|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|Go to - FDNC NEWS FORUMS > Australian - Latest Political Stories > 'Bill Shorten lies'|
|Posted by: Bear May 12 2018, 09:14 AM|
| 'Bill Shorten lies': Turnbull government attacks Labor's income tax plan.
Bill Shorten after delivering his budget-in-reply speech on Thursday night. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen.
The Turnbull government has savaged Labor's income tax plan, branding Opposition Leader Bill Shorten a liar and arguing "his numbers don't add up".
In his budget-in-reply speech on Thursday night, Mr Shorten announced a Labor government would offer low and middle-income earners a tax cut of up to $928, almost doubling the relief offered by Treasurer Scott Morrison in Tuesday's budget.
The Opposition Leader also promised to pay down debt faster than the Coalition and boost funding for healthcare and TAFE by using money Labor banks as a saving by opposing the Coalition's tax cuts for large companies.
“We can afford to cut your taxes, without cutting services, because unlike the Liberals, we’re not wasting $80 billion on a discredited giveaway to the top end of town," Mr Shorten said on Thursday.
Labor estimates its tax cuts plan, costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, sacrifices $5.8 billion in revenue over four years on top of the government plan, which costs $13.4 billion over four years.
But Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann and Treasurer Scott Morrison launched an attack on Mr Shorten, saying he is dishonest and Labor's numbers can't be trusted.
"They have not released any detail, no plan, no costings and they are spending the same money several times over," Senator Cormann told Sky News.
"You have got to remember, Bill Shorten has a track record now – a persistent track record – as a liar. Bill Shorten lies."
While the government has attacked Mr Shorten's character before, it is rare for senior MPs to call each other liars.
Billy cannot lie straight in bed, he is an accomplished liar, a skill learned while in the Union movement.
|Posted by: scepo May 12 2018, 10:05 AM|
| Curlies marvellous tax plan is just as solid as his gold plated guarantee that all Labor MP's would pass the dual citizenship test.
Pathetic and laughable at the same time.
If ever there was a photo of a group of smug, useless, dead set losers, the one at the top of this story is it.
|Posted by: Bear May 12 2018, 02:30 PM|
| Unbelieve-a-Bill Billy's tax plan is not clever, all he is doing is using the $80 billion that the TB government set aside for company tax cuts to throw around buying votes.
Billy can not be trusted to manage our economy, we have all suffered because of the last two Labor governments and their wasteful spending, Labor can not control its spending, a vote for Labor is a vote for a massive blowout in debt.
As it is Morrison has raised Australia's debt ceiling to $600 billion, increasing the size of our credit limit - as debt continues to rise.
|Posted by: Bill May 13 2018, 01:32 PM|
| Quote from Bear:
all he is doing is using the $80 billion that the TB government set aside for company tax cuts to throw around buying votes.
So....you approve of the LNP giving $80 Billion to the big end of town, at the expense of hospitals, schools, the homeless, pensioners, the in(der)employed, carers, veterans.....well just virtually everyone else. Did I get that right ?
Curly has also flagged changes to Negative Gearing, Capital Gains tax concessions, Dividend Imputation etc. that only benefit the rich . You'd be against that too Bear - wouldn't you ? You won't get those changes from Trumble.
You can add about another $70 Billion to Curly's 'war chest', giving him $150 Billion worth of priority resets as the election gets closer.
Curly still may not win. There's always the chance that the Daily Terrorgraph will photo-shop Burly in flagrante delicto with a farm animal, or preferably a number of farm animals before the election.
It's not about vote buying - it's about setting priorities. Curly's priorities are about helping those less well off in our society, not the tax avoiding companies and individuals who stash their money in the Cayman Islands.
It never ceases to amaze me how poor people choose to vote for benefits for the rich, at the expense of their own interests - it's like turkeys voting for Xmas.
But WTF - they stopped brown people from coming here on boats, so it's all good.
|Posted by: lee May 13 2018, 01:52 PM|
Ah. The old canard about the Cayman Islands, with whom the ATO has an international Agreement to share tax data.
