies had no economies    You feed a large population (people).  

So let's assume we have a lot of people.   No economy (industry/production/financial system) and basic resources.    Where do you start?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Scaly on Apr 25th, 2007 at 1:30pm
ESD - environmentally sustainable development?

Ecological Sustainable Development

In my opinion the left wing parties have a fairly sensible approach for global warming

Your kidding right? Emission reductions of 60-80% by 2050 but with no idea on how to achieve it? That isn't sensible, that's political pandering to those that least understand the logistics of change

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 1:54pm
Your kidding right? Emission reductions of 60-80% by 2050 but with no idea on how to achieve it?

They just don't have firm policies on how to achieve it. I do.

You don't feed a large economy

I was being loose with my terms.

So let's assume we have a lot of people.   No economy (industry/production/financial system) and basic resources.    Where do you start?

You can't have one without the other. You can't get a lot of people without whatever it is you need to support them. I am not going to desribe how to build an entire economy from scratch. Peter Jay gives a good description of how modern economies 'evolved' in 'The Wealth of Man.'

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by deepthought on Apr 25th, 2007 at 2:15pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 1:54pm:
Your kidding right? Emission reductions of 60-80% by 2050 but with no idea on how to achieve it?

They just don't have firm policies on how to achieve it. I do.

You don't feed a large economy

I was being loose with my terms.

So let's assume we have a lot of people.   No economy (industry/production/financial system) and basic resources.    Where do you start?

You can't have one without the other. You can't get a lot of people without whatever it is you need to support them. I am not going to desribe how to build an entire economy from scratch. Peter Jay gives a good description of how modern economies 'evolved' in 'The Wealth of Man.'


People will cluster where there are resources so the population will grow according to availability.   But if you don't then build an economy (trade, industry etc) to suppport it eventually the resources will run out, the population will decline and an equilibrium will be found as they eat each other and the strong survive.

But cities are way too top heavy so an economy needs to be created to share resources, wealth, infrastructure etc.  The moment you make an environment more important than your population (which needs an economy) you face sidelining yourself and joining Bob Brown as a political toddler.

No one thinks a tree is more important than a family, except for the nutters who live off the dole (like the rent-a-crowd who use the economy they despise to survive) and those lined up at the trough like Bob Brown (who also uses the economy he despises to survive).

Good luck.   I'd say you're going to need it.    It ain't for me.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 2:37pm
But if you don't then build an economy (trade, industry etc) to suppport it eventually the resources will run out

The economy is to a large extent inevitable, wich is why I used the term evolve. It's the political structure that is built in the sense that it involves conscious decisions about what should be done by the other people. The economy does not guarantee that the resources will run out. The more organised it is, the more likely that the resources will be overexploited. It is the political structure that prevents the resources from being overexploited. I suspect you are confusing the economy with the well the established principles that support it like private ownership.

No one thinks a tree is more important than a family

Where did anyone suggest that?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 3:03pm
Well that was a great read.

I think what freediver is trying to say is that he wants mankind to look at the environment and then build the economy around it to protect the environment. This is extremely difficult to manage as the economic structure that you build around it would also use resources that would not have been accounted for.

I think the economy needs to come before looking at the environment because we will then know what impact the economy will cause to our environment.



Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 3:12pm
Not that either. I don't like the term 'build' applied to the economy. That's what the communists tried to do. I think manage is a better term. While the economy isn't causing any problems let it take care of itself, but where it risks becoming self destructive or fails in some way intervene for the good of society. Of course, all the major parties would support this principle. It's the details they differ on. Also, when it comes to interference government should meddle at little as is possible to achieve their goal. This is the idea behind the green tax shift as an alternative to crabon trading or 'grand' schemes.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 3:51pm
You have to build something before you can manage it. ;)

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 4:04pm
Government has no role in the building of the economy, only in managing it.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by deepthought on Apr 25th, 2007 at 4:10pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 2:37pm:
But if you don't then build an economy (trade, industry etc) to suppport it eventually the resources will run out

The economy is to a large extent inevitable, wich is why I used the term evolve. It's the political structure that is built in the sense that it involves conscious decisions about what should be done by the other people. The economy does not guarantee that the resources will run out. The more organised it is, the more likely that the resources will be overexploited. It is the political structure that prevents the resources from being overexploited. I suspect you are confusing the economy with the well the established principles that support it like private ownership.

No one thinks a tree is more important than a family

Where did anyone suggest that?


Maybe not here but it's what makes environmentally obsessed parties loony.

I completely agree with the concept of sustainable environments.    But I simply can not accept that economies just happen and we look after the stuff in the ground first.   It really is secondary to survival - like it or not.

I think you're courageous, but if I was interested in any kind of new party it would have to face the realities that concern Australians.

Tax, wages, housing, food, immigration, health, education blah blah blah.   A fully fledged economy.   Trees can wait until the balance is right.     And of course now you are up against the best team Australia has had at fine tuning a massively changing economy in a massively changing technological age  -  the current coalition.   You are really up against it.

To be different you really have to be different or you sound like the ALP - a wannabe coalition with a global warming obsession.   Now look at One Nation.   THAT was different, and that exploded out of the gates.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 4:18pm
I simply can not accept that economies just happen and we look after the stuff in the ground first.   It really is secondary to survival - like it or not.

Economies do just happen. It starts with primitive people bartering goods. From this historical erspective we do not look after what is in the ground first. It only becomes necessary to consciously look after the environment when population goes up. When I talk about putting the environment first, I do not mean from a historical perspective, as we are given the environment for free from that perspective.

The core policy of the party would reduce taxes and increase wages. Many of the coalitions policies increase taxes and decrease wages for very little benefit.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 5:00pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 4:18pm:
[i]
The core policy of the party would reduce taxes and increase wages. Many of the coalitions policies increase taxes and decrease wages for very little benefit.


This is fine so long as spending doesn't stop or less taxes will go through the coffers.

Here's a question freediver. If we have higher wages making us more comfortable than what we are wouldn't our personal production rate reduce due to laziness? If this was the case our work rate within companies would also reduce giving a reduction of global production.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 5:06pm
If we have higher wages making us more comfortable than what we are wouldn't our personal production rate reduce due to laziness?

That is already happening to some extent. It's no reason to make us poor. Luckily, many people seem to be fuelled by greed, which knows no limits.

If this was the case our work rate within companies would also reduce giving a reduction of global production.

There are plenty of dirt poor people left who are willing to work for almost nothing.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 5:58pm
I wrote
Quote:
If a manufacturing plant started in my town, Brewarrina, It would be able to take advantage of backloading rates to Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and possibly Perth.


Freediver stated
Quote:
If you think that is such a great idea, go ahead and do it and you will make your fortune. You don't need the government to subsidise it. If that is what it takes, it means it isn't such a good idea.


Employment is the problem.

Many people is nowhere near the majority. I have done substantial research in this area and I will tell you that the majority just wants to get their wage and go home. They don't have the ambition. Just look at what the housing commision figures were ten years ago.

If a manufacturing plant started in my town, Brewarrina, It would be able to take advantage of backloading rates to Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and possibly Perth.

freediver stated
Quote:
There are plenty of dirt poor people left who are willing to work for almost nothing.


You should have been a slave master. Keeping in mind we only have around 4% of unemployed and most of these don't speak english fluently enough to get by.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 6:01pm
I meant globally. I was responding to a comment in which you used that term.

Many people is nowhere near the majority.

What is this in response to?

Just look at what the housing commision figures were ten years ago.

What do the housing commission figures indicate to you?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 6:28pm
Your website is not working it is missing a lot of detail that I post. I won't write it again.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 6:30pm
I usually put it together in notepade - much simpler. Then I add the italics after I paste into here. I've nver had it delete bits of my posts. Sometimes it doens't put the italics where I want it.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 6:37pm
I have been recieving messages every time I post about allowing my clipboard to go along. I say no. This is either because I have recently upgraded my IE to IE7 or you are asking for our private information which is still on our clipboard. Please let me know.
:)

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 6:43pm
It is to do with IE7:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1165368968

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 7:22pm
Thanks freediver you have atleast put my paranioa at ease. IE7 has a lot of weird stuff hapening so I will have to get use to it.

I'm tired of debating and will now go to sleep. I thought Aussie Nat, Donald Trump, Auzgurl(Oceans_Blue), zoso or even sprintcyclist would have got involved by now. Atleast deepthought and Scally put their input up there.

There is many things that you mentioned which I could debate but I'll let someone else do that.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 7:25pm
Apolpogies SprintCyclist did and his simple philosophy is always welcolm.

Sprint: God Bless you and sleep well.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 25th, 2007 at 8:13pm
Sorry, I been busy lately.
Seems to me that the topics are wandering within a thread .
Making it hard for me to follow, hard to discuss and very hard to reach a decision.

What's say we reach an agreement on the "structure' of any discussion ?

eg, keep strictly to the thread topic.
In every posting agree with some previous posting.

Drats, I suppose I should have made a newe thread for this suggestion !!

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 8:35pm
I think the easiest way to handle it is to start a new thread if one theme starts to dominate, like you did with the tax issue. A general thread about a bunch of policies is always going to wander a bit.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 8:44pm
I stated that earlier in the thread but you said the tax issue had a lot to do with it so we continued. ;)

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by GregBoyles on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:30pm

freediver wrote on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 9:09am:
Sprint could you please PM me your email address. The first thing I need to do is start an email list of everyone who is interested.


I am interested in your Sustainability Party. Email address is gregsplants@eftel.net.au

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Scaly on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:16pm
I'd be interested in why you would be interested in a Sustainability Party Greg. Although there are some appealing aspects, the lack of political nous and practicality (which seems to be very common amongst minor/preferential parties) tends to turn the mainstream off

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by GregBoyles on Apr 26th, 2007 at 12:12am

wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:16pm:
I'd be interested in why you would be interested in a Sustainability Party Greg. Although there are some appealing aspects, the lack of political nous and practicality (which seems to be very common amongst minor/preferential parties) tends to turn the mainstream off


I am interested in their being a voice in parliament that draws the links between the issues of the day.

We have the Greens who are strong on environment but fail to see the impact of an unrestricted immigration policy on the environment and ustainability.

We have the Liberals who don't want to have open slather on immigration but think that the economy and business are the only important issues.

We have labour who also don't want to have open slather on immigration. They are stronger on environmental issues but still see it as a secondary issue to the economy and jobs. Their mantra of sustainable growth is utter bullshit as the two terms 'growth' and 'sustainable' are mutually exclusive.

None of the current political parties see growth (economy and population) as the root cause of all our environmental problems and developing social problems like housing affordability.


Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by GregBoyles on Apr 26th, 2007 at 12:28am

wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 11:16pm:
I'd be interested in why you would be interested in a Sustainability Party Greg. Although there are some appealing aspects, the lack of political nous and practicality (which seems to be very common amongst minor/preferential parties) tends to turn the mainstream off


The major political parties are just marketed very successfully. And with marketing there is rarely anything practical or truthful about the product. If marketing is successful then people will continue to 'buy' the product no matter how bad it is.

