Australian Politics (1 Viewer)

[Enteebee]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

But why would handing out money be an incentive? I'd be inclined to think if people are going to have a kid because of the money, not out of want, then they're not going to care about it as much. The kid will end up with emotional issues one day. I'm a little uncomfortable with monetary incentives.

So you think that people who aren't going to have kids because they don't feel they can afford it and maintain a lifestyle they're comfortable with aren't good enough parents? How many couples hold off on having kids until they're more financially stable? My parents did.

Do you mean through an accident?

An accident for which you hold most of the responsibility (i.e. 18 year old kid wants to show off to his mates how fast he can drift around the corner, he crashes and becomes a quadraplegic).

I'm a bit uncomfortable with that. It reminds me too much of anti-private school arguments which say we take away from those in need, and forget that a lot of people who use those services/buy those goods actually save up and are just your average family rather being rich.

I don't think "average" families should be buying luxury cars at the expense of important welfare for others.

 

[Enteebee]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

I'm saying that's what people should be doing ideally - waiting until they can afford it or are at least more financially stable. So I'd say your parents and others like them did (what I personally would consider) the right thing.

What's the difference (with regard to wanting the kid) between waiting til you're financially stable and the government coming along and making you more financially stable? Very little I'd say...

Also, if you decide to be a parent it's a matter of priorities in terms of balancing kid and "lifestyle" factors, I don't think it's really up to the government to hand you money to keep up a lifestyle.

If they don't it's less likely we'll have kids for the future workforce etc etc + a lot of people want to assist these parents through their taxes.

Don't you think people have the right to choose how they spend the money they earn instead of having it redistributed to others?

Not when the redistribution leads to a happier society overall (take away their luxury car happiness, give other people mobility happiness).

What incentive is there to work hard so that you can earn the money if not for this?

Obviously there's less incentive (and we need to make sure we balance things), but then again it's not as if more work doesn't = more money, it's just that the amount of reward gets exponentially harder to recieve the further away from an 'average' income you go.

You do know that those van-type cars that parents with four or more kids have are among the ones that get hit by the new tax, right?

Maybe I'd disagree with it then, but is it ALL van-type cars, or just the luxury ones?

How does that help "working families" who actually did contribute to population growth by having multiple children?

Well let's say they are taxing their vehicles, for whatever reason the government is saying they're spending their money in the wrong place and will give them money in the right places.

 

[Slidey]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Welfare and encouraging people to have children are bad because LIBERTARIANISM.

 

[Enteebee]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

That's pretty selfish in my view though. You're basically taking money off other people to make yourself better off.

By not having kids you're basically forcing other people's kids to support you/keep the country going when you get older :/

Tax cuts in at 57,000 now, so most of those minivan-type cars are hit by it, it'd appear, as well as some utes (which people often need for work), and a few types of Australian-made family cars and 4wds. Those aren't really luxury cars, they just got defined as such for some reason.

Well to me I'd say if doing so means more welfare for the disabled it's more than worth it... I mean the markup on most cars is bullshit anyway, so we're really spending a shitload of money on 'brand', not even getting any production value (cheap jap/korean cars are very good).

But why should the government have the right to decide that? That seems very, very paternalistic.

It is paternalistic... sorta like how forcing the 'baby bonus' to be spent only on childcare needs is paternalistic, but then again, it makes a hell of a lot of sense to most people (including you I imagine).

 

[Enteebee]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Though I would hope that I'll be like my grandfather when I'm older - 78 and still running his own business, with no reliance on aged pension and in possession of private healthcare etc.

Not all aged people rely upon the state... all of them who worked had to contribute to it.

And one of their greatest contributions was their kids.

A lot of that I'd imagine would be tariffs, which would contribute to mark-ups of more expensive brands, so that's not the manufacturer's fault.

And marketing... You really think mercedes would sell their cars for cheaper? It tarnishes their brand.