"Countries that have a tax information exchange agreement with Australia
|Posted by: scepo May 13 2018, 03:09 PM|
| If the big end of town are avoiding paying tax by stashing their money in the Cayman Islands how will lowering the tax rate benefit them? 38% of nothing is equal to 25% of nothing isn't it?
Curlies priorities are about appealing to masses with massive doses of misinformation. Turnbulls aren't much better.
If their are no rich people, there are no entrepreneurs therefore everything grinds to a halt and everyone is worse off.
I cannot understand the tunnel visioned, narrow minded, "them and us" attitude that causes people to virtually cut off their nose to spite their face.
So now stopping the boats was/is all about skin colour?
What next I ask?
|Posted by: charka May 13 2018, 03:18 PM|
|Wong and co no documents we have a right to know|
|Posted by: Michael.W May 13 2018, 07:35 PM|
The only prioirty to Bill Shorten Is Bill Shorten Only, !!!
|Posted by: Bill May 13 2018, 10:43 PM|
stashing their money in the Cayman Islands was a 'catch all' phrase for those who move their income around to avoid paying tax where it is earned. My legal team and the editors are having the weekend off .
massive doses of misinformation - could you elaborate of specific instances in his Budget Reply where he indulged in massive doses of misinformation - I must have missed that part.
If their are no rich people, there are no entrepreneurs
Do you remember the example I gave of someone I knew who paid no tax from his business on revenue of $7 Million ( 2015/2016 financial year), because he didn't have to ?
Well.....It's an expanding Award winning business doing consultancy work for the Mining Industry and Government Departments, (State and Federal). Revenue for the 2016/2017 financial year was $14.5 Million. And yes again, I know that 'revenue' doesn't equal income, but nothing has changed on the tax front either.
To be fair he employs a staff of 81, so some of them may be paying tax, but as we all know, paying tax is 'optional', so that's not a given.
Is that fair ? Do you support that arrangement ?
More importantly, would you vote for a policy to change this man's advantaged position ?
He's not the only one using the tax system like this. All businesses have the option of paying tax or not paying tax. It depends on what lengths they are prepared to go to in order to achieve that result.
If you think that businesses will automatically become good citizens and pay their fair share of tax to benefit the communities in which they operate, you are being very naïve scepo. Their only operating motive is profit. Nothing else matters......and yes lee - there are exceptions to the rule.( My editor told me to say that. )
If you don't understand that, then you deserve to be screwed over by them.
Businesses that avoid tax by using elaborate paper trails to off shore their income rob the Australian economy of around $150 Billion (ATO Estimates) annually in lost revenue.
But you'll still vote for the Business Representatives Government of Abbott/Turnbull. Right ?
|Posted by: charka May 14 2018, 07:26 AM|
|Yet bill wishes to thieve cash off peope who have saved and payed tax SHAME To finance a word giveaway to people that hate us Both here and abroad Bishop is no better or malcome|
|Posted by: Charles May 14 2018, 09:42 AM|
| If Australian businesses are robbing the Australian economy of such huge amounts by not paying taxes then why, in 6 years of ALP Government, wasn't something done Bill?
It's all very well to portray the current Government for failing to close taxation loopholes yet the ALP had their opportunity and failed to deliver. You may very well cite a hostile Senate, but I don't recall any serious efforts to introduce legislation aimed at what you see as a grave injustice.
And how much of this issue is a simple case of rich v poor? High profits often equate to increased employment and increased consumer confidence. Look nor further than the USA to see examples of this.
Sadly I feel your "us and them" thinking is an antiquated political stance. Your one-way critical offensive against anything and anyone right of your political view has become predictable and repetitive. At least the right wing members on this site have been open enough to condemn both sides of politics.
|Posted by: Michael.W May 14 2018, 10:06 AM|
| Hi Bill,
I have a very simple review when it comes to politics.
1. Bob Hawk , started the industrial shut down, people lost their jobs, start of raising unemployment.
2. Paul keating introduced the recession we had to have and 18 % plus morgage interest rates
3. John Howard increase consumer confidence, changed the taxation, housing market increase mining boom, money was plentiful, could go out for resturant meal and not worry about the cost. left Australia with 84 billion in bank
4 Rudd & Gillard both spent beyond Australia's means, left a mess on immigration. consumer confidence dropped, Unemployment rose, rudds knee jerk reactions failed in so many ways. wages dropped whilst living expense rose beyond many people affordability, including pensioners. Seld funded retiree's lost most of the super.