For example, I hardly think the the Bracks Labour Governments push to get more people to live in rural Victoria is a practical or sensible thing to do when:
1) Many rural areas are already or almost out of water.
2) Agricultural water allocations for this year will be zero meaning that rural jobs and business opportunities will be disappearing.

The minor parties inject some reason and truth back into the political process.


Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 26th, 2007 at 8:54am
Thanks Greg, you're on the list. Might be a while till I send anything out. Oh, and welcome to OzPolitic. What state are you from, if you don't mind me asking? I may need this for registering with the electoral commission. I think it is done on a state by state basis.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 26th, 2007 at 12:37pm
For a name, how about the tax reform party or the tax freedom party?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by 1votenirvana(Guest) on Apr 26th, 2007 at 11:43pm
Policies are issues, issues need discussion and then they need a decision!

Party's take issues, make issues then distort them to their own ends.  Sure the nobility of appealing to sustainability makes the party premise appealing. It also makes it an issue based block with a particular focus and bias in it's approach.

Who knows, perhaps war, violence, mayhem and murder may in fact be necessary human traits for the long term sustainability of this planet?  Not particularly sustainable practices for us humans but crikey wouldn't the planet love a few million less of us!

Sustainability is a great issue, it needs discussion, it needs action; not a party!

If you want to do something really useful help change the entire parliamentary system, it's possible.

Me, I'd love to.

meow.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by GregBoyles on Apr 27th, 2007 at 7:54am

wrote on Apr 26th, 2007 at 11:43pm:
Policies are issues, issues need discussion and then they need a decision!

Party's take issues, make issues then distort them to their own ends.  Sure the nobility of appealing to sustainability makes the party premise appealing. It also makes it an issue based block with a particular focus and bias in it's approach.

Who knows, perhaps war, violence, mayhem and murder may in fact be necessary human traits for the long term sustainability of this planet?  Not particularly sustainable practices for us humans but crikey wouldn't the planet love a few million less of us!

Sustainability is a great issue, it needs discussion, it needs action; not a party!

If you want to do something really useful help change the entire parliamentary system, it's possible.

Me, I'd love to.

meow.


Sustainability needs action not more discussion. The major parties use discussion of issues as a means of avoiding concrete action on them. We need a party that is prepared to act on sustainability issues and engage the general public on the issue.

The major parties continue with the self delusion of infinite economic and population growth. How do you suppose that discussion of sustainability issues with Labour and Liberal can ever amount to anything????

Discussion with them and among  is useless when their underlying premises are diemetrically opposed to the concept of sustainability.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 27th, 2007 at 2:09pm
In response to this on the other thread. I didn't want to sidetrack the name discussion:

freediver, you have to listen or you freak people out mate.   It's pointless talking to a wall.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177562543/10#10

It's not that I don't listen to people, it's that I think they are wrong. I don't expect the party to appeal to more than a minority of citizens. Anything more would be naive. I don't expect to change people's minds either. At least, not personally. I expect most supporters to find the party appealing based on it's core themes alone: lower total taxes, green tax shift and electoral reform. Most potential supporters will intuitively see the benefit in lowering taxes and getting rid of the more wasteful handouts. This should especially appeal to traditional coalition supporters. The green tax shift may take a bit more convincing. The electoral reform stuff is very far off and the party will probably only play a role in publicity for the idea for many years. Everything else just details and I am open to suggestions that fit in with the broader goals. While I will argue the merits of the goals, I am obviously not going to seriously entertain the idea that they are not good for the country. That's like asking the greens to entertain the idea that the environment really isn't worth protecting. This is not a 'hey come and join because we need some policy ideas' party. This is not a 'voice of the regular people' party. This is a party with a firm 'ideological' territory already staked out. It is a slightly unusual combination of economic rationalism and environmental protection, but i think it's time has come.

Yes this will freak out people who don't support the core goals of the party, but they are not the target audience anyway. I am not going to personall 'create' supporters, I am just going to give the supporters who already exist a strong voice. I do not want it to be a 'one man band.' I expect that once you get these people together it will have enough momentum so that just about anyone with a few basic skills could keep it going. Given the appeal across the political spectrum, it will only take a small minority to get the major parties to pay attention.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Apr 27th, 2007 at 2:13pm
Sustainability is a great issue, it needs discussion, it needs action; not a party!

The two are not mutually exclusive. Obviously I see the party as a way of getting things to happen. Lets face it, the views of one person are easy to ignore in a democracy. Once you represent even just a few hundred swing voters the major parties will take you seriously.

Do you support the policies Dave?

Title: Two-thirds want tax cut: Newspoll
Post by freediver on May 1st, 2007 at 12:51pm
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21650439-601,00.html

TWO-THIRDS of Australians want a tax cut in next week's budget, but half would forgo the tax cut if it threatened to push up interest rates.

Title: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 23rd, 2007 at 9:59pm
Thought a new thread would keep it seemly.

heard of the turnover tax ? (I think that is the phrase).
It takes something like 0.2 % of every amount withdrawn from any account.
Very economic tax to collect, it can do away with many other sorts of umweildy taxes.


The tax is taken out automatically electronically with every withdrawal.
Say I withdraw $100 from a flexiteller, an extra 0.20c goes to the taxman there and then.


problem, it does lots of accountants and tax men out of a job.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 9:06am
Interesting concept SprintCyclist. I'll wait to see what freediver has to say about it. The only negative side I could see is that people stop using banks but, probably unlikely. I suppose it is a good way to promote savings into the country. Would this tax make all other taxes void?

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:03am
There is a trend away from this sort of tax. Unless it could completely replace another tax then it does add more paperwork etc. One problem is that if you start shifting money back and forward, for whatever reason, the tax is going to start eating away at it, even though you haven't spent it or consumed anything. It may significantly harm certain industries such as online banking. I suspect there may be a sound economic argument against the idea, probably along these lines, but I can't think of it. The GST was supposed to cut a lot of state taxes that are similar to this. I think there is still a tax on payments made from checking accounts, so people who have checking accounts only put money into them when they absolutely have to write a check.

As for the party, it will be adding carbon and water taxes, cutting a lot of handouts (baby bonus and 1st home owners) while at the same time cutting the overall tax burden. So we would be looking for ways to cut other taxes.

Title: Mmm...
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:18am
When you say eradicating first home loan grants and compensating with the reduction of other taxes. How long will it take for the average person to save up $14,000 from your tax cuts before they can go and buy a home? Otherwords, how much money are you going to put back into the average persons pocket? If it is $100 a week then that's another 2 1/2 years before people can afford to buy a home isn't it?


Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:27am
For starters, if someone is buying a brand new home, I doubt they are in need of government assistance. But to answer your question, for every $1400 'taken' from the public in the abolition of the handout, more than $1400 will be returned to the public via increased take home wages. Obviously this will be spread over more people. Given that the Howard government has gone to great lengths to hide the true cost of this scheme from the public, I cannot give you a more concrete answer. Nor would I have time to.

Also, if the grant is abolished, the cost of housing will be less than if it wasn't abolished. A large part of the handouts have been swallowed up by price hikes caused by the grant. A lot of it is going to 'welfare' for the housing industry.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:39am

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:27am:
For starters, if someone is buying a brand new home, I doubt they are in need of government assistance. But to answer your question, for every $14000 'taken' from the public in the abolition of the handout, more than $14000 will be returned to the public via increased take home wages. Obviously this will be spread over more people. Given that the Howard government has gone to great lengths to hide the true cost of this scheme from the public, I cannot give you a more concrete answer. Nor would I have time to.

Also, if the grant is abolished, the cost of housing will be less than if it wasn't abolished. A large part of the handouts have been swallowed up by price hikes caused by the grant. A lot of it is going to 'welfare' for the housing industry.


So what your saying is that people are given $14000 interest free loan by the government for their first home which is paid back by taxes? Gee, that was a very smart move by Howard.

From recollection the wealthy pay higher taxes so they are actually paying for the poor to have homes, great stuff...

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2007 at 10:46am
So what your saying is that people are given $14000 interest free loan by the government for their first home which is paid back by taxes?

No, nothing like that. A $14000 interest free loan is equivalent to giving them a much smaller amount of money. It is less bad for the economy, but it is still a bad idea, with a much higher paperwork cost as a proportion of the money being shifted.

Title: PM backs away from helping with the rent
Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2007 at 3:52pm
Oh dear, I didn't realise Howard was considering this. Good thing he came to his senses:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-backs-away-from-helping-with-the-rent/2007/04/24/1177180617911.html

Prime Minister John Howard has backed away from a plan to provide assistance to tenants struggling with rising rents.

Two months ago, Mr Howard said the government was considering measures to help the rental crisis.

But on Tuesday he said rental assistance would just deal with the symptoms, while the solution was for the states to release more land.

Mr Howard said any economist would agree that if you released more land, the cost of housing would fall in time.



What he fails to mention is that cheap land is not the only goal of town planning and the zone schemes. It is also to ensure that there is some land left over for conservation, recreation etc. Typical of Howard to take such a one-eyed approach to the problem. There is not an infinite supply of land. There is plenty of dirt cheap land available. It's just not near the big CBD's.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 24th, 2007 at 4:09pm
Yes, subsidising rents would make them rocket.
Same as the 1st home owners grant. It only added fuel to the real estate market that was overdue for a rise anyway..
Amazing how often the govt. gets their timimg absolutely wrong.

Generally, better leaving the free market well alone. The "damage" is over quicker that way.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 6:36pm
If value of land has gone up commonsense says rents will go up. It's all pushed along by supply and demand. Obviously Howard understands you need to create more supply so that it outstrips demand and that will bring prices down.

I think we need to look at relocation processes. Not just populace but businesses. the only way i can see to do this is with incentives to businesses which will then give higher wages becoming an incentive for people to move to country areas. Lower company tax to 15% rural sectors 300 km outside CBD and to 8% 600km outside CBD. Just a thought. It would also take a lot of polution out of the CBD from transport and push growth for housing in rural areas. Water may be an issue though.

What do you all think?

Another thing, std business phone calls for country areas charged at the local rate, this way call centres can be established outside the CBD but still have a target market, cost effectively, in the CBD.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2007 at 6:52pm
It's all pushed along by supply and demand.

Unless you subsidise it, in which case you distort the market.

Obviously Howard understands you need to create more supply so that it outstrips demand and that will bring prices down.

I'd like to see Howard create land. Maybe we should send him to Holland. The market creates the supply, not the government.

Lower company tax to 15% rural sectors 300 km outside CBD and to 8% 600km outside CBD. Just a thought.

That would lead to companies basing their decisions on taxes, not on the reality of the situation = bad for the economy. There is a good reason why businesses gather together.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 7:36pm
You're dribbling now freediver and taking the discussion completely out of context (one track mind you've got).

