Why you should think carefully about Saturday.

[dingus]

Unless you're a parent in what is now known as a working family, i find it difficult to see how one can strongly relate to either of the major parties.

I am not a parent of a working family, and will vote accordingly.

I am a parent in a "Working Family". My wife works full time, I work part time in my own business and spend the rest of the time with my 18 month old boy, who is in child care two days per week. I have a mortgage. I have child care bills. I drive a car that runs on petrol. I have a HECS debt and am busy racking up more of it. I and my family are the very model of the voting public what the two majors are competing for.

They can both get f*****. Neither of them have out forward any meaningful solutions to the problems that concern me:

- I'll pay my mortgage at the same rate no matter who is elected. Howard himself has admitted this, and anyone at all who equates high rates with Labor is a gullible fool.

- If I have to pay more for petrol, so be it. It is a harmful substance that is causing irrepairable damage to the environment and the sooner it is priced out of the market, the better. Only then will greed-fuelled corporations begin to properly research and develop responsible and safe alternatives. "Clean Coal" is not one of these.

- Neither party will remove greedy and unscrupulous profit driven companies from the child care industry. They are the problem, make no mistake. no sooner will Rudd increase the child care subsidy than they will increase the child care fees. It happenned earlier this year and it will happen again next year.

- My small business is successful because of me. Not because of Howard, and it won't be because of Rudd. Either of them claiming credit for success of small businesses is insulting and devalues the hard work of business operators.

- The cost of education should be borne by government. It is that simple. There is no middle ground here. If we need more doctors, nurses, teachers, scientists, then train people to be these things. Free. Education allows people to take part in the economy at a higher level. It also enables them to provide services that the country needs at a greater level. I shudder to think how many brilliant people never make it to university because of the prohibitive costs.

- Neither party has made any meaningful committments to climate change. Without immediate action, every other argument is irrlelvant. How will our economy go when everyone is drowned?

For me, voting for the Major parties will make no difference whatsoever, and that's why I won't. Rudd is a disappointment to all long term leftward leaning people. The reason labour will win this election is because people are comfortable to abandon Howard in favour of Rudd. Why is that do you think?

As for Howard: He's a c***. He is the epitomy of what is wrong with this country. Rudd might have run a campaign based on "Me-tooism", but Howard has based an entire political career on the principles of "Me-ism" He is a selfish, inward-looking, self absorbed ignorant bastard who puts himself and his interests before the greater good of others, and that attitude has rubbed off on the country as a whole.

I urge people to actually look in to the epolicies and goals of The Greens. Put the "extremist" and "Hippie" shit that cynical closed minded people tell you out of your mind and actually research what they say they will do for this country. To not be fully informed of the policies of each party before casting your vote, and instead to rely on election advertisements and 12 second sound bytes is irresponsible, and will lead to future governments spending more time and money on propaganda and spin than on real policy.

Some people have said this election campaign is boring and has lacked any spark at all. Thankfully, it has led me to look further in to what people actually offer for the country as a whole, rather than just voting how I always have, and how my old man always did. My only hope is that enough other people actually do the same, and that a real message is sent to the major parties to start addressing the real issues, not the populist ones.

[ealesy]

But haven't you listened to Neil Mitchell dingus...I mean he says that the Greens Drug Policy amounts to them wanting to stand at school gates handing out drugs to all the kids on their way home.

And I mean if Neil Mitchell says it, then it must be true!!

I for one will be out and about in the South Eastern suburbs of Melbourne handing out "how to vote" cards for the Greens (and nice little bags of white powder too ).

[keri]

Dingus, fantastic post. Just fantastic.

[dodgey]

about the Best Political Post EVER on here Dingus...


But I don't necessarily agree with all That is the GREENS......definately an alternative to the major parties because more and more people are getting peeved with the major parties, but they don't go far enough. Big chested on saving the environment and so on but little substance on alternatives...and more importantly how to pay for it. for this reason they'll only be a "bit" player who will get enough of a vote to cause some angst if they get the balance of power, but do sometimes have tendencies to "roll over" when a little money is thrown their way.