5 Abbott change the constant threat to boarder security thanks to Rudd & Gillards poor policy. Abbott re install consumer confidence and increased business activity.
6 Turnbull is just a failure
7 shorten is just a plan bloody lair, decetiful, hipocrit, bully and has no future plan for Australia.
So when I look at labor its a poor reflection. When I look at Liberal they apepar to have a better position for increasing wealth.
Unfortunately with Whitlam all I remember about him was being sacked.
with Fraser I recall wages taxes for the richers was at 75%. But I was just a young boy to teenager back then.
|Posted by: Bill May 14 2018, 12:07 PM|
| I don't suppose that anyone really wants to discuss the Morrison Budget or Bill Shortens response, do they ?
We could examine specifics and how they affect us all, or we could just slag off at Labor and attack me personally.
Changes to tax policy is politically volatile and that's why politicians of both persuasions are reluctant to move on it.
As an example News Ltd moved income offshore in 2012/2013 and the ATO was goin to the High Court to recover $892 Million in what it regarded as illegally avoided tax.
Enter the Abbott government and surprise, surprise, the case is dropped.
If News Ltd is still doing the same thing, and there's no reason for them not to, the ATO should be interested in approx. $4 Billion worth of suspect 'deductions.
Can you see the problem there for any government to move on News Ltd ?
Add to that the fact that 480 odd of our top companies paid NO TAX in Australia and imagine the amount of money that they could mobilise in an election campaign to protect their interests.
But you guys are happy to support these businesses with your vote - aren't you ?
There are times when I think that my ASD is the only reason I bother coming here.
So.......do we discuss the Budget responses or don't we ? Up to you.
|Posted by: Bill May 14 2018, 12:19 PM|
| Hi Michael
Thanks for your contribution. You've opened a lot of topics in one post mate. I could debate them but it would take until Xmas and it's 'off topic' anyhow.
You are aware, I take it, that the national debt has almost doubled to over $500 Billion since the Abbott/Turnbull government came to power. They are hardly good economic managers. And there is still the $250 Billion of defence contracts on the pipeline that don't even make it to the Budget, for planes that don't fly and submarines that will be obsolete before we see them.
I never liked Hawke. His 'accord', while it had some benefits for the economy, sold worker out, and laid the groundwork for John Howards "Work Choices".
Maybe we can explore this further on another day. I have enough trouble keeping the guys 'on topic' as it is.
|Posted by: Michael.W May 14 2018, 12:29 PM|
| What response would that be Bill from Shorten, The man is grasping at straws. He can say what he likes or lie about what he likes in his case because he has no entitlement of being held to account. Or better still how about discussing how he lied to the people on the dual citizenship saga and now we have 5 more out, but Labor's vetting policy is right according to lair Bill. I still say that should all be charged with a making a false declaration and we abolish the right to renounce any dual citizenship.
The sooner they get rid of him the better it would be for Labor and they can move forward. I though Rudd was bad but this clown will destroy Australia.
As for Morrison I listen him on 3AW last Friday Afternoon, I think he is moving forward in the right direction, In the meantime the ABC is pissed because they can't get any more monies. Morrison also plans to wipe 185 billion of Australia debt level that a good plus in my book.
|Posted by: Michael.W May 14 2018, 12:34 PM|
Never said any were better than the other Bill, just my life review on how they affected me. On a personal level I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could kick them. In relation to the debt perhaps it would pay to check the debt clock, just be seated before you do, heart attacks aren't good for anyone.
Nothing wrong with good debate Bill, that's how we are suppose to get the right results.
|Posted by: Charles May 14 2018, 01:25 PM|
| "I don't suppose that anyone really wants to discuss the Morrison Budget or Bill Shortens response, do they?"
Discussing the Morrison Budget and Bill Shorten's response in the same breath is talking about facts and fairy tales.
Morrison's budget appears to be a rational, balanced strategy aimed to benefit middle Australia. Some of the economic management since 2013 has been questionable, but this budget makes a lot more sense than previous budgets.