Let me try again;

The option of using more land, which we both don't want him to do, meaning more homes, meaning flodded market bring rents and possibly home prices down.

No, it is the market that creates the demand and in this case available homes that makes up the supply. You obviously need land to build homes on.

Tell me freediver what are the good reasons why businesses gather themselves together? let me help you. LOGISTICALLY.

By reducing the company tax would compensate businesses for, especially in the industrial sector (manufacturing etc.), extra costs involved for transporting and employment.

Environmentally this has great benefits and economically for rural areas. After the businesses have been established and these country towns grow to city status the taxes can then begin to climb back to normal areas. Obviously it won't happen overnight.

Howard is still looking for solutions but he will consider all then make a decision. Maybe you know how to bring the rents down in the CBD? Please share it with us.



Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2007 at 7:56pm
Tell me freediver what are the good reasons why businesses gather themselves together? let me help you. LOGISTICALLY.

To reduce transport costs for one.

Environmentally this has great benefits and economically for rural areas.

Compensating business for extra transport is good for the environment?

Maybe you know how to bring the rents down in the CBD?

I don't want to bring them down. There is nothing inherently wrong with high rents in the CBD.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 24th, 2007 at 8:09pm
That's a great idea enviro. I would LOVE to live in a country town.
have had enough of brisbane, just been here long enough .
I like Monto or Theodore.

Lots of businesses are "intellectually" based and can be situated anywhere.

The country towns would love more people.

I think the topside of rents is limited by wages. Us tenants are  very flexible also.
Big rent rises would see more people living in shared houses, with people they know.
Houses would become vacant, rents would drop.

See how simple I am ?

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 9:54pm
I stated
Quote:
Tell me freediver what are the good reasons why businesses gather themselves together? let me help you. LOGISTICALLY.


FreeDiver stated
Quote:
To reduce transport costs for one.


What do you think LOGISTICALLY means? I already said that transport was the major factor how about giving us your number two reason.

Freediver asked
Quote:
Compensating business for extra transport is good for the environment?


Taking bits and pieces from my last post loses meaning of what I was talking about to the reader that only reads your post. Now.. to answer your question... A lot of businesses in Sydney also supply Brisbane or Melbourne etc. or even vice versa. Just say a Barbecue manufacturer that currently has a manufacturing plant in Marrickville moved it's operation to Dubbo, for arguments sake. He would still have to transport goods to Sydney but he would not have to transport out of Sydney to other cities in Australia hence taking transport out of the CBD which causes polution. Dispursed polution is better than concentrated pollution. this is without even looking at wear and tear on the CBD's road infrastructure.

Let's not forget about that Barbecue Manufacturer that also creates concentrated pollution in Marickville from his manufacturing process.

So you acknowledge that the rents in the CBD are high but come accross as an advocate for high rents? Or you don't have a solution to solve the problem except maybe your Tax ideas will put more money in their pockets to make the rents affordable (thought I'd throw that in to help you)?

The people of Sydney have sent a message to our government that they are not happy about their high rents. John Howard is trying to find a solution but, you, who is intent on starting a party refuses to listen to those people. Is it because it does not effect you? How can you start a party and yet not listen to the voice of the people?



Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 24th, 2007 at 9:57pm
Hi SprintCyclist

Simplicity sometimes can be the best way of looking at things and what you point out is probably true but what about the social impact of mass density?

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 24th, 2007 at 11:26pm
Hi enviro,
I like high density. They should be made with soundproof walls and sprung wooden floors .
suburbia is unsustainable, such a waste of energy.
The english (100's of years ago) had big lawns to show off their wealth. lawns take a great amount of time to keep and produce nothiing,so had to be rich to have a lawn. Our society came from there.

I rent a place with a small unuseable back yard. We go down to the local park for a walk/basketball throw/run/boomerang throw whatever. Aside from the clothes line I would prefer to have no backyard. The park is perfect. HUGE, someone else mows it  :). Few backyards I can run in.

yep, give me a place that is logistically good and mimimum useless maintenance, sold me.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:27am
What do you think LOGISTICALLY means? I already said that transport was the major factor how about giving us your number two reason.

As far as I can tell it's all about transport. Do we need a second reason?

Taking bits and pieces from my last post loses meaning of what I was talking about to the reader that only reads your post.

Relax. No-one is only going to read only my post. I'm not that popular.

He would still have to transport goods to Sydney but he would not have to transport out of Sydney to other cities in Australia hence taking transport out of the CBD which causes polution.

Transport between Marrickville and Dubbo also causes pollution. There are probably a lot of things in Sydney which such a business needs access to. Plus, it is probably possible to transport goods to Melbourne and Brisbane from Sydney far more efficiently than from Dubbo. The beauty of the free market is that you don't have to understand all the minor details. You can leave that up to each individual business.

Dispursed polution is better than concentrated pollution.

Not in terms of the greenhouse effect.

So you acknowledge that the rents in the CBD are high but come accross as an advocate for high rents?

No, I just don't see it as inherently bad.

Or you don't have a solution to solve the problem except maybe your Tax ideas will put more money in their pockets to make the rents affordable

How does taxing someone put money in their pockets?

The people of Sydney have sent a message to our government that they are not happy about their high rents.

They should quit complaining to the government and move out of Sydney. The fact that they stay in Sydney speaks far louder than anything they say.

How can you start a party and yet not listen to the voice of the people?

I am. I just don't think you speak on their behalf.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 3:45pm
It is apparent freediver you have no knowledge whatsoever in running a business, in particular an industrial business. If you plan to propose economic changes you need to get a grasp on how businesses are run. Like you said to me "go read a book on economics" back at you, "go read a book on the economics of business".

I wrote
Quote:
What do you think LOGISTICALLY means? I already said that transport was the major factor how about giving us your number two reason.


You answered
Quote:
As far as I can tell it's all about transport. Do we need a second reason?


I gave you a second reason earlier. Businesses need to be near employment. They need to be near services so workers without vehicles can get to them or they suffer and struggle on finding staff.

Another reason why they are near each other is because the council selects what land can be used for commercial, industrial and residential with environmental impact in mind Most of the time).

If a manufacturing plant started in my town, Brewarrina, It would be able to take advantage of backloading rates to Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and possibly Perth. Many trucks prefer to use the way out west road system for two major reasons. 1) they can speed and get away with it 2) they don't have to go over the mountains making the drive fuel efficient. Many trucks come through here from Brisbane going to Melbourne and vice versa and if you look at a map you would scratch your head why.

Freediver stated
Quote:
The beauty of the free market is that you don't have to understand all the minor details. You can leave that up to each individual business.


Yes, you do need to understand all the minor details before you set up a structure for these businesses to work off. If you plan to make any changes with your Sustainability Party obviously those changes will be made without taking all the minor details into account. Definately a recipe for disaster.

Maybe you could call your party "The Disaster Party"




Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 4:13pm
It is apparent freediver you have no knowledge whatsoever in running a business, in particular an industrial business.

How can you gather that, when we have not been discussing the running of a business?

If you plan to propose economic changes you need to get a grasp on how businesses are run. Like you said to me "go read a book on economics" back at you, "go read a book on the economics of business".

If you want to run an economy you start by looking at how to run an economy. If you want to run a business you look into that. They are not the same thing.

I gave you a second reason earlier. Businesses need to be near employment.

That's a transport issue.

If a manufacturing plant started in my town, Brewarrina, It would be able to take advantage of backloading rates to Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and possibly Perth.

If you think that is such a great idea, go ahead and do it and you will make your fortune. You don't need the government to subsidise it. If that is what it takes, it means it isn't such a good idea.

Yes, you do need to understand all the minor details before you set up a structure for these businesses to work off.

Structures like private ownership and zoning regulations. Not subsidies. And no, you do not need the details. That's the whole point of capitalism.

If you plan to make any changes with your Sustainability Party obviously those changes will be made without taking all the minor details into account. Definately a recipe for disaster.

No government has ever taken all the minor details into account. Governments have tried, but communism failed. That was a disaster.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 5:36pm
Where do I start? There are so many holes in everything you say and don't say. This is getting to a stage of "I'm wasting my time debating with you". Have you ever thought about writing something constructive about your beliefs instead of destructive about others?

I quoted
Quote:
It is apparent freediver you have no knowledge whatsoever in running a business, in particular an industrial business.


I see you left out the reasons why I made this statement.

freediver answered
Quote:
How can you gather that, when we have not been discussing the running of a business?


You forget why this debate has gone on the tangent it has.


Quote:
If value of land has gone up commonsense says rents will go up. It's all pushed along by supply and demand. Obviously Howard understands you need to create more supply so that it outstrips demand and that will bring prices down.

I think we need to look at relocation processes. Not just populace but businesses. the only way i can see to do this is with incentives to businesses which will then give higher wages becoming an incentive for people to move to country areas. Lower company tax to 15% rural sectors 300 km outside CBD and to 8% 600km outside CBD. Just a thought. It would also take a lot of polution out of the CBD from transport and push growth for housing in rural areas. Water may be an issue though.

What do you all think?

Another thing, std business phone calls for country areas charged at the local rate, this way call centres can be established outside the CBD but still have a target market, cost effectively, in the CBD.


This is what you have been attacking since. The concept of incentives for businesses to move to country locations.

I wrote
Quote:
If you plan to propose economic changes you need to get a grasp on how businesses are run. Like you said to me "go read a book on economics" back at you, "go read a book on the economics of business".  


freediver stated
Quote:
If you want to run an economy you start by looking at how to run an economy. If you want to run a business you look into that. They are not the same thing.


Businesses are part of this country which is effected by any change in the economy. Look at businesses as an individual because they are their own entity (they all have individual thought and their own business models).

This is the quote that freediver lodged
Quote:
I gave you a second reason earlier. Businesses need to be near employment.


This is the complete quote after he mentioned that transport was the only reason for businesses to be located together.


Quote:
I gave you a second reason earlier. Businesses need to be near employment. They need to be near services so workers without vehicles can get to them or they suffer and struggle on finding staff.


Another reason why they are near each other is because the council selects what land can be used for commercial, industrial and residential with environmental impact in mind Most of the time).


freedivers answer was to the first paragraph
Quote:
That's a transport issue.
but, by not answering the second paragraph he now admits that their is more reasons for businesses to locate themselves together. (Councils force them to do this freediver)

I stated
Quote:
If a manufacturing plant started in my town, Brewarrina, It would be able to take advantage of backloading rates to Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and possibly Perth.



Quote:
If you think that is such a great idea, go ahead and do it and you will make your fortune. You don't need the government to subsidise it. If that is what it takes, it means it isn't such a good idea.


Well, employment is the problem so, back to what I said much previously, if the government gave incentives allowing increase wages would entice people to move here for work.