It's worse though because it's just taking away choice on how to spend what you earn legitimately, especially if it's imposed after income tax, which is where governments tend to redistribute money... If there were just a sales tax on everything, and no income tax, then you've got the choice of what to spend your money on and the tax is paid on choice/consumption, and that's less offensive, but when it's imposed like this even after income tax is taken away, and beyond the GST as well, it's not really fair.

I don't know whether it's fair or not... personally I'd look at what the cost to some people is and what the benefit to others is, I don't know enough in this case.

A baby bonus payment is ostensibly paid for the child's benefit not for the parent's and so it's a bit different I'd think

It's different, but it's still paternalism. It's given for a variety of reasons, including what you said and also for the parents benefit so they can better cope with the initial large costs of looking after a child (buying a cot etc)... this is seen as a better way to use your extra money than on a plasma tv.

The idea of taxing middle-class families buying 'luxury cars' on the one hand then delivering them tax breaks on say child care/school supplies is to say "hey, you shouldn't buy that... you should instead spend more money looking after your kids".

But then, I'd imagine most people know how to allocate their money responsibly when they earn it. In some respects pragmatically your suggestion is good and I agree with it, but then I have a problem with the state telling you how to spend your money.

Really? I find economic rationalism's fatal flaw to be that we're not economically rational, this doesn't mean the state is ALWAYS better, but I think we can look at each argument on its merits.. I'd say it's better for people not to spend money on luxury cars ESPECIALLY if they're only a middle-class family.

 

[Enteebee]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

I think you make a lot of good points in this reply, not saying I agree with a lot of them but the argument for what you're saying makes a lot more sense to me now even if I think people should have the freedom to spend money how they please.

What I do have a problem with is that people are only valued for having children. I find that really appalling. There are plenty of people who don't have children who have accomplished remarkable things. Why is having children seen as the ultimate accomplishment? I honestly, honestly don't understand that mentality.

Thanks Malfoy

I (like you) don't want to ever have kids, for the most part because I think I can do more things that I want to do with my life... without ever having kids (+ they suck). I don't think it should be seen as the ultimate accomplishment, but it definately helps the country out.

 

[Iron]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Thanks Malfoy

I (like you) don't want to ever have kids, for the most part because I think I can do more things that I want to do with my life... without ever having kids (+ they suck). I don't think it should be seen as the ultimate accomplishment, but it definately helps the country out.

That's pretty morbid NTB. Why close yourself off to the gift of life?

 

[Slidey]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

As I said earlier, wow you're patronising.

Actually, that was the first time I was actively being patronising. My earlier post was simply me asking you to actually discuss the issue of population aging instead of avoiding it with libertarian rights protection rhetoric. It was a clear example of how powerless libertarian ideology is: it is negative and preventative, not constructive or progressive. It's about blindly saying "you can't do that because you'll violate in some way one of an innumerable list of what aren't even inalienable rights" rather than "you can solve that problem this way which will inconvenience the least number of people" (utilitarianism and liberal democracy).

Did you just blindly ignore the fact I was posting pragmatic "compromise" solutions earlier in the thread in an attempt to answer your questions in some kind of practical way? Or are you trying to stir up trouble despite the fact I don't generally make posts attacking other people in the thread and try to civilly discuss what I/they believe even if we disagree?

I didn't blindly ignore your post, but I was disappointed that you saw it as a pragmatic approach to the problem. It would require so much social and economic reform as to make it infeasible as the sole solution, and I further saw little potential for it to actually solve the heart of the population aging problem alone (without a lot of government intervention anyway), as tully pointed out. I did not respond because I felt you'd had your say and I'd had mine, and any further discussion would be circular.

It frustrates me that you're such an intelligent person, yet adhere so zealously to libertarianism. How can we be expected to discuss something with you from a realistic framework of Australian social and economic policy when you're off referencing how the problem could theoretically be handled if Australia suddenly became libertarian and ignored the flaws and problems of an ideology directly opposed to the Australian political framework of utilitarianism and democracy (even though these are essentially the closest real-world examples of libertarianism)?

