Australian Elections Results

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
btw for the Americans reading this thread, haven't seen this mentioned so far:

Labour (the party that just won) are more like American Democrats,

Liberal are more like American Republicans

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and no. I'd be a staunch Democrat supporter if I lived in the US. There are some huge differences.

[ElliotR]

Congratulations to all of Australia for making the change. Most of us here in the US are very happy to see yet another Bush ally go down to defeat.

[Phil153]

This answers most of your objections:

http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/ove...verview_07.htm

Note the massive debt under Labour governments. That's how they fund their spending schemes, eventually sending the economy into turmoil.

Hawke did some very important reforms, and received massive criticisms for them by his commie buddies and union supporters, eventually losing his leadership. Rudd has nowhere near the spine of Hawke or Keating.

[ QUOTE ]
And what reforms have we had in the modern Howard government? There was the GST, a bit of dabbling in privatisation, and AWAs and WorkChoices

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have time to get into it, but they did a great deal of microeconomic management. Among the things you missed were keeping the budget in surplus, paying of massive amounts of labour acquired debt, selling Telstra, reforming education, encouraging private health care, home owner grants which drove housing, encouraging the independence of the reserve bank, massive reductions in industrial relations disputes (helping trade) and more. The liberals are highly praised by many economists. Meanwhile Labour repeatedly apologized for the mistakes of the past, saying they have "learned from their mistakes" and are now "economic conservatives". What are they apologizing for, exactly, if they didn't [censored] up?

I have no idea about the back of envelope calculation or how accurate it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Labor ran this election on a platform of spending less than the Coalition

[/ QUOTE ]
O RLY? Pray tell what they were cutting and how that compares to the cost of their education and health care promises and general left wing policies? Are you leveling me or something?

[HP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
btw for the Americans reading this thread, haven't seen this mentioned so far:

Labour (the party that just won) are more like American Democrats,

Liberal are more like American Republicans

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes and no. I'd be a staunch Democrat supporter if I lived in the US. There are some huge differences.

[/ QUOTE ]
elaborate please

[Phil153]

I'm not an expert on US politics. But the main differences lie in the degree of corruption, the restraining force of parliament and the current state of Australian society.

Australian society currently has:

- A ridiculously high minimum wage ($13/hr = ~$11 US)
- Enforced employer paid contributions to superannuation of 9%
- Free education for all who want it (with a token loans scheme)
- Holiday leave loading, generous sick days and other worker entitlements
- Otherwise strong employee protection that goes to point of being economically harmful and overly restrictive on the choices of entrepreneurs
- Free health care for all, which is getting strained with an ageing population
- A relatively large government and high taxation
- Universal social security benefits which people used to bludge off under a labor government.

All of these things are, imo, much too far to the left for Australia to remain prosperous in a global economy and a long way from a streamlined and free society.

The US on the other hand has a great deal more wealth and population and some serious social justice issues which have massive hidden economic and human costs. I think the Democrats are the only way to correct these issues.

On top of that, as mentioned earlier, a parliamentary systems tends to have a socializing effect on policy. A lot of the more cutting edge reforms by the conservative government were blocked or watered down by the Senate in Australia. In contrast, I think the presidential/senate power system is far more prone to influence by big business.

And then there's the issue of corruption. I think business in the US is significantly more corrupt, immoral, greedy and dangerous than in Australia, and simply needs more government control to keep it in line. There is a less of a sense of community and doing the right thing. Add to this the loonies which hijack the republican party with their religious agendas and I think the US is better served by Democrat philosophies.

[HP]

ah right gotcha. I guess I should have said in my post simply Labour was more left than Liberal.

btw if no one minds, I'd like to derail the thread a bit

[ QUOTE ]
- A ridiculously high minimum wage ($13/hr = ~$11 US)
- Enforced employer paid contributions to superannuation of 9%
- Free education for all who want it (with a token loans scheme)
- Holiday leave loading, generous sick days and other worker entitlements
- Otherwise strong employee protection that goes to point of being economically harmful and overly restrictive on the choices of entrepreneurs
- Free health care for all, which is getting strained with an ageing population
- A relatively large government and high taxation

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I love about Australia <3

Yeah I like high taxes (relative to say America). necessary obv for all of the above. If anything I would like higher taxes overall

[ QUOTE ]
- Universal social security benefits which people used to bludge off under a labor government.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmm you really think it's that bad? the benefits are obvious. I was under the impression it's actually quite annoying these days to abuse the doll. You have to apply to 4 jobs a week or something (and they randomly check your applications to see if it's legit), and if you don't get a job after a while you have to take a course on how to properly create a resume and stuff. This is just anecdotal evidence from a friend of mine who was on it

[ QUOTE ]
All of these things are, imo, much too far to the left for Australia to remain prosperous in a global economy and a long way from a streamlined and free society.

[/ QUOTE ]
well by now you can easily guess I'd disagree here. But a lot of it probably comes down to personal preference, I am willing to sacrifice quite a lot of overall prosperity for the sake of the poorer half of the country. But anyway, haven't we been doing ok for a while without a "streamlined and free society"?

[ QUOTE ]
The US on the other hand has a great deal more wealth and population and some serious social justice issues which have massive hidden economic and human costs. I think the Democrats are the only way to correct these issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't agree more. I've lived half my life in the states, half in Australia (dual citizen). Simply put I much prefer Australia, and would not want to veer towards America's way of doing things for fear ending up like America (poverty and lack of social mobility, mostly)

[zasterguava]

hmmmm. pretty sure min wage isn't $13. I get $10 per hour.

[lehighguy]

What does this mean for my Australian Dollar holdings (straight money market, it's part of the basket I bet against the dollar with)?

[Scary_Tiger]

[ QUOTE ]
and lack of social mobility, mostly

[/ QUOTE ]

How do higher income tax rates facilitate social mobility? Namely, say you have two individuals, one with nothing and one with one hundred thousand dollars. Taxed at 90%, the one with nothing finds a skilled position paying 80,000 dollars. The other does data entry paying 40,000 dollars.

In 90% Taxland:

After Year 1 8,000 104,000
After Year 2 16,000 108,000
After Year 3 24,000 112,000
After Year 4 32,000 116,000
After Year 5 40,000 120,000
After Year 10 80,000 140,000
After Year 20 160,000 180,000
After Year 25 200,000 200,000

Despite earning twice as much, and one million more dollars, the guy who started with nothing now has the same amount of wealth as the guy that started off well to do, but worked a do nothing job his whole life.

In 35% America:

After Year 1 52,000 126,000
After Year 2 104,000 152,000
After Year 3 156,000 178,000
After Year 4 208,000 204,000

After just four years working twice as hard or whatever, the guy who started with nothing has more.

In 0% Incomeland:

After Year 1 80,000 140,000
After Year 2 160,000 180,000
After Year 3 240,000 220,000

Do you not see how terrible an income tax is for social mobility? When you tax productivity you aren't taxing the rich more, you're taxing those who actually do something useful more.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
hmmmm. pretty sure min wage isn't $13. I get $10 per hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a waiter or some other kind of employee that gets tips? In the US the minimum wage is often lower for service staff who customarily receive gratuities from customers.