I have to spend the next 6 hours going through your rubbish highlighting the concept that you argue for the sake of arguing out of your backside. I know you do this to keep debate happening but it is getting very close to a stage where i may just leave the site. I would prefer to work to a beneficial solution for all of Australia rather than promote a selfish one sided dictatorial style party that you obviously are going to be head of.
>:(

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 5:46pm
Have you ever thought about writing something constructive about your beliefs instead of destructive about others?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/

This is what you have been attacking since. The concept of incentives for businesses to move to country locations.

Not sure what you are getting at here. I oppose subsidies for businesses to move to the bush. If it is really more efficient for them to do so, they will do it. they aren't stupid.

Look at businesses as an individual because they are their own entity (they all have individual thought and their own business models).

That is not the role of government.

Councils force them to do this freediver

There is plenty of competition between cities and towns for business. Zoning regulation actually addresses a key market failure.

Well, employment is the problem so, back to what I said much previously, if the government gave incentives allowing increase wages would entice people to move here for work.

So, you want the government to pay people to leave the city because they would prefer not to live in the bush? Why not just let them live in the city? I think you need to ask yourself what your goals are. You appear to think that decentralisation is inherently good and more efficient. This is not that case.

I have to spend the next 6 hours going through your rubbish highlighting the concept that you argue for the sake of arguing out of your backside. I know you do this to keep debate happening but it is getting very close to a stage where i may just leave the site.

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. Handouts require taxes and are bad for the economy. If you are sick of this topic, just move on to something else. I would certainly recommend against spending 6 hours on this.

I would prefer to work to a beneficial solution for all of Australia rather than promote a selfish one sided dictatorial style party that you obviously are going to be head of.

That's OK. I am not anticipating that you will join.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by Scaly on Apr 25th, 2007 at 6:02pm
Not sure what you are getting at here. I oppose subsidies for businesses to move to the bush. If it is really more efficient for them to do so, they will do it. they aren't stupid.

So you are ok with increasing emissions to allow for services to remote areas? What about education services to remote communities? Is providing subsidies for teachers ok, or is that a no-no too?

So, you want the government to pay people to leave the city because they would prefer not to live in the bush? Why not just let them live in the city? I think you need to ask yourself what your goals are. You appear to think that decentralisation is inherently good and more efficient. This is not that case.

Centralisation puts pressure on natural resources within the vicinity as well as increases emissions with regards to transport. Spreading the load has merits, unless you advocate forced sterilisation.... :P

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 6:12pm
So you are ok with increasing emissions to allow for services to remote areas? What about education services to remote communities? Is providing subsidies for teachers ok, or is that a no-no too?

All public school teachers are paid by the government. I am fine with that.

Centralisation puts pressure on natural resources within the vicinity as well as increases emissions with regards to transport. Spreading the load has merits, unless you advocate forced sterilisation....

No centralisation decreases transport emissions. It decreases transport costs. That's why businesses gather together in cities. Provided the government doesn't skew the market towards centralsiation or decentralisation, it will do a far better job at reducing transport costs and emissions than direct government intervention. It will achieve the right balance of centralisation and decentralisation. There is absolutely no merit to the government trying to encourage decentralisation to reduce emissions or transport costs.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 6:18pm
I said
Quote:
This is what you have been attacking since. The concept of incentives for businesses to move to country locations.


freediver stated
Quote:
Not sure what you are getting at here. I oppose subsidies for businesses to move to the bush. If it is really more efficient for them to do so, they will do it. they aren't stupid.


No but you are! This is why businesses don't move to the bush. By subsidising you make it more efficient.

I stated
Quote:
Look at businesses as an individual because they are their own entity (they all have individual thought and their own business models).


Freediver stated
Quote:
That is not the role of government.


What, listening to their constituents?

I said
Quote:
Well, employment is the problem so, back to what I said much previously, if the government gave incentives allowing increase wages would entice people to move here for work.


Freediver stated
Quote:
So, you want the government to pay people to leave the city because they would prefer not to live in the bush? Why not just let them live in the city? I think you need to ask yourself what your goals are. You appear to think that decentralisation is inherently good and more efficient. This is not that case.


For one, think of the environmental impact from high populations in cities.

For two, people generally don't live in the bush because there is no work.

For three, I am not saying to pay the people direct, that onus is on business. What I suggest is as follows; (You can change the percentages but it is the concept I am looking at)

I earlier submitted this concept for discussion
Quote:
I think we need to look at relocation processes. Not just populace but businesses. the only way i can see to do this is with incentives to businesses which will then give higher wages becoming an incentive for people to move to country areas. Lower company tax to 15% rural sectors 300 km outside CBD and to 8% 600km outside CBD. Just a thought. It would also take a lot of polution out of the CBD from transport and push growth for housing in rural areas. Water may be an issue though.


Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 6:24pm
No but you are! This is why businesses don't move to the bush.

What am I doing? Why do businesses not move to the bush?

By subsidising you make it more efficient.

No, you make it less efficient.

What, listening to their constituents?

No, investigating the details about how every single business is run in order to make laws is not the role of government. The government does not micromanage, it macromanages.

For one, think of the environmental impact from high populations in cities

It's actually less than the impact of the same high population distributed thinly.

For two, people generally don't live in the bush because there is no work.

There is little work and little business because both can usually be done more efficiently in the cities.

the only way i can see to do this is with incentives to businesses which will then give higher wages becoming an incentive for people to move to country areas

that would get more businesses into the bush, but it wouldn't achieve anything else. It would harm the economy and the environment. Unless of course it really harmed the economy in a bad way, then our greenhouse emissions might go down like they did in Russia.

Title: role of government
Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2007 at 6:33pm
When the government is considering a new law, it does not take a bottom-up approach. It does not look into the details of every business and try to sum up the individual effects to get the net effect on the entire economy. That is what communism attempted and it failed miserably, because government simply cannot achieve that.

What government should do is create an environment in which commerce can flourish, and society in general. This requires an understanding of the general principles of economics. It does not require an understanding of the details of running a business.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 7:04pm
Freediver, don't you ever worry about what people think about your ridiculous comments? I know your all about rebuff to keep the debate happening and I am a sucker for falling for it. This I don't really mind because it allows people to knock what I am saying. I havn't had that yet (apart from you of course), which doesn't seem to matter.

I'm sure other readers will understand where I'm coming from. Your party get no support from me and I hope this political stance doesn't become the over riding theme or you will lose people from your site which seems to be happening.

At this stage I am intersted in what other people have to say not you. :)



Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 25th, 2007 at 7:39pm
hhmmm, maybe as cities grow there will be more people who want to move to smaller towns ?
The rent/house/commuting/living pressures make cities less desirable to live in for some people.

imho suburban sprawl is unsustainable.
High density (well designed) would alleviate commuting concerns.
When the housing bubble pops, one of the major attractins to city living (and buying) will vanish.


There are advantages to living in the bush that should be promoted. Incentives ..... are a double edged sword. The low cost of living is an incentive.

With the net, the "remoteness" is lessened.

More high density living, highlight the benefits of bush living, assistance to country areas in promoting themselves, starting up new businesses there.




Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 8:47pm
The low cost living, which I presume you mean rents, are counteracted by higher services and food costs.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by deepthought on Apr 25th, 2007 at 8:55pm

enviro wrote on Apr 25th, 2007 at 8:47pm:
The low cost living, which I presume you mean rents, are counteracted by higher services and food costs.


Due no doubt to low populations.

Most people have to work in cities as that's where the work is.   But what it means is the slow death of rural and provincial towns.   I agree with the concept of migrating industries such as service industries to regional areas.

On the subject of tax - and I see this was started as a turnover tax thread - taxes should as much as possible be confined to direct taxation and consumption tax.   Taxes such as turnover tax, payroll tax and such like will generally find individuals finding ways to avoid it.   But the only way to avoid direct tax or consumption taxes is do not work or consume.   Impossible.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by enviro on Apr 25th, 2007 at 8:58pm
Good point deepthought, i believe this is what Freediver is also advocating with his Sustainability Party.

Title: Re: Turnover tax for the sustainability party
Post by freediver on Apr 26th, 2007 at 9:10am
I think you hit the nail on the head there deepthought. It isn't an official policy, but that is what I was trying to think of with my first response here.

Title: When will the party be created?
Post by Greg(Guest) on Apr 25th, 2007 at 10:02pm
I would most definitely support this party over the Greens.

Title: Re: When will the party be created?
Post by enviro on Apr 26th, 2007 at 8:33am
Hi Greg

Can I ask what it is that attracts you to this party? If it is their policies what is it about the policies that you agree with?

Title: Re: When will the party be created?
Post by freediver on Apr 26th, 2007 at 8:46am
We need a few hundred members to register with the electoral commission, which means we get our party name listed beside any candidates on the ballot. Once I get enough supporters (maybe 100 or so), I will launch the organisation officially, ask members to join and pay a small fee, then do up a constitution etc. Then I will set up an official web site and start advertising the party. Until then I am just collecting email addresses of interested people, so if you want to keep up to date please either email or PM it to me. For the moment we are just focussing on spreading the word by whatever means you can think of. We will also try to do up a 'how to vote' thing for the next federal election, even if we don't have any candidates.

Title: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by enviro on Apr 26th, 2007 at 2:42pm
Australian Awareness Party - AAP

or

Peoples Awareness Party Particularly for You - PAPPY (Father Like Party)

:)

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by freediver on Apr 26th, 2007 at 2:45pm
Sustainability Party of Australia

Tax Reform Party

Tax Freedom Party

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 26th, 2007 at 3:45pm
Something very Australian, patriotic, perhaps somethng from our past that can help us in to the future.

Something inclusive and encompassing what all aussies aspire to.

A "new" name.

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by freediver on Apr 26th, 2007 at 3:45pm
The 'Oz' party?

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 26th, 2007 at 4:03pm
yes, something more that way. More official, less ocker.
Aussies are very creative, think situations differently than others do, we need a new future. The sheeps back is long gone, as it is we are relying on mining and tourism. We are better than that, much.

We invented the airplane black box, auto air bags, numerous other things.  We "may" be at the forefront of clean coal, we were at the forefront in solar power.

In medical research, we work on a shoestring, yet are VERY well internationally regarded, Holden have car enthusists from the world over coming here to design for them.

Sports wise we punch above our weight.

A name that says all that.

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by freediver on Apr 26th, 2007 at 4:13pm
The "AussiesareverycreativethinksituationsdifferentlythanothersdoweneedanewfutureThesheepsbackislonggoneasitiswearerelyingonminingandtourismWearebetterthanthatmuchWeinventedtheairplaneblackboxautoairbagsnumerousotherthingsWemaybeattheforefrontofcleancoalwewereattheforefrontinsolarpowerInmedicalresearchweworkonashoestringyetareVERYwellinternationallyregardedHoldenhavecarenthusistsfromtheworldovercomingheretodesignforthemSportswisewepunchaboveourweight" party?