As for Shorten's response, it is nothing more than to be expected. As soon as any party in Government delivers a budget the Opposition starts releasing statements outlining how they would have done better - especially with an election on the horizon. It's standard practice and, if elected, the promises quickly dissolve in a welter of excuses.
It would be refreshing if Shorten, or any other Leader of the Opposition in the past, had the courage to outline what they would do prior to a budget release. But then the budget might outdo their promises and they would have egg on their face.
In brief, a budget is about a plan and facts, an opposition response is about promises and fairy tales - no matter who is in power.
|Posted by: charka May 14 2018, 02:07 PM|
|Turned into a measuring contest mine is better than yours|
|Posted by: lee May 14 2018, 02:43 PM|
"The Australian Tax Office wanted to challenge the claim but was overruled by the Federal Court of Appeal in July last year, the Australian Financial Review reported on Monday."
"“The ATO seeks external legal counsel opinion on the prospects of success for an appeal before making a decision."
Isn't it amazing how an independent umpire is brow beaten by government.
|Posted by: scepo May 14 2018, 04:57 PM|
Only if it is a LNP government lee.
|Posted by: Bill May 15 2018, 11:58 AM|
| Hi Charles
In brief, a budget is about a plan and facts, an opposition response is about promises and fairy tales - no matter who is in power.
So....do we start with the 'specific' plan and facts of the Morrison Budget ?
Or do we start with the 'specific' promises and fairy tales of Curly's Response ?
I'll leave you to start us off Charles.
|Posted by: Bill May 15 2018, 12:13 PM|
A panel of judges decided in favour of News Corporation on July 25, but the money did not immediately flow because the ATO was still able to appeal to the High Court.
The ATO's 28-day window to mount an appeal coincided with the federal election campaign, during which Mr Murdoch's newspapers ran heavily against the Labor Party and the then prime minister Kevin Rudd.
Nice try lee, but no cigar. The Abbott government allowed the case to lapse., as I pointed out in my post.
|Posted by: lee May 15 2018, 01:30 PM|
So the time lapsed during an election campaign when Rudd was PM; but it is Abbott's fault. Got it.
"The ATO decided not to appeal, as advice from its senior counsel was that it wouldn't succeed in a High Court challenge."
Abbott must have been senior council.
|Posted by: Charles May 15 2018, 03:45 PM|
I'll start with a couple of definitions.
1.a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.
2.an intention or decision about what one is going to do.
1.a declaration or assurance that one will do something or that a particular thing will happen.
1.assure someone that one will definitely do something or that something will happen.
2.give good grounds for expecting (a particular occurrence).
Morrison's budget is a specific plan. Shorten's promise, while a declaration or assurance, is a promise - or more precisely, a politician's promise. He has simply taken Morrison's budget figures and promised to increase the benefits outlined.
If you believe Shorten's promise to be binding, you are more naive than I thought.
|Posted by: scepo May 15 2018, 04:46 PM|
That is the funniest thing I have read all day.
Clearly Abbott was not PM during the election campaign, and neither was the LNP in government.
Labor has never done a single thing that I can recall about stopping funds being moved to tax havens offshore. The first I can recall trying to gain international co-operation (which is essential) on this issue was Joe Hockey when he was treasurer. To every previous government it just went into the too hard basket.
And to be honest Bill, I cannot recall you regarding it an issue as well as an answer to government debt until after Abbott won the 2013 election. I cannot recall you ever mentioning it as something government should do during the Rudd/Gillard disastrous era.
|Posted by: Michael.W May 15 2018, 07:33 PM|
Scepo, Rudd tried to make up for the off shore taxes with his super tax on the mining industry, Ohh shit that didn't work either the mines just closed the doors and told Rudd to bang it where it belongs.
Gillard's there will be "NO" supertax under the governmnet I lead or words to that effect.... eitherway both nearly sent the country broke, then we have Lair shorten. Instructmental on destroying 2 PM's but now he suppose to be Australia's shining example of a good leader. Sorry just choke on my words their.