In my electorate it's Labor held both State and federally and considering the "working class" majority that resides in it, I don't expect things to change. If ...as I expect.... Rudd wins office, I think we may get some more action here, but having said that, labor has been in power in the state for 8 years and I've Dubbed My local MP " the Minister for getting his picture in the local paper"... you cannot go a week without seeing his Mug smiling broadly at the opening of a paper bag.

My kids Primary school has won state awards for excellence for years on end, has 800 kids,but has been passed over for state and federal grants for a new All purpose Gymnasium for 5 years whilst other schools get things they don't sometimes even ask for. The federal member committed $1M at the last election and there is yet to be a sod turned. And don't get me started on the Cranbourne East rail extension

hence why I tend to vote AGAINST incumbents in a lot of cases.... My philosophy is.... promise what you can deliver. One thing I HATE is the pork barrelling before each election only to defer or scrap promises once elected.

[swoodley]

It always amazes me when people get all hot and bothered prior to elections.

I know that it is important to vote and hopefully get a responsible government who will look after all the things we care about, but anyone with half a brain knows that on Saturday night one of the major parties will win power AND THEN SPEND THE NEXT THREE YEARS TRYING TO GET RE-ELECTED.

The public will probably never take the risk and bring to power one of the minority parties and so these parties can promise the world knowing they'll never have to deliver.

Am I cynical...you bet your arse I am.

Whoever wins on Saturday will continue in the similar vein of successive governments post Whitlam...ie: never make decisions based on the long term good, especially if it means that they will get voted out at the next election.

So on Saturday, I'll trudge off to the polling station, vote for my preferred options and then sit back and get shafted for another three years (or four if Rudd is able to get that changed) by politicians who care only about themselves and how to best get their "snouts in the trough of public funds"

[jimmyc1985]

Unless you're a parent in what is now known as a working family, i find it difficult to see how one can strongly relate to either of the major parties.

I am not a parent of a working family, and will vote accordingly.

I am a parent in a "Working Family". My wife works full time, I work part time in my own business and spend the rest of the time with my 18 month old boy, who is in child care two days per week. I have a mortgage. I have child care bills. I drive a car that runs on petrol. I have a HECS debt and am busy racking up more of it. I and my family are the very model of the voting public what the two majors are competing for.

They can both get f*****. Neither of them have out forward any meaningful solutions to the problems that concern me:

- I'll pay my mortgage at the same rate no matter who is elected. Howard himself has admitted this, and anyone at all who equates high rates with Labor is a gullible fool.

- If I have to pay more for petrol, so be it. It is a harmful substance that is causing irrepairable damage to the environment and the sooner it is priced out of the market, the better. Only then will greed-fuelled corporations begin to properly research and develop responsible and safe alternatives. "Clean Coal" is not one of these.

- Neither party will remove greedy and unscrupulous profit driven companies from the child care industry. They are the problem, make no mistake. no sooner will Rudd increase the child care subsidy than they will increase the child care fees. It happenned earlier this year and it will happen again next year.

- My small business is successful because of me. Not because of Howard, and it won't be because of Rudd. Either of them claiming credit for success of small businesses is insulting and devalues the hard work of business operators.

- The cost of education should be borne by government. It is that simple. There is no middle ground here. If we need more doctors, nurses, teachers, scientists, then train people to be these things. Free. Education allows people to take part in the economy at a higher level. It also enables them to provide services that the country needs at a greater level. I shudder to think how many brilliant people never make it to university because of the prohibitive costs.

- Neither party has made any meaningful committments to climate change. Without immediate action, every other argument is irrlelvant. How will our economy go when everyone is drowned?

For me, voting for the Major parties will make no difference whatsoever, and that's why I won't. Rudd is a disappointment to all long term leftward leaning people. The reason labour will win this election is because people are comfortable to abandon Howard in favour of Rudd. Why is that do you think?

As for Howard: He's a c***. He is the epitomy of what is wrong with this country. Rudd might have run a campaign based on "Me-tooism", but Howard has based an entire political career on the principles of "Me-ism" He is a selfish, inward-looking, self absorbed ignorant bastard who puts himself and his interests before the greater good of others, and that attitude has rubbed off on the country as a whole.