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by oceans_blue on Apr 26th, 2007 at 5:04pm
[size=72]the tupperware party

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 26th, 2007 at 6:15pm
hahahaha freediver, hahah, could not have stated it better myself

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by deepthought on Apr 26th, 2007 at 6:24pm

freediver wrote on Apr 26th, 2007 at 4:13pm:
The "AussiesareverycreativethinksituationsdifferentlythanothersdoweneedanewfutureThesheepsbackislonggoneasitiswearerelyingonminingandtourismWearebetterthanthatmuchWeinventedtheairplaneblackboxautoairbagsnumerousotherthingsWemaybeattheforefrontofcleancoalwewereattheforefrontinsolarpowerInmedicalresearchweworkonashoestringyetareVERYwellinternationallyregardedHoldenhavecarenthusistsfromtheworldovercomingheretodesignforthemSportswisewepunchaboveourweight" party?


I'd go with that.   But I think you have made a spelling mistake in there.   Is the twentieth 't' in the right place?

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by oceans_blue on Apr 26th, 2007 at 11:03pm
im out of ideas and its so frustrating!!
pc_userkeyboard_guy_002.gif (48 KB | 72 )

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by deepthought on Apr 27th, 2007 at 7:22am

wrote on Apr 26th, 2007 at 11:03pm:
im out of ideas and its so frustrating!!


So far you've only come up with the Tupperware Party mate.    If that's it I'd say you started without any ideas.

How about the Watermelon Party?    Pretty green on the outside and when you get to discuss it with freediver you see he's really a dictatorial kind of bloke who wants suggestions except they have to be just like he already decided how it would be.


freediver, you have to listen or you freak people out mate.   It's pointless talking to a wall.

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 27th, 2007 at 9:24am
Something like

"The Clever Country Party."

"The Clever Australian Party."



Freediver - I have to agree with deepthought on his comments. They are intended in a good spirit.
Let us be wrong at times.

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by oceans_blue on Apr 27th, 2007 at 10:00am

deepthought wrote on Apr 27th, 2007 at 7:22am:

wrote on Apr 26th, 2007 at 11:03pm:
im out of ideas and its so frustrating!!


So far you've only come up with the Tupperware Party mate.    If that's it I'd say you started without any ideas.

How about the Watermelon Party?    Pretty green on the outside and when you get to discuss it with freediver you see he's really a dictatorial kind of bloke who wants suggestions except they have to be just like he already decided how it would be.


freediver, you have to listen or you freak people out mate.   It's pointless talking to a wall.




Deepy,

I see your learning pretty fast how it works around here.So SEE you may as well have suggested TUPPERWARE a
party?

Im a female anyway-- what do I know about parties? If youve seen one party. youve seen em all. ;)


Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by oceans_blue on Apr 27th, 2007 at 10:28am
What about the 'Where the f-u-ck are we party" ?

Short, sweet, and tells it like it is.

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by deepthought on Apr 27th, 2007 at 11:25am

wrote on Apr 27th, 2007 at 10:28am:
What about the 'Where the f-u-ck are we party" ?

Short, sweet, and tells it like it is.


But I think that's been taken already oceans.    The leader is Kevin Rudd.   He's the last in a succession of leaders which has the populace scratching their nuts (except for the women) asking 'Where the fu'ck are we with leaders at the moment'?



I think a nationalist name is cool.    Apart from the Greens everyone else loves their country.   'The Australia Party' -  'it doesn't get much bigger'.

I'm in.     ;)

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by oceans_blue on Apr 27th, 2007 at 1:22pm

deepthought wrote on Apr 27th, 2007 at 11:25am:

wrote on Apr 27th, 2007 at 10:28am:
What about the 'Where the f-u-ck are we party" ?

Short, sweet, and tells it like it is.


But I think that's been taken already oceans.    The leader is Kevin Rudd.   He's the last in a succession of leaders which has the populace scratching their nuts (except for the women) asking 'Where the fu'ck are we with leaders at the moment'?



I think a nationalist name is cool.    Apart from the Greens everyone else loves their country.   'The Australia Party' -  'it doesn't get much bigger'.


well DT , we are on opposing political sides--I think Rudd is cute-' thinking womens public servant/crumpet'?

He is a good leader as well for many different reasons that have little yo do with his sex appeal...not ALL women think he,s cute.



But he will be PM next, dont you agree? And then Howie will be but a distant geriatric memory. ::)
I'm in.     ;)


Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by enviro on Apr 27th, 2007 at 5:44pm
The Australia Party or The Australian Party, I'm in. It's simple and says it all. The only problem is it doesn't suit freediver's party. It doesn't say TAX in the name.

Freediver's party really is only about changing taxes. No real issues apart from that. Every issue, whether it's environment or not is solved by tax, just ask freediver.

I agree with earlier comments you made deepthought and sprintcyclist;

deepthought
Quote:
How about the Watermelon Party?    Pretty green on the outside and when you get to discuss it with freediver you see he's really a dictatorial kind of bloke who wants suggestions except they have to be just like he already decided how it would be.


freediver, you have to listen or you freak people out mate.   It's pointless talking to a wall.  
Posted by: oceans_blue


Sprintcyclist
Quote:
Freediver - I have to agree with deepthought on his comments. They are intended in a good spirit.
Let us be wrong at times.

:)

It does seem that he only wants sheep in his party.

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by freediver on Apr 27th, 2007 at 7:00pm
Freediver's party really is only about changing taxes.

Have you read the policies? Marine parks? Truth in advertising? Communal fruit and nut trees? Electoral reform? No more handouts - baby bonus, 1st home owners, tanks. Subsidies. Communal ownership of communal resources.

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 27th, 2007 at 8:14pm


The Clever Connected Party

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by oceans_blue on Apr 27th, 2007 at 8:20pm

enviro wrote on Apr 27th, 2007 at 5:44pm:
The Australia Party or The Australian Party, I'm in. It's simple and says it all. The only problem is it doesn't suit freediver's party. It doesn't say TAX in the name.

Freediver's party really is only about changing taxes. No real issues apart from that. Every issue, whether it's environment or not is solved by tax, just ask freediver.

I agree with earlier comments you made deepthought and sprintcyclist;

deepthought
Quote:
How about the Watermelon Party?    Pretty green on the outside and when you get to discuss it with freediver you see he's really a dictatorial kind of bloke who wants suggestions except they have to be just like he already decided how it would be.


freediver, you have to listen or you freak people out mate.   It's pointless talking to a wall.  
Posted by: oceans_blue


Sprintcyclist [quote]Freediver - I have to agree with deepthought on his comments. They are intended in a good spirit.
Let us be wrong at times.

:)

It does seem that he only wants sheep in his party.
[/quote]






Im sure that not the case--maybe youve misunderstood.?



Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by enviro on Apr 28th, 2007 at 1:16pm
Maybe I have misunderstood...

Abolish Baby Bonus... (Or atleast means test)
Abolish First Home Owners Grant.. (Or atleat means test)
Green Tax Shift
Income Tax Reduction

Just to name a few things that I don't personally agree with.

Most other policies are not bad ideas like Water Tanks etc. The only problem is that Rural Australia uses around 85% of our water rescources and this is where the problem should be solved.

A lot of the policies come out of the Hippy book... "Ways for alternative living".

I'd be interest to know what the following policies are;

IR policy
Education Policy
Health Policy
Foriegn Trade Policy

When I see these policies I will make a decision on whether to join but, at the moment there is too much I don't agree with and the hope of changing or discussing these policies by joining would be fruitful. Freediver has shown that he will argue these policies to the ground and even when shown good argument to the detrimental effects of our economy of his policies in some areas he will persue them heedlessly. I will not follow in that path.

A party must be willing to change policy for the better of Australia when shown its faults. As for a minority following well, that is about as far as this party will go.

All I see is a complete disregard to the butterfly effect of your policies. Anyone can start a party with a bunch of social issues targetted to the Left, like save the whale etc.

I do wish you the best of luck and I do hope that you do not use this site to promote your party ideals or the sites neutrality is lost and so are the members. I for one will find another site as I cannot afford to have my business aligned with even something I don't agree with. (Bad for business)

:) no hard feelings I hope, please remove my logo and link from webring. I'll be removing your link from my website as well.


Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by freediver on Apr 28th, 2007 at 10:29pm
I'd be interest to know what the following policies are;

Would you mind asking in the other thread or starting a new one?

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 29th, 2007 at 10:09pm
Back to a new name.

Something to reflect our online habits as a nation.

I do like "The Clever Connected Australian Party"

"The Clever Online Party"

The Clever Communicating Party"

About time for us to put up suggestions and vote on it ??

I noticed an add for the conservation party , or similar. Shall we see about a joint effort ?
Cooperation is better than competition.

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by freediver on Apr 30th, 2007 at 11:25am
Sure sprint, go ahead and approach them. Let's see what they have to say. Also, check your email.

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by Stu on Apr 30th, 2007 at 2:00pm
Well the conservation party really is only the greens trying to squeeze out every drop

www.tapp.org.au

The Australian Peoples Party

stu

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by freediver on Apr 30th, 2007 at 2:07pm
Hi stu. Are you interested in adopting any of our policies for tapp?

Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by sprintcyclist on Apr 30th, 2007 at 2:17pm
Wonder if some of the online political parties could combine.
Seperately we are not going to accomplish much.

A larger pool of resources may help.
Would have experts in most fields to discuss things in their own ara of expertise .

Our future is more online, mentally led .


Title: Re: Ideas for New Party Name
Post by Stu on May 7th, 2007 at 9:49pm
Well FD
I dont think that your policies would be constitutionaly correct.

Just like the states giving power to the federal government.

Also these actions require a referendum.

Title: Are small backyards a bad thing?
Post by freediver on Sep 5th, 2007 at 11:25am

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 24th, 2007 at 11:26pm:
Hi enviro,
I like high density. They should be made with soundproof walls and sprung wooden floors .
suburbia is unsustainable, such a waste of energy.
The english (100's of years ago) had big lawns to show off their wealth. lawns take a great amount of time to keep and produce nothiing,so had to be rich to have a lawn. Our society came from there.

I rent a place with a small unuseable back yard. We go down to the local park for a walk/basketball throw/run/boomerang throw whatever. Aside from the clothes line I would prefer to have no backyard. The park is perfect. HUGE, someone else mows it  :). Few backyards I can run in.

yep, give me a place that is logistically good and mimimum useless maintenance, sold me.


Aussie backyard becoming a dying icon

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Aussie-backyard-becoming-a-dying-icon/2007/09/05/1188783277732.html

Australia's outdoor lifestyle is being threatened by the disappearance of an Aussie icon, according to new research.

Queensland's Griffith University professor Professor Tony Hall said the backyard was fast becoming a thing of the past with new estates brimming with sprawling low-set homes taking over from the traditional suburb.