If Shorten ever make PM, Australia will be sold up the creek without a paddle to hold. Please God help us !!!!
|Posted by: Bill May 16 2018, 02:36 PM|
| Hi scepo
Your post on the Shoutbox:
Thanks for making a post in Latest Political Stories Bill
That went well mate. So far we've only seen 'nitpicking' on peripheral issues.
Would you like to lead the discussion ? Charles is only offering 'definitions' of plans and promises.
Rumour has it that Chris Bowen (Shadow Treasurer) has refused to release his costings because predictions out to ten years are unreliable.
Cheers scepo - and Good Luck.
Does anyone have any idea why Kate left us ?
|Posted by: scepo May 16 2018, 05:44 PM|
Come on Bill get it all off your chest, I know you want to. You are amongst friends here, there is nothing to fear.
Or if you prefer, either PM me or email me. I have no vendettas, malice or hard feelings.
|Posted by: Charles May 16 2018, 06:42 PM|
| Hi Bill
Thus far you have done little more than drag peripheral issues such as Cayman Island off-shore tax evasion (an issue that neither side of politics has tackled) into the discussion and challenged me and others to discuss Morrison's budget and Shorten's promises. I have indicated briefly that I approved of the budget and dismissed Shorten's promises (which are the basis of this thread) as being nothing but political promises which, as history has shown us, are more often than not often worthless.
Nowhere have I seen your response to Morrison's budget, just a challenge for others to start a discussion.
|Posted by: Bill May 16 2018, 07:22 PM|
| National Press Club Address - Scott Morrison
National Press Club Address - Chris Bowen
If we are going to explore the differences between policies aka plans/promises, this would be a good plaqce to start.
Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.
|Posted by: Bill May 16 2018, 07:27 PM|
| Come on Bill get it all off your chest, I know you want to. You are amongst friends here, there is nothing to fear.
Or if you prefer, either PM me or email me. I have no vendettas, malice or hard feelings.
I appreciate the offer, but I think you know where I'm coming from and what Im trying to achieve for the site. I'll think about it over the weekend.mate.
|Posted by: Charles May 19 2018, 08:39 AM|
You challenge your fellow FDNC members to comment on and debate the budget address of both parties, even going so far as to post links (see above). You go on to say in a later post, "...but I think you know where I'm coming from and what I'm trying to achieve for the site."
I have commented briefly on the budget and have seen both statements. I'll remove the "promises" aspect from this discussion and say one statement is a working plan, the other statement is a proposed plan "if elected". The latter is more about vote catching than it is about budget management.
As yet you haven't offered your opinion on the budget details yet you challenge others to do so. Why is that so? What are you trying to "achieve for the site" if you aren't prepared to lead by example?
|Posted by: scepo May 19 2018, 10:24 AM|
I could be wrong Charles but I suspect Bill is at least in part referring to Kates departure, and possibly my perceived part in it.
That of course is something that each of us probably have our own view on.
Personally I am happy enough to post my view onsite yet again if that is what Bill wants, or perhaps he may choose to discuss it with me via email.
|Posted by: Charles May 19 2018, 11:48 AM|
| Kate's departure was, in my opinion, similar to those of others who hold strong political views. Thomas is another example.
Some take issues too personally when their views are questioned/attacked. If we were to analyse the departure of many past FDNC members we would find this to be a common thread.
The whole point of FDNC, or any other news forum, is to discuss issues - both political and otherwise - in a rational and civilised manner. Sometimes we might forget the "rational and civilised" aspect but as often as not there is no personal slight intended.
Unfortunately exchanging views without personal contact can lead to misinterpretation.
In the past I have over-reacted and even taken a short break after disagreeing with others. In hindsight this achieves little.
|Posted by: Bear May 19 2018, 03:38 PM|
| “But WTF - they stopped brown people from coming here on boats, so it's all good.”
“There are times when I think that my ASD is the only reason I bother coming here.”
I appreciate the offer, but I think you know where I'm coming from and what Im trying to achieve for the site. I'll think about it over the weekend.mate.”
Sadly much of what Bill posts now days is not worthy of a response, what happened to the Bill we once knew from BP..
Billy cannot be trusted, back in 2012 he said that Labor delivered a surplus, in reality, they delivered us a deficit of $18.8 Billion.