I urge people to actually look in to the epolicies and goals of The Greens. Put the "extremist" and "Hippie" shit that cynical closed minded people tell you out of your mind and actually research what they say they will do for this country. To not be fully informed of the policies of each party before casting your vote, and instead to rely on election advertisements and 12 second sound bytes is irresponsible, and will lead to future governments spending more time and money on propaganda and spin than on real policy.

Some people have said this election campaign is boring and has lacked any spark at all. Thankfully, it has led me to look further in to what people actually offer for the country as a whole, rather than just voting how I always have, and how my old man always did. My only hope is that enough other people actually do the same, and that a real message is sent to the major parties to start addressing the real issues, not the populist ones.

Good post.

Unfortunately, your views are those of what seem to be a rather rare breed. I can't speak for how Australia was 25+ years ago because i wasn't around, but there are many aspects i find disappointing at the moment. The thing that sums it up for me at the moment is the Labor ad that derides the Howard comment of "working families have never been better off". Financially speaking, Howard's statement is almost universally true, but Labor use this statement to deride Howard because, as both Bob Hawke and Mark Latham have written recently in the AFR, people judge their well-being against the standards of the rest of the country rather than the standards of living 10, 20 or 30 years ago. It is against that backdrop that many people nowadays have absolutely no concept of how well off they really are, and it is against that backdrop that selfish, individual political pursuits have come to dominate the political milieux.

[keri]

But haven't you listened to Neil Mitchell dingus...I mean he says that the Greens Drug Policy amounts to them wanting to stand at school gates handing out drugs to all the kids on their way home.

And I mean if Neil Mitchell says it, then it must be true!!

I for one will be out and about in the South Eastern suburbs of Melbourne handing out "how to vote" cards for the Greens (and nice little bags of white powder too ).

I'll be doing the same in the North East, Ealesy. Since I live in the "Green Wedge" I might might make my little bag green too!

[Sismis]

Whoever wins on Saturday will continue in the similar vein of successive governments post Whitlam...ie: never make decisions based on the long term good, especially if it means that they will get voted out at the next election.

This is the sad truth. Nothing that needs to be done especially in environmental terms is going to see a result in 3 years

[BenDoolan]

Fact is, the majority of past federal governments have had Senate resistance in implementing their programs. But the current Howard goverment has had control of both houses in the last 3 years. What has he done?

[Madden]

Fact is, the majority of past federal governments have had Senate resistance in implementing their programs. But the current Howard goverment has had control of both houses in the last 3 years. What has he done?

You can't just keep answering the arguments in this thread by asking additional questions. It's classic straw man.

Howard has done f***. But that doesn't detract from the fact that Rudd's promises aren't much better.

Whoever wins on Saturday will continue in the similar vein of successive governments post Whitlam...ie: never make decisions based on the long term good, especially if it means that they will get voted out at the next election.

This is the sad truth. Nothing that needs to be done especially in environmental terms is going to see a result in 3 years

Sadly, I agree.

[BenDoolan]

Fact is, the majority of past federal governments have had Senate resistance in implementing their programs. But the current Howard goverment has had control of both houses in the last 3 years. What has he done?

You can't just keep answering the arguments in this thread by asking additional questions. It's classic straw man.

Of course I can. There are no rules in political bullshit.

[Madden]

Fact is, the majority of past federal governments have had Senate resistance in implementing their programs. But the current Howard goverment has had control of both houses in the last 3 years. What has he done?

You can't just keep answering the arguments in this thread by asking additional questions. It's classic straw man.

Of course I can. There are no rules in political bullshit.

True, but also realise that changing the subject isn't actually a proper argument...

[dingus]

I can't speak for how Australia was 25+ years ago because i wasn't around, but there are many aspects i find disappointing at the moment. The thing that sums it up for me at the moment is the Labor ad that derides the Howard comment of "working families have never been better off". Financially speaking, Howard's statement is almost universally true, but Labor use this statement to deride Howard because, as both Bob Hawke and Mark Latham have written recently in the AFR, people judge their well-being against the standards of the rest of the country rather than the standards of living 10, 20 or 30 years ago. It is against that backdrop that many people nowadays have absolutely no concept of how well off they really are, and it is against that backdrop that selfish, individual political pursuits have come to dominate the political milieux.

