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

WHY DO YOU LIE DNA

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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



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

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



Will the 2016 liberal election commitment be the same?

Are you saying politicians should never change their minds?

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

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

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

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


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

Gillard lied and it destroyed her government.