Billy's $200 Billion of higher taxes on electricity, incomes, housing, investment, retirees, and small business, will cost jobs, and damage our fragile economy.
|Posted by: charka May 19 2018, 04:09 PM|
|Is itr something like the NBN elephant|
|Posted by: scepo May 22 2018, 04:34 PM|
| How much tax do the rich actually pay? It depends on how you do the numbers
By political reporter Jackson Gothe-Snape
The rich might actually be worse off under the Government's tax cut plan.
New modelling suggests wealthy Australians will face a greater relative tax burden under the Government's tax plan
Different groups have modelled the plan based on different units: adults, "taxfilers" and households
All modelling shows the tax plan does not radically change how the tax burden falls
Deloitte Access Economics has found that wealthy Australians will actually increase their share of the tax burden under the seven-year plan in new modelling released this week.
That is despite the $7,225 annual tax cut promised to high-income earners in 2024-25 under the Government's proposal.
The new analysis has challenged other reactions to the Government's budget which pegged Australia's wealthiest as the biggest winners.
But it also reveals how much a slight tweak can change Australians' understanding of the tax burden.
Adults versus 'taxfilers'
Although the budget is barely weeks old, several organisations have already assessed the impact of the Government's tax plan by studying how it affects different income groups.
They have done this by dividing Australia into buckets, or "quintiles" based on incomes, from the wealthiest bucket to the least wealthy.
The Grattan Institute in its assessment — based on 13.5 million Australians who have filed a tax return, or "taxfilers" — found the Coalition's tax plan favoured the rich.
The top bucket will pay 68 per cent of all personal income tax forked out by Australians this year, according to the analysis.
In 10 years, this figure is projected by Grattan to drop to 65 per cent — essentially reducing the relative burden of these higher-income earners — under the tax plan.
Australia's adult population is close to 20 million, a number much higher than the number of taxfilers.
Deloitte Access Economics used this group to do its analysis, meaning its bottom two income buckets are made up of people not counted by Grattan. This group includes young people or senior Australians who have not filed a tax return.
It found the wealthiest bucket was responsible for 79 per cent of all personal income tax this year — significantly higher than the Grattan figure.
But it also found the share of the tax burden covered by the wealthiest bucket of adults would increase from 79 per cent to 81 per cent between 2018 and 2025.
Deloitte partner Chris Richardson said he did not want to emphasise the relatively small, distant change in the outcome for this wealthy bucket, even as others might.
Instead he wanted to focus on how overall the share of tax paid for each bucket would remain relatively stable over the next seven years.
"It matches the existing share of taxpayers — not as exactly as if they'd literally indexed the threshold for inflation — but it's otherwise roughly doing it," he told the ABC.
Addressing the different approaches between Deloitte and her organisation, Grattan's Danielle Wood said she felt using those "participating" in the tax system was "the right way to look at" the question of whether the plan made the tax system more or less progressive.
But she also said Grattan's analysis found some smaller groups of high-to-middle income earners facing a higher share of the tax burden in the long term.
What about households?
Analysis from the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods provided to the ABC presents a slightly different picture.
The centre performed a quintile split based on Australian households — not adults as in the Deloitte example, or taxfilers as in the Grattan example.
Its analysis showed the wealthiest bucket of households was responsible for 61 per cent of Australia's tax burden. In 10 years, this was projected to drop to 58 per cent, similar to the Grattan analysis.
The ANU's Ben Phillips said he preferred using households compared to adults or taxfilers to measure distributional impacts.
"From a living standards perspective, arguably the household is more important than the individual as members are sharing resources," he said.
"It can often be the case that low-income persons live in high-income households and it can be that high-income persons may live in large families with only that one earner, in which case they aren't really high-income from a living standards perspective."
Even considering the different approaches, Mr Phillips could not fully explain the difference between the ANU and Deloitte work, but suggested Deloitte might have used slightly different figures in its model compared to the ANU's — for example using inflation to model wages growth rather than the wage assumptions used in the budget.
Editor's note: The University of Canberra's National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) provided a quote for this story that has now been removed at its request.
