Talking Politics

[DavidSSS]

Completely different things. He chose to go to the wedding, freely. That was a bad look and a mistake that could/should have been avoided.

I wish he didn't have to swear allegiance to the King, but he's duty bound to do so. We, Australians, voted to remain part of the Commonwealth and keep the head of the British Monarchy as our Head of State. As Prime Miniter, he needs to follow the conventions brought upon him by our vote. Albo is on record as wanting us to be a Republic so I'm sure he'd prefer not to do it too, but there isn't any option for him.

Yes, and he is phrasing this very well. Effectively saying, hey, I'd like us to be a republic, but, we're not, so I have to do this.

If he refused to swear allegiance to the monarch he would be rightly accused of ignoring the Australian people.

What he is effectively doing is to throw it back at us, as a referendum is the only way to change this, and the people have to vote to become a republic - over to you people of Australia.

As for that moron's wedding, really? Not just a bad look, but bad judgement of character.

DS

 

[glantone]

On what grounds does Australia have the right to call for it becoming a republic when it can’t even offer a treaty to its conquered indigenous population who lost absolutely fcking everything through the most disgusting generational ultra violence imaginable? Isn’t the republic issue kind of stuff of the latte chattering class?

 

[DavidSSS]

On what grounds does Australia have the right to call for it becoming a republic when it can’t even offer a treaty to its conquered indigenous population who lost absolutely fcking everything through the most disgusting generational ultra violence imaginable? Isn’t the republic issue kind of stuff of the latte chattering class?

We could do both, but the argument that we don't deserve to be a republic until we sort a treaty with the First Australians has merit.

You are right that a republic will make little difference, will still be the same system. Although I would argue that we should be able to have a republic with no President, parliament votes in the government and the Chief Justice of the High Court swears in the PM. Why should there be a position above the parliament?

DS

 

[Sintiger]

Good riddance. Wasn’t sure to post in politics or lowlife thread!
“Few regrets” says one of the main proponents of Robodebt

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...-been-the-smoothest-ride-20230506-p5d67y.html

 

[Brodders17]

Good riddance. Wasn’t sure to post in politics or lowlife thread!
“Few regrets” says one of the main proponents of Robodebt

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...-been-the-smoothest-ride-20230506-p5d67y.html

About f'n time. Of all the dodgy scum LNP pollies (and others) he would be close to the worst, if only cos he presented a "nice, caring face" while taking what he could get, and picking on those struggling.

With his good mate Morrison finished he probably saw the writing on the wall, and with the robodebt royal commission coming towards a close he would have known his career was over anyway.

 

[Baloo]

Hope he leaves a forwarding number so NACC can give him a call. I reckon he's first off the bat for the NACC

 

[Baloo]

I laughed

 

[eZyT]

Can anyone explain to me

Why $25 a week to poor people is inflationary,

But a bank distributing a $20b profit to shareholders

Isnt?

 

[Ian4]

Can anyone explain to me

Why $25 a week to poor people is inflationary,

But a bank distributing a $20b profit to shareholders

Isnt?

Yep, especially when Labor have been (rightly) claiming all along that corporate profits are the cause of inflation.

Jim Chalmers is clearly proving himself to be a genius numbers man. While I understand they are trying to not overstimulate for inflationary reasons, I think they could have given more to welfare recipients. At the end of the day, no one was expecting a surplus, so it wouldn’t have been controversial if they were a little bit in the red.

 

[Willo]

Can anyone explain to me

Why $25 a week to poor people is inflationary,

But a bank distributing a $20b profit to shareholders

Isnt?

Those profits are bloody obscene. I’d like to know what amount of tax they paid.

 

[TigerForce]

Yep, especially when Labor have been (rightly) claiming all along that corporate profits are the cause of inflation.

Jim Chalmers is clearly proving himself to be a genius numbers man. While I understand they are trying to not overstimulate for inflationary reasons, I think they could have given more to welfare recipients. At the end of the day, no one was expecting a surplus, so it wouldn’t have been controversial if they were a little bit in the red.

Media says we're .....back in black, we hit the sack....for now but back in red next year??

 

[eZyT]

Media says we're .....back in black, we hit the sack....for now but back in red next year??

I think although theres a surplus this year,

We still have near $1T debt to service?

Probably like having $100 in the bank the night before payday, so you take the kids out for a countermeal,

But youve got $500k mortgage?

I dunno, economic aint my strong suit

 

[Baloo]

Those profits are bloody obscene. I’d like to know what amount of tax they paid.

They are. But don't forget it's profits and resulting dividends from large Australian companies that stock prices which drive most Super funds.

 

[AngryAnt]

The banks at least pay tax, the multinational miners/Newscorpse/Google etc pay nothing.

 

[AngryAnt]

I think although theres a surplus this year,

We still have near $1T debt to service?

Probably like having $100 in the bank the night before payday, so you take the kids out for a countermeal,

But youve got $500k mortgage?

I dunno, economic aint my strong suit

You nailed it EZ

But yet again it puts the lie to the "LNP are the better economic managers" horsedung that they throw out every election. I'll miss that as the LNP becomes more and more irrelevant though.

 

[DavidSSS]

Can anyone explain to me

Why $25 a week to poor people is inflationary,

But a bank distributing a $20b profit to shareholders

Isnt?

Here you go, an explanation as to why the stimulus in this budget is so small, even if it has some impact on inflation (doubtful), it would be too small to measure:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...es-say-they-are-inflationary-but-is-this-true

Given that inflation in the current situation is caused by supply issues it is time we found some supply side policies to do something about it. How about we bring back the Prices Justification Tribunal, let's go after the profiteering which is a large part of the inflation problem.

DS

 

[22nd Man]

Those profits are bloody obscene. I’d like to know what amount of tax they paid.

Fully disclosed in every banks annual reports.

 

[K3]

I think although theres a surplus this year,

We still have near $1T debt to service?

Probably like having $100 in the bank the night before payday, so you take the kids out for a countermeal,

But youve got $500k mortgage?

I dunno, economic aint my strong suit

Fortunately, we are spared the interest on the expected/ forecast $78 billion that we were going to be in the red for.

 

[Sintiger]

I’m not for a moment defending the behaviour of PWC in regard to the confidential tax information they received and the way they used it to their advantage.

However, the public service contracted one of the largest tax advisers in the world knowing that they are also advisers to some of the largest multi nationals in the world on tax matters. Multi nationals actively work on tax minimisation using schemes often devised by these advisers.

The conflict of interest is massive but it’s not new. To me as someone who had been around these firms nationally and internationally I am not really that surprised. Part of me says “what did they expect?”

 

[Brodders17]

I’m not for a moment defending the behaviour of PWC in regard to the confidential tax information they received and the way they used it to their advantage.

However, the public service contracted one of the largest tax advisers in the world knowing that they are also advisers to some of the largest multi nationals in the world on tax matters. Multi nationals actively work on tax minimisation using schemes often devised by these advisers.

The conflict of interest is massive but it’s not new. To me as someone who had been around these firms nationally and internationally I am not really that surprised. Part of me says “what did they expect?”

Maybe, but would PWC advice competing businesses? If so would they ever share information about a competitor that advantages a client?
Im guessing not.