The former UK town planner began his research two years ago after he moved to Australia and noticed homes and their backyards seemed to contradict the open-air lifestyle for which Australia was internationally renowned.

But while urban sprawl was happening in other countries, they were not losing their back yards the way Australian families were, he said.

He said people were building "cheap", square, single-story homes rather than more expensive two-story homes which would allow for maximum floor area and a back yard.

"Walls and the windows cost money, the second story costs money, but this gives you the cheapest way," he said.

"But it's not very nice living in terms of you don't get no view out and it's not a very nice environment compared to the older suburbs."

Prof Hall said his research had concluded the trend was being spurred by people building to increase resale value and longer working hours which meant people were rarely at home.

"The real problem I think though is what is happening to the Australian lifestyle - what's happening to this idea of the outdoor lifestyle, the barbie, the swimming pool?" he said.

The trend also would have damaging effects on the environment with the homes costing more to heat, cool and light.

The lack of trees also meant a lack of biodiversity, a poor microclimate with loss of shade in hot weather and increased runoff in wet weather, he said.

He said a return to the traditional backyard could only be achieved through planning regulations.

Title: party update
Post by freediver on Nov 9th, 2007 at 11:12am
The Sustainability Party is not registered and will not be fielding any candidates at the upcoming federal election. The only other party that supports carbon taxes instead of carbon trading is Conservatives For Climate and Environment.

http://www.cfce.org.au/

They have senate candidates in NSW, Vic and WA and lower house candidates in NSW. Please consider voting for them. If you are a member of any other party please ask them to reconsider carbon taxes. There is clear support for carbon taxes instead of trading schemes among economists and only public ignorance and the vested interests of big polluters is holding the idea back. This is a crucial time for action as the tide is turning on the climate debate in Australia. We must make sure we get the solution right, or we will be delayed another decade in achieving real change.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by IQSRLOW on Nov 9th, 2007 at 8:02pm

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by .. on Nov 10th, 2007 at 3:40am
TYURGAVEHBDFSAwerf4g6aqbtdrhfzs evtrgfd

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Deathridesahorse on Nov 17th, 2007 at 2:44pm

freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2007 at 5:48pm:
What do you all think?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/sustainability-party.html



I'll read more later but for now just 1 question.

Didn't the Greens initially have what is now Labors target for Renewable Energy by 2050?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Greg on Nov 18th, 2007 at 12:27am
Hello all,

Came across your forum by doing a web seach (New Political party).  
I think a new party is needed as the two major parties have
been around to long, they dont seem to have any new ideas.

Whoever wins the election, not alot will change, although the Labour elephant has
the potential do real damage to the economy.

My 2 cents worth.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Deathridesahorse on Nov 18th, 2007 at 12:45am

Greg wrote on Nov 18th, 2007 at 12:27am:
Hello all,

Came across your forum by doing a web seach (New Political party).  
I think a new party is needed as the two major parties have
been around to long, they dont seem to have any new ideas.

Whoever wins the election, not alot will change, although the Labour elephant has
the potential do real damage to the economy.

My 2 cents worth.


But didn't the Greens initally propose 60% Renewables by 2050 and then Labor stole the idea?

That's a powerful third force IMHO.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by sprintcyclist on Nov 18th, 2007 at 1:30am
greg - yes, the greens are a .... reasonable 3rd party,
As are the family first party.

together they do make aussie a more balanced place.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Nov 18th, 2007 at 2:30pm
Didn't the Greens initially have what is now Labors target for Renewable Energy by 2050?

For overall emissions reductions they have the same or at least a similar target for 2050. Labor has no short term target.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Greg on Nov 19th, 2007 at 11:15pm
Yes, your both right of course,  there are the other parties and they do
do a good job.

What I kinda meant was a new party to play a direct part in actually
governing, that is to challenge the Labor or Liberal/National party for power.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Nov 20th, 2007 at 3:18pm
I think the Democrats have come closest. The Greens will be the next to take a crack at it. I think the Democrats probably did a good job of keeping the two major parties honest and could make a comeback again if necessary. I'm not sure if the Greens will ever be able to go mainstream. However they could reach a similar status to the Nationals if they start to get some lower house seats in the inner city. Unfortunately for them their support base is not as concentrated in terms of electorates as the Nationals. I wouldn't be looking for 'micro' parties to challenge the big two. It takes a long time to establish the credibility the public requires.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Greg on Nov 20th, 2007 at 11:51pm
FD - you are right about a small party not having much chance. The problem is not one of credibility.  
The Democrats have always been a credible party, it hasn't helped them much.

The problem for a new party would be that as the big parties have been around for such along time they have developed a Holden/Falcon type following amongst their supporters, And as it took more than forty years for Toyota to start outselling either one of the big two, it could probaly take about as long for any new party to get enough support to take power.    -  Not a viable option.

But I believe there is a way.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Nov 21st, 2007 at 9:16am
Well obviously if you have a forty year outlook the problem of reputation is not a big issue.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Greg on Nov 22nd, 2007 at 1:13am
Yes, well what would I know, Ive never taken alot of notice of what goes on in politics.  Prefer thinking about the problems the country is facing and possible solutions.

Still the question would be if anyone came up with a solution or good idea how would they implement it,
Which of course brings us back to your party.

I know There is such a thing as a one person company, but party usually implies a group contribution on things like policy, do you allow imput on policy,   this would be up to you, it's your show.

I dont have much to offer as far as sustainabilty policy goes. One idea I had about ten years back, could be  to pump an organic hydrocabon mixture derived from oil producing plants into depleted oil basins. This would have the effect of turning an equivalent barrel of mineral oil green. The carbon going into the ground would balance that going into the atmosphere as burnt petrol.

Who knows it might even be possible to use the organic hydrocabons within a reasonable time, I'm no chemist, but I dont see why it would not with the heat and pressure underground become a usable product within 50 years or so. (Might make a suitable replacement for Diesel)

What did occur to me while writing this was that although the above ideas are most probaly not viable,  it might be possible to recharge the aquifer of the Great artesian basin, using the water available in the wet season from the gulf rivers. A lot less expensive than building a giant overland pipeline or canal to supply water to the inland and south.  Recharging would at least help solve the problem of loss due to waste, uncapped bores etc.   Whether the water would
be suitable for irrigation would depend on how fast it could be pumped in.  

These are just some ideas,   and I'm sure if they were of any value the experts would have considered them a long time ago.


Bye for now.


Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Nov 22nd, 2007 at 9:36am
do you allow imput on policy, this would be up to you, it's your show

Yes. Obviously I expect to attract like minded people so I don't expect any difficulties with this.

One idea I had about ten years back, could be  to pump an organic hydrocabon mixture derived from oil producing plants into depleted oil basins. This would have the effect of turning an equivalent barrel of mineral oil green. The carbon going into the ground would balance that going into the atmosphere as burnt petrol.

This sounds more like something you should take to industry. There is also a bit of government money floating around to invest in research for new ideas like this. I don't think the government should be directly involved in the technical solutions.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Greg on Nov 24th, 2007 at 1:14am

Thanks,  hope I can contribute something useful,  at least better than my silly green oil idea.

One thing is, there would be no reason to wait a full 3 years for the next election,  local and state elections could be contested.    The day after this election would make a good time to start planning for these.

Grass-roots level would be a good starting place, after all if we cant run a local council, what chance would we have in
federal government.  

I've noticed that in my local council (Queanbeyan City Council) there appears to be little party representation, independents mostly.  My way of thinking this would make the council vunerable to a well organised new party.

There are plenty of good reasons for taking this council on,   I suspect some of the councilers have close ties to the local realtors and developers.   Approving developments that allow the jamming into building sites of as many units and small apartments as will fit.  Some of these small units make british terrace houses look like mansions.  Certainly not the Australian dream.
 

These are not sustainabilty issues,  how should I proceed.


Still going thru your newsletter,


Bye for now.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Nov 24th, 2007 at 9:14am
I think the party has an electoral reform policy. Personally I prefer voting by delegable proxy, which would save the trouble of having an election day. However that is a big change that would take a long time. The only problem I see with having both state and federal elections on the same day is that people would get state and federal issues more mixed up. Then again, it may make it easiuer for the public to force state and federal governments to work together. Maybe that's just naive.

I'm going to put up a policy on optional preferential voting also.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Greg on Nov 25th, 2007 at 11:34pm

Well, it's the day after the election,
       
We now have three years to sort out policy and come up with a plan to get the party into power.

     

Sorry, something good on tv (Me, Myself & Irene)  My pc interferes with reception.

     
Will continue tommorow.      
     

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Nov 26th, 2007 at 10:13am
Excellent. You can be the minister for optimism.  ;)

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Greg on Nov 27th, 2007 at 12:01am

Thanks.  There would be no person better suited to this position.



I'ts now  1am in the "cool state" of New South Wales.

Time for bed.

Bye for now.


Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Greg on Dec 16th, 2007 at 10:54pm

Our Economy - What's wrong?


John Howard was always telling us that we had a strong economy and we all wanted to believe this was true.
Sure growth rates of 3+ percent sound impressive but when we consider the small relative size of our economy they
dont amount to much at all.         ' We should have a booming economy with double digit growth'



Selling off our minerals is never going to make us rich.
We must concentrate on our own internal development and not rely on unstable globalism.



Putting the economy first might look like the development policy of yet another greedy conservative party,
but the facts are that so many of our problems could be solved with a bigger economy, increased tax revenue would mean more money for spending on health (Our health system problems aren't just money related.) and education.
Lower tax rates, lower unemployment and prices, more money for roads and services.




Our program of 'Massive Economic Development' will aim for a minimum doubling of the economy within ten years.







Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by IQSRLOW on Dec 16th, 2007 at 10:58pm
"increased tax revenue would mean more money for spending on health (Our health system problems aren't just money related.) and education."

You haven't taken any notice of the any of the surpluses have you? The money is there, the state Labor govts have just been squandering it

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Greg on Dec 16th, 2007 at 11:30pm
The profits of Australia Pty. Ltd.  (Howards surplus) are not much more than the combined profits of a few of our large companies.  

Putting lots of money into our hospitals is like trying to put out a fire using kerosene.    The real problem is our
dangerous, outdated and very expensive GP system.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by IQSRLOW on Dec 16th, 2007 at 11:39pm
The real problem is our
dangerous, outdated and very expensive GP system.


Please explain the 'expensive GP system'- Is this the system brought in by a previous Labor govt where anybody with the sniffles expects to go to the docs and get expensive govt subsidised treatment and antibiotics that they inevitably don't need for a discounted rate ?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Oceans on Dec 17th, 2007 at 7:26am
I agree with Greg.




Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Greg on Dec 20th, 2007 at 10:37pm

Hospitals a health hazard.

At the moment the natural processes of recovery with a little help from doctors, drugs and a few machines decide whether a person lives or dies in the emergency room.

This is not a satisfactory system.