I was around 25 years ago. Albeit I was only 5 years old, but here's my take on the "working families" issue:

in 1982, My mum stayed at home to raise two young kids, my Dad was a postman. My parents managed to raise two kids, buy a house (Crappy suburb, but someone as to live in them) have an active social and family life, and save a bit of cash here and there for things like holidays, sports trips etc. My dad earned about $35,000 and their mortgage payments were about $120 per month (!)

In 2007, My wife and I both work (Her full time, me 3-4 days per week) in reasonable paying jobs, we have an 18 month old child, we live in a reasonable home in a "working class" but transforming suburb. We have a combined income of about $80,000 per year and our mortgage payments are $1700 per month. Other expenses are probably similar in relative terms.

The upshot: my wife and I have to work a hell of a lot harder and spend less time overall with our kid to make ends meet. I don't think we're better off than people in the past as a "working family", but for me it's not necessarily about dollars. It just seems to me that it was alot easier to spend time together as a family back then without the shher volume of money needed to pay for the things that really have the same intrinsic value now as they did then.

But then again, the focus of politics isn't about the quality of life, it's about the cost of it.

[jimmyc1985]

I see your point. Your old man must've been a bloody good postie - $35k p.a. in 1982 is about $100k p.a. in today's terms.

Like you say, there's a substantial disconnect between the economic & intrinsic value in property, which has been growing exponentially in the last decade, due mainly to the 50% CGT exemption on investments held for over a year, cheap credit and the tax breaks offered on negative gearing, all of which should be looked at...but will never be. 70% of Australians own, or are paying off a mortgage toward owning, their home and therefore will be very reluctant to see prices fall. The core of the problem as i see it is that, at it's most base, property/shelter/a place to live is a fundamental human need, yet over the last 30 years, the conceptualisation of property has changed such that it has gradually morphed into serving the dualist purpose of being a fundamental need and an investment. The fact it is now viewed as an investment vehicle has been underscored by the tax regime toward property, which i already mentioned. Frankly, i'm at a loss as to understand why property is given the same tax treatment as, say, shares (with the exception of the imputation system on income streams) - me owning shares doesn't deprive anybody of a fundamental human need, but me owning property does. The prevailing view, role and function of property has been flawed for quite some time in my opinion.

[dingus]

I could have the 35k and the 1982 a little out of whack, I think at some point he was paid 35K, but that must have been down the track a little.

Your point about property as investment is very valid. I think a shift away from that point of view is the only thing that will make real reductions in the cost of owning a home. Subsidies, tax breaks, incentives will only serve to drive the price up, just as the $7000 (and $14,000) grants did. Another populist, irresponsible Liberal stunt that has done incredible harm to housing affordibility.

[ealesy]

But haven't you listened to Neil Mitchell dingus...I mean he says that the Greens Drug Policy amounts to them wanting to stand at school gates handing out drugs to all the kids on their way home.

And I mean if Neil Mitchell says it, then it must be true!!

I for one will be out and about in the South Eastern suburbs of Melbourne handing out "how to vote" cards for the Greens (and nice little bags of white powder too ).

I'll be doing the same in the North East, Ealesy. Since I live in the "Green Wedge" I might might make my little bag green too!

arrrh the North East hey...you might have some fun if you run into my Dad, and try to get him to vote Green.

Long-term Liberal voter...but even he's shat off with them, so i'm not really sure who the hell he's going to vote for.

But I can tell you he won't vote Green...mainly because while he admits they have a lot of great ideas for the future, and are interested in tackling a number of issues the other parties ignore...they don't have a road map of how to achieve there goals.

Because you know the main parties can't fail in this area because they aren't even willing to acknowledge the problem????!!!!

[swoodley]

Frankly, i'm at a loss as to understand why property is given the same tax treatment as, say, shares (with the exception of the imputation system on income streams) - me owning shares doesn't deprive anybody of a fundamental human need, but me owning property does. The prevailing view, role and function of property has been flawed for quite some time in my opinion.

An interesting way of looking at things Jimmy...why do you believe that someone owning an investment property is depriving anyone of a fundamental human need....that's a pretty long bow you're drawing there imo.