The welfare state has done more good for this country than strict libertarianism ever could, yet you're completely willing to oppose it on the grounds that in uplifting the truly inalienable rights of all, it potentially limits the secondary rights of some? It is an inherently selfish ideology which is opposed to compromise, and it disgusts me.

Generally I like your posts, even if I don't always agree with what you have to say, so I don't mean any real offence when I say that. I'm just puzzled.

I like your posts, too. It is only when you fall back to knee-jerk libertarianism that I become frustrated.

 

[Iron]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Selfish.

 

[Enteebee]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

That's pretty morbid NTB. Why close yourself off to the gift of life?

I'm not 'closed off' to the idea, I could change my mind or whatever, just at the moment I don't think it seems like the best idea. Who knows maybe I'll fall in love with sum slut and want nothing more than to have children with her, at the moment I definately can't imagine those feelings though.

I like your posts, too. It is only when you fall back to knee-jerk libertarianism that I become frustrated.

I agree, her posts are fine and she seems intelligent but to me it's like talking with an intelligent socialist who simply will never accept that sometimes the market actually is the best solution.

 

[Iron]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

I'm not 'closed off' to the idea, I could change my mind or whatever, just at the moment I don't think it seems like the best idea. Who knows maybe I'll fall in love with sum slut and want nothing more than to have children with her, at the moment I definately can't imagine those feelings though.

.

Well that's alright then.
The world would rest easier with seed like ours being spread

 

[Silver Persian]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

IRON TURN BACK TO NORMAL I DON't LIKE U ANYMORE

 

[Iron]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

IRON TURN BACK TO NORMAL I DON't LIKE U ANYMORE

Me neither

 

[townie]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/crackdown-wins-support/2008/05/18/1211049033944.html

FAIL

i garuntee, there would be less alcohol fueled violence if ALL pubs operated 24/7 because you wouldnt get a shitload of drunk people pushed onto the street at the same time (some of who are angry at not being able to drink)

at least keep the status quo, having a stupid 3am "lockout" just means you'll have all these dickheads who are frustrated because they cant find a place to drink ON THE STREET looking for trouble

jesus christ, at least INSIDE the pub, you can control people more easily

 

[boris]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

i've seen hectic punch ups before 9pm, when people arent even really that pissed.

point is, dickheads are going to be dickheads and they'll do it regardless of whether it's 2 am or 8 pm.

 

[boris]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

oh man i want to weigh into that epic argument about why malfoy is wrong, but i'm going to do my civil duties today.

today is where we immunise kids for free, instead of making them pay $52+ to go and see the doctor to get it done.
coz that's just how we roll mang.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

You're not the brightest child in the bunch, are you boy?

Sarcasm doesn't work on the internet.

 

[chicky_pie]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Rudd's Bali trip cost tax payers money $500,000

PM's Bali trip cost too much: opposition

The federal opposition has described as "absolutely staggering" the $500,000 cost of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's trip to Bali to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The travel and accommodation bill included $40,000 on hospitality costs.

http://news.smh.com.au/national/pms-bali-trip-cost-too-much-opposition-20080522-2h3c.html

fuck sakes, is this what he does when he wins an election? promising to help 'working families' yet he takes a big ass spending spree with our tax money over to Bali just to talk about 'Climate Change'.



All you lefties, how do you feel about that? A lot of you's are working hard just for a $1000 holiday trip, your preacher goes and spends our tax money!!

 

[Iron]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

Nelson pulls out of Indigenous housing commission

Nothing in his life
Became him like the leaving it; he died
As one that had been studied in his death
To throw away the dearest thing he owed,
As 't were a careless trifle.

 

[boris]

Re: Australian Politics Chatter Thread

QFT. Fuck this recent crackdown on alcohol is making me sick. They are not targeting the cause of the problems (which would be extremely difficult anyway). THe government is just trying to look like its doing something. Oh and this is in the context of FALLING rates of aloholism. Shakes head. Sometimes the government makes me so sick I almost want to become a libertarian, or even an anarchist!

oh GOD THE HORROR.

we don't want you on our team, bed jumper.