A hospital is a place where if you arrive alive you should expect to survive.









Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on Aug 21st, 2008 at 5:36pm
I recieved this email from a SA state senator recently. I have updated the table to reflect the comments:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/sustainability-party.html#major-party-comparison

I came across your table - the 'how to vote guide' - on the ozpolitic website.

As a Democrat MP in South Australian I can fill in a few gaps for you.

The Democrats support a carbon tax, the ending of the baby bonus, and electoral reform (in terms of proportional representation). Some things I can't comment on as they appear to relate to another state.  Personally, I have called for the end of water restrictions in concert with a revised pricing regime so that the more you use the more you pay.  I also support a reduction in immigration (my first speech in parliament 14 years ago was about the need for a sustainable level of population in Australia.  I support food trees and community gardens on public land.

Yours sincerely
Sandra Kanck, MLC

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by hawil on May 6th, 2010 at 5:54pm
The Rotten Systems, and is there an Alterative?

The so called Civilizations since mankind came out of the cave, or maybe came down from the trees have hardly changed over thousands of years, because we are now as brutal to each other as they were in the stone ages; the only difference is, that thousands of years ago, men fought each other with sticks and stones, and now destructive weapons are used to the point that the planet on which we live could be completely destroyed in matters of minutes, if the potent weapons, designed by very clever people, put into the hands of not so clever, so called leaders, be they Kings, Dictators or just Politicians, and none of the latter display any scruples or courage to speak up against what should be spoken up against.

But in the so called Democracy, are the Politicians only to be blamed?

If a Politician speaks honestly, if that is possible, will he/she be re-elected at the next election; most likely not, and that is the weakness of a Democracy, the citizens in a Democracy cannot accept the truth, which may go against the voters interests.

How could Democracy be improved so that it becomes a better system of Government than all the other systems that preceded it?

Considering the previous systems, Be they Oligarchies, Royalties, Plutocracies  or Communism.

The first three are only for the benefit of the few, based on either birth or other means, while the last would be the best, yet it completely collapsed after less than a hundred years, but why did Communism collapse so quickly?

The Capitalist always harp on the idea of being the human nature, and greed will always come out on top, when it comes to benefit humanity.

For Communism to work, the human mind has to broaden enormously, because if people think that Communism is a system made in heaven, they are very wrong, because it is obvious that if nobody is prepared to put the effort he/she is capable of, and everybody has no desire to limit their consumption, the system cannot function.

But in any system, the main problem is, that there are always people trying to usurp the leading positions, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they are capable of being the leaders and are not just in the leading positions for their own benefit or boost their big ego.

As most of the aspiring leaders have the ability to fool the common people, by first crawling to them, and when they are in positions of power they will quickly turn around and often misuse the power vested in them.

The people in power also have the great ability of surrounding themselves with underlings who will lick the boots of their leaders, and empower the leader to overcome any attempt to challenge their leadership

Many male leaders are often also controlled by their wives or female partners and are rather weak in reality, but very cunning to outwit their opponents, but in the long run, the society with weak or unfair leaders always suffers.

In a Marriage, where a partner with less ability gains control through having a thicker skin, in the end both partners will not achieve their full potential, and this will also apply in every other Organization up to the leadership in Governments.

That does not mean that the more skillful partner in a marriage should debase his/her partner, but for the benefit of both and the community at large, fools should not be leaders, but use their skills and talents for the benefit of a family, a group or Government, and the so called Indians are just as valuable to society as are the Chiefs.

Never, never should the leaders in society be left in total position of power, but should  always be challenged  to explain and justify their actions.

Unfortunately many individuals which are prepared to challenge the leaders or the system are conveniently accused of “Rocking the Boat” or called “Whistleblowers” and many times they pay a high price for their actions.

Also the leaders of any society should not be put on a pedestal and idolized like super heroes, and when the people in power talk about serving the Community, they should really show their true colours and admit that they are not in those positions for their own ego and like to have the nose in the trough.

How many families become career politicians; now if to be a politician is such a hard and demanding task, a parent would hardly encourage their offspring to follow in their

footsteps.

One way how Democratic performance could be greatly improved would be is , instead of having the Senate and Legislative Councils, abolish them and set up Committees of interested citizens to perform the task of keeping a watch over the Governments, and they should not be paid, except being remunerated for any expenses in performing their tasks.

There could also be some risk that this committees set up to keep the “bastards honest” do not become in to the same mould of the Australian Democrats, which although now completely obliterated, are a huge burden on the taxpayers, as there are many quite young ex MP’s enjoying the benefits of a generous parliamentary pension, with all the attached perks.

In the capitalist system, much emphasis is placed on the value of capital for the benefit of society, but is capital really so important for the function of society?

It is also emphasized that money has to work hard for the benefit of the owner of the money; but money does not work, only people work.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Soren on May 7th, 2010 at 12:15am
http://hawilspoint.com/

What the obsession with superannuation about?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by hawil on May 20th, 2010 at 3:14pm
Soren, I consider that the tax-free super for the over sixties will in the long run be unsustainable.


The Great Super Fraud.

How many people are aware that there are people on super income of more than hundred thousand dollar and not paying a cent of tax?

Australia has a three tier social service system, which the Australian politicians claim to be one of the best in the developed world, consisting of a basic means-tested age pension, compulsory super of 9% paid by the employer, but the workers forfeited wage claims for it, and other private savings.
1)      The means test prevents anybody dependent on a Centrelink pension to raise his/her income from rising to a decent living standard of income. It is considered that a couple needs an annual income of $50,000.00 for a decent standard of living, yet when the total income for a couple reaches $6448.00 per annum, the means test cuts in and for every extra dollar of income, the couple loses $0.40 of Centrelink pension, and this will increase to $0.50 in September, to where it used to be before the Better Super was introduced.
2)      If most of the private income is in one name of the couple, once the combined income reaches some $40,000.00 per annum, one partner will pay tax of $0.315 including Medicare levy, leaving the couple with the majestic sum of $0.185 for every extra dollar income.
3)      As some 78% of the population who are of pension-age receive some Centrelink pension, they are all affected by the meanest “Means Test” in the developed world and this will continue for the next generation, because according to all Government statistics the majority of the population will not accumulate enough assets through the compulsory super to be independent of the Centrelink pension and will therefore be affected by the Means Test.
4)      Who are the real beneficiaries of the compulsory super? The 20% of the population with sufficient income, not to be dependent on any Centrelink Pension, because they benefit much more from tax concessions than they would gain from any Centrelink Pension. The tax concessions for super almost equal the total cost of the age pension. Approximately $25 billion.
Who owns the majority of Super assets?
Billions of dollars of fees are flowing to financial advisers as they bask in Australia's growing preoccupation with retirement income from superannuation and other managed funds.
No wonder Pauline Vamos agrees with the ACTU’s call for 15% contribution to super, as reported in Australian Financial Review on the 9’th of June 2009 under the heading “Industry warns of threat to super incomes”.
Do the Super funds work for the benefit of the super contributors?
They have a conflict of interest as they are companies responsible to their shareholders.

As the majority of the ACTU’s members will never accumulate enough assets to be independent of the Centrelink pension, it makes one wonder whose interests are they representing; mostly the leaders, many of who finish up as Members of Parliament on a fat Parliamentary Super.
Data on super assets as reported in Financial Review on page 17 on 9’th May 2006 as applicable to 2002.

Mean value of superannuation

Poorest 10% own 0.4 =289 million proportion of total value % =0.000001

2nd  10%              2= 2181 million                                                % =0.4


Richest 10%  358.7=343,990million                                              %=57.8

Now Prince Costello has delivered his budget and you can guess which section of the community received the most benefits.

When the Howard government introduced the tax-free super for super paid from a taxed fund,that virtually gave millionaires tax-free income of at times more than $100,000.00 a year. How can that be justified?

As Australia has a safety net in the form of the age pension for every person of pension age and residential qualification, why should the Government provide the top 10% of the richest people with such extraordinary tax concessions?

If the means test for the age pension was abolished, every person could try and save for a better income in retirement and not having Centrelink look over their financial interests, treating the Centrelink pension recipients like second class citizens.

Question for the Government.

Question,1): Could you please inform me which government of any developed country means-tests the basic pension?

Question,2): Which government exempts millionaires from paying tax if their income is derived from a taxed super fund and they are over 60 years of age?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on May 20th, 2010 at 6:46pm
I suspect you are lookling at it the wrong way. There is currently a very high effective tax rate on the elderly's super contribution, in the sense that every dollar they save means less pension.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by hawil on May 25th, 2010 at 12:37pm
Freediver, the effctive tax rate is exactly what I mean, if the government would pay evrybody above 65 the full age pension, abolish all the tax concessions for super, it would be cheper for the government and fairer on everyone.
Australia provides every person, who qualify residentally and are over the age of sixty the safety net of an age pension, if their assetts or income drop below a certain level, so why should the government provide the people of large assetts all the tax concessions, while they penalise every pensioner with punitive loss of Centrelink pension if their assetts exceed $6640.00 per annum.
Australia is the only OECD country which uses the means test too keep the majority of the age pensioners poor.
The australian age pensioners are the second poorest among the OECD countries, only second to Ireland.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on May 25th, 2010 at 9:16pm

Quote:
if the government would pay evrybody above 65 the full age pension, abolish all the tax concessions for super, it would be cheper for the government


What makes you think that?


Quote:
so why should the government provide the people of large assetts all the tax concessions, while they penalise every pensioner with punitive loss of Centrelink pension if their assetts exceed $6640.00 per annum


Why shouldn't they? You have to draw the line somewhere. You can't just respond to this problem with handouts for everyone, in the name of fairness.


Quote:
Australia is the only OECD country which uses the means test too keep the majority of the age pensioners poor.


They keep them poor by giving them handouts?

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by hawil on May 27th, 2010 at 4:58pm
Freediver, could you please tell me, what does the word "Fair" in the National Anthem stands for.
Or don't you believe in fairness.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Soren on May 27th, 2010 at 9:24pm
Somebody working has to pay for the pension/welfare income of someone who doesn't: pensioners, unemployed, sick.

Superannuation: save, while you are working, to pay for yourself when you are too old to work.

The Greek model of retiring at 55 on 75% of your earnings is not on. In Australia we do not have the luxury of sticking it to the Germans.
ANd as the Greks are rapidly finding it out, even they don't have that luxury.
Nor the Portugese, Italians and Spanish. Or the Brits.

Ants and Grasshopper. The Ants have super, the Gasshoppers want more public pension.



Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by freediver on May 27th, 2010 at 9:42pm

hawil wrote on May 27th, 2010 at 4:58pm:
Freediver, could you please tell me, what does the word "Fair" in the National Anthem stands for.
Or don't you believe in fairness.


I don't believe fairness comes into taxes. If you want a fair system, try communism. I certainly don't think our national anthem is about government handouts.