My wife and I own our own home and have invested in another house which we rent out. The purpose of this second house is to help secure our future so that down the track we won't need to go cap in hand to the government for a pension.

[jimmyc1985]

Frankly, i'm at a loss as to understand why property is given the same tax treatment as, say, shares (with the exception of the imputation system on income streams) - me owning shares doesn't deprive anybody of a fundamental human need, but me owning property does. The prevailing view, role and function of property has been flawed for quite some time in my opinion.

An interesting way of looking at things Jimmy...why do you believe that someone owning an investment property is depriving anyone of a fundamental human need....that's a pretty long bow you're drawing there imo.

My wife and I own our own home and have invested in another house which we rent out. The purpose of this second house is to help secure our future so that down the track we won't need to go cap in hand to the government for a pension.

When i say "depriving someone of a fundamental human need", i don't literally mean that property investment steals homes which should be for occupancy. I mean it in the sense that every time a property investor enters the housing market, demand for housing goes up, so that those looking to buy for the purposes of occupancy are forced to pay a higher price. Property investment effectively "crowds out" those who are looking to buy for occupancy, and pushes the price of existing housing stock up, and in a fairly direct way it therefore makes it harder for people to own their own home.

Residential property investment, at least in Australia, is aimed almost entirely at the existing stock of houses (as opposed to housing developments) so the purported rationale that residential property investment as encouraged by negative gearing & the 50% CGT exemption boosts stocks of housing is pretty tenuous. Further, investors in the property market are presumably better off than those looking to enter the market, hence it basically pits the financially able against the financially feeble. I think the fact that, in Australia, government subsidisation of an unproductive asset (property) through tax breaks is too similar to the tax regime concerning productive assets (equity), and changes need to be made. But, as i've said, the fact that roughly 70% of Australian housing stock is owner-occupied means that 70% of Australians don't want the price of housing to come down, so i know i'm living in political fairy land.

You shouldn't see this as a slight against you personally because you own investment property. It's a perfectly legitimate way to build your wealth and minimise the tax you pay and, as you say, make sure you don't have to rely on government hand-outs in retirement.

There's two major ways, as i see it, to discourage residential property investment: (1) make property investment less tax friendly; or (2) make investments in other assets, like shares and superannuation, more friendly. So far, the government has done a little bit of (2), primarily by encouraging Australians to invest in super, but not enough, so i personally consider that more of (1) needs to be undertaken by governments.

[BenDoolan]

Fact is, the majority of past federal governments have had Senate resistance in implementing their programs. But the current Howard goverment has had control of both houses in the last 3 years. What has he done?

You can't just keep answering the arguments in this thread by asking additional questions. It's classic straw man.

Of course I can. There are no rules in political bullshit.

True, but also realise that changing the subject isn't actually a proper argument...

I wasn't actually arguing. I was offering an explanation / opinion into Swoods' comments that successive governments since Whitlam "never make decisions based on the long term good, especially if it means that they will get voted out at the next election." Whilst political cowardice does exist in both parties, there has also been the political environment of not having control of both houses to implement all programs in their mandates. That is, up until the recent election.

Even Whitlam encountered enormous resistance from a hostile senate. When was the last federal government to have control of both houses before Howard? Was it Fraser immediately after the Whitlam dismissal? When a federal government has control of both houses, there really isn't ANY excuse to not implement their policies or programs within that term of office.

[grassy1]

Bert,you talk of BULLSHIT?!

Whadda you think the RODENT and CRONIES have been doing the past 11 years?

PROMISE after ENDLESS PROMISE BROKEN!They've been PULLLING THE WOOL over our EYES,EARS and MINDS and it's GOTTA STOP!

If RUDD don't measure up in the next 3 Years as PM,you go for your life old son.And don't come complaining to us,if you start BLEATING about UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENTS.

What have you been WORSHPPING all your life?Especially since '96,when the RODENT MANYRA was "For all of Us!"

Translated to the BORN TO RULE BRIGADE finally getting their GRUBBY HANDS on the TOOLS of POWER.They were DROOLING then,WHIMPERING now!