I asked some very specific questions in my last post. Try answering them.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by hawil on Jun 1st, 2010 at 8:51pm
Soren and Freediver, could you please read my post, "The great super fraud", so I do not have to re-type it all again.
Freediver, why do I think that it would be cheaper for the government to pay everybody over sixty five  the full age pension?
Because the tax concessions for the compulsory and voluntary super exceeds the total age-pension.
This is an excerpt from a letter that I wrote to some politicians.

Dear Sir.
Please find enclosed some articles concerning super tax concessions.
In the article “Rule changes not so super: a person complains about the reductions limits to super at concession level.
If a person contributes the maximum $50,000.00 into super the following data is achieved.

Contribution: $50,000
Normal tax at $0.45= $22500.00
Concession at $0.15= $ 7500.00
Tax saving =$15,000.00
The tax saving equals the full age pension.
The tax concessions increase further because the earnings of the fund are again taxed at concession rate of 15%, and when the person retires at the age of 60, neither the earnings nor the income from super assets are taxed.

Compare this to a person who receives a defined super pension of $25,000.00 and has a total combined income per couple of $36,000, the couple is deprived of some $10,000.00 of Centrelink pension.

In the article “Super tax breaks cost budget $22 bn., almost equal to the total age pension, therefore would it not be fairer to what I suggested in the letter to the AFR “Super tax solutions” and to my surprise had the letter published.

Consider a person who worked for 46 years of his/her life, paid full taxes and on top of that paid 6% of after tax income into a government super, and now receves a government super, but for every dollar above $6644 he/she loses $0.50 of Centrelink pension, and if a couples total income exceeds $40,000 per annum, he/she loses $0.815 due to the $0.30 tax and 1.5% medicare levy.
So can anyone tell me that that is fair.
As far as the Greeks are concerned, there only the wage earners paid their fair share of taxes, the high income earners avoided as much as possible; some Doctors declaring incomes of $25,000 and living in million dollar mansions.
I'am spending a lot of time writing this, with virtually no benefit to me, but the media and the government doe's everything in their power prevent my view to be heard or read.
But neither will they tell me that I don't know what I'am talking about and prove me completely wrong.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by hawil on Jul 8th, 2010 at 8:14pm
[highlight]Home > The Hon Chris Bowen MP
INTERVIEW WITH DERRYN HINCH
3AW
WEDNESDAY, 14 OCTOBER 2009
SUBJECTS: Superannuation system, Superannuation Guarantee, Henry Review, Cooper Review, Age Pension
DERRYN HINCH:
On the line the Federal Minister for Human Services, Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, Mr Chris Bowen. Good afternoon.
CHRIS BOWEN:
Good afternoon Derryn, nice to talk to you.
HINCH:
I think you are caught in a bit of a cleft stick here and I'll tell you why. On the one hand you want people to save more, to become self-funded retirees, so they need a pension and they won't be a burden on the tax system, but on the other hand, by making that more attractive, look at all of those billions of dollars in lost revenue from superannuation concessions. Would that be right?
BOWEN:
There's nothing you say there that isn't correct Derryn. There are substantial tax concessions for superannuation; about $25 billion a year the Government gives up in terms of tax concessions for super, built as you say, the pay-off for the nation is that people have a much more comfortable retirement income and not on the age pension so that frees up taxpayer funds for other things.
What I said Derryn is that we are all getting older, the Australian population is ageing, we are living longer, and we need to have a discussion about how we are going to put money aside for the future - both as individuals and as a nation. There are a whole lot of mechanisms that we can employ to increase people's retirement income through super and I think they all should be on the table.
HINCH:
Okay, now this idea of a super guarantee increase - this idea of Paul Keating's but he didn't get there - has been stalled for many years on nine. Is it true that you want to get it to twelve?
BOWEN:
No, what I said is that we need to be boosting retirement incomes and that is one of the options. The other option, as you indicated is tax. One of the things I pointed out is that low and middle income earners often left out of this debate. They actually get very few tax concessions for super when you look at how they are treated, because we tax super at 15 per cent, but for 1.2 million Australians that is there tax rate, so it is not concessional. If you are up on the highest tax rate 15 per cent is a very low tax rate in comparison, but if you are already pay 15 per cent anyway then that's not a tax concession at all. So I've said that we shouldn't forget them in this debate either.
HINCH:
But don't you want those on higher wages to push more and more into super so they are guaranteed that they will never ever draw on a pension? They pay higher taxes because of their incomes, and by letting them have those concession of 15 per cent and pushing $100,000 - or it's been reduced to $50,000 now - each year into super, you are guaranteeing that they will never get a dollar from the government.
BOWEN:
Well that is certainly the case in relation middle income earners, you are quite right. When you look at higher income earners they would be very unlikely to go onto the pension, because they would be saving through one mechanism or another. Saving is good for the nation because it means there is that pool of funds available and that has been very useful over the last two years, with for example, more than $1 trillion of money that we have in superannuation and that has been very useful for companies in terms of investment over the last few years. That's true. But the main focus of superannuation must be to ensure that lower and middle income earners have as comfortable retirement income as possible and if it can be avoided, don't go onto the age pension. It's not in there interests or the interests of the economy, more generally, to have more people than necessary on the pension. The pension is there, it is very important, it is a very important policy mechanism to support people, but people are better off if they don't need to go onto the pension in the first place.
HINCH:
Now Ken Henry, he says that the 9 per cent compulsory contribution would afford a comfortable retirement income. Do you think that is not enough?
BOWEN:
Look, what I say to that is, people have different views about whether 9 per cent is adequate. Let's have a discussion about whether we can do a bit better than adequate, for people's retirement. I want people to be as comfortable as possible in retirement. That might mean a bit more than the bare minimum; a bit more than the just adequate. But look these debates will go on and off and it is appropriate that we have a national discussion about what's the best way to boost people's retirement income.
HINCH:
Alright, the final question. One of the things that effects people - apart from the fact that we all got clobbered by the global financial crisis and ignored the fact that we all had great returns for four or five years before that - I think one of the things that gets in peoples crawl is that the management funds fees are sometimes absolutely reprehensible.
BOWEN:
Yes, two points there Derryn very quickly. The first point is, that's right, over the long run returns on super have been much higher than inflation so we are much better off, even though we have had recently these very concerning, negative returns, but your other point is dead right, even a small reduction in fees over the 40 years in the workforce can have a really big impact on their retirement income.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by Jasignature on Jul 10th, 2010 at 1:03am
I think it is great FreeDiver. Really fresh.
Of course I like it only 75%, but thats better than 50% or even 49%, eh.  ;)

My input percentage would be that I think the Kangaroo and Emu were chosen for a reason. I love Kangaroo meat. Sure you have to be a really good cook to cook it and I would love to see the challenge of cooking shows tackle Kangaroo meat. It is a high quality meat. ( I even think the 'tail' can be exploited as an Aphrodesiac  :P myth to pump up prices).
New Zealanders are tired of the Sheep culture that is tagged with colonialism. Deer are more sustainable and viable: Cheaper to maintain, good for the Hunting market, better tasting/quality of meat, better prices for meat, don't erode or ruin the land as much with impact.
These are similar reasons why I would farm Kangaroo, if I ever became a farmer. I would also 'stud' the Roos up back to their prehistoric size and slap a saddle on their backs after some poor sucker 'breaks' them in. ;D ...serious ;) If Australians find it hard to eat Kangaroo for some pathetic patriotic Coat of Arms excuse, then I'm sure the International market will be interested ...considering our sheep are often rejected.

Also, would we still have to send 'Mercenary' soldiers off to fight for the Anglo-Saxon Empire of the USA(UK) and its Politics rather than for the United Nations ? Shouldn't the Green Military of the world be fighting for the Greenies and the lesser beings of this world that we are driving to extinction, rather than for Political differences ????

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by hawil on Jul 24th, 2010 at 5:53pm
Soren and Freediver you have kept rather quiet on my recent posts.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by muso on Aug 2nd, 2010 at 7:54am
Regardless of petty differences, I would welcome a political party that takes an objective approach to transferring technology to a more sustainable future without trying to redistribute wealth.

I don't like the Greens, I don't trust them, and bigoted as it might seem, the dysfunctional lifestyle of many members of the Greens is a cause for concern, as is their drugs policy. They are also too far left of centre for my liking and have been hijacked by the headless enviro-chooks (aka the deep greens)

However, they current represent the only political party that is willing to lobby for renewable energy production, and I will vote for them if only to see some progress in that area.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by gfresg on Apr 8th, 2017 at 5:23pm
Hi,

I am just new

Instead of me spending the next two days reading the backlog, someone want to give me a summary of where this concept is at ?

FYI: Dick Smith is totally into sustainability.

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by BigOl64 on Apr 8th, 2017 at 5:26pm

Soren wrote on May 27th, 2010 at 9:24pm:
Somebody working has to pay for the pension/welfare income of someone who doesn't: pensioners, unemployed, sick.

Superannuation: save, while you are working, to pay for yourself when you are too old to work.

The Greek model of retiring at 55 on 75% of your earnings is not on. In Australia we do not have the luxury of sticking it to the Germans.
ANd as the Greks are rapidly finding it out, even they don't have that luxury.
Nor the Portugese, Italians and Spanish. Or the Brits.

Ants and Grasshopper. The Ants have super, the Gasshoppers want more public pension.



The welfare mentality is strong in this country.


Which is why we will never rise above mediocre


Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by AnotherJourneyByTrain on Apr 19th, 2017 at 5:57pm

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 8th, 2017 at 5:26pm:

Soren wrote on May 27th, 2010 at 9:24pm:
Somebody working has to pay for the pension/welfare income of someone who doesn't: pensioners, unemployed, sick.

Superannuation: save, while you are working, to pay for yourself when you are too old to work.

The Greek model of retiring at 55 on 75% of your earnings is not on. In Australia we do not have the luxury of sticking it to the Germans.
ANd as the Greks are rapidly finding it out, even they don't have that luxury.
Nor the Portugese, Italians and Spanish. Or the Brits.

Ants and Grasshopper. The Ants have super, the Gasshoppers want more public pension.



The welfare mentality is strong in this country.


Which is why we will never rise above mediocre

You're a bullshite artist buddy: you can't even define who 'we' are except in terms of killing another human being!

You pretend to lead armies:  ;)

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by AnotherJourneyByTrain on Apr 19th, 2017 at 5:58pm

gfresh wrote on Apr 8th, 2017 at 5:23pm:
Hi,

I am just new

Instead of me spending the next two days reading the backlog, someone want to give me a summary of where this concept is at ?

FYI: Dick Smith is totally into sustainability.

FYI: Dick Smith is not into sustainability!

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by svhg on Apr 14th, 2018 at 2:11pm
fascinating

Title: Re: Sustainability Party of Australia
Post by svhg on Apr 14th, 2018 at 2:13pm
fascinating

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2018. All Rights Reserved.