The "quote" removed from the article was to the effect that Deloitte used methodology to arrive at the result they wanted.
I would argue the same could be said about all the examples used in this article.
|Posted by: charka May 22 2018, 05:45 PM|
|Need more cash to give away WhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAt bring back swan duck worlds bestus treaserer|
|Posted by: Bill May 22 2018, 11:36 PM|
| Apparently Mr. Morrison's Tax Cuts Budget will not eventuate scepo.
The rich will be better off because the Budget will not pass the Senate - Pauline Hanson said so.
That's their fifth Budget in a row that the Senate have failed to pass.
Some 'Plan' that was Mr. Morrison.
These are the best 'economic managers' that we have ????? Apparently.
Come back Swanny - We miss you. All is forgiven
|Posted by: Phillip J. May 23 2018, 07:37 AM|
|Excuse me, people, I'm just going outside to check MY bucket, and find out which category I'm in! 🤔|
|Posted by: charka May 23 2018, 08:59 AM|
|Did not krud and co put us in this sinkhole b Who can forget NBN The other no better snowy 2.0 fails under scrutiny And we pay them they will not die|
|Posted by: Bear May 23 2018, 04:55 PM|
| "Come back Swanny - We miss you. All is forgiven"
Only a lost little lefty would forgive that fool, you need more than a flu jab Bill.
Back a post I said - Billy cannot be trusted, back in 2012 he said that Labor delivered a surplus, in reality, they delivered us a deficit of $18.8 Billion.
And, while Bowen was treasurer our economy weakened, unemployment was increasing, and the budget deteriorated by almost $3 Billion a week.
Now thankfully Bowen was not treasurer for a whole year! The economic statement that was delivered by Bowen, eleven weeks after his budget, showed the budget's bottom line had deteriorated by $33 Billion.
The last thing we need is Billy and Bowen.
Bill Shorten won’t say no to CFMMEU donations.
May 19, 2018 - BEN PACKHAM
Bill Shorten says Labor under his leadership will keep taking CFMMEU cash, as union boss John Setka declared he would give the ALP leader six months as prime minister to “restore workers’ rights”.
The Opposition Leader yesterday rejected a call from former Queensland premier Peter Beattie to refuse donations from the CFMMEU, which has given more than $11 million to Labor since 2000-01.
Malcolm Turnbull said Mr Shorten was unable to cut himself free from the CFMMEU because the union was his “paymaster”. “They are his controller. He does the bidding of the CFMEU,” the Prime Minister said.
The Liberal Party has already begun to prepare electoral messaging highlighting Mr Shorten’s ties with the CFMMEU, distributing on social media an image showing a miniature version of the Labor leader in the pocket of a construction union official.
Mr Setka, who wants Mr Shorten to make it easier for workers to strike, and relax union right-of-entry laws, said he was not sure whether he could trust the Labor leader to deliver for workers. “If he becomes the prime minister, ask me six months later,” the Victorian construction union boss told 3AW’s Neil Mitchell yesterday.
“A lot of politicians say they’re going to do a lot of things. People say in a broad brush, ‘We’re going to restore workers’ rights’. Now what does that mean?”
Mr Beattie said if he were federal Labor leader, he would cut off the CFMMEU, which has 70 officials facing court over 39 matters, and has been hit with more than $5.2m in fines this financial year.
“I wouldn’t take their donations because I think at the end of the day you pay too much of a price for it,” he told Sky News.
Mr Shorten said Labor would continue to take money from the union, which operated “outside the law”, according to Mr Setka. “No, I’m not going to take that advice,” Mr Shorten said. “Unions and business and social institutions all have a right to be involved in politics.” He said no one was above the law, but “I’m not the keeper of every official in the union movement”.
He accused the Turnbull government of attacking unions while accepting foreign donations, and allowing big banks to get away with ripping off customers. “His priorities are all wrong — yet again protecting the big end of town and going after everyone else,” he said.
In 2015-16, the latest year for which figures are available, the then CFMEU gave more than $620,000 to ALP branches.
Mr Setka set out his expectations of a Labor government in The Australian yesterday, after prosecutors dropped blackmail charges against him and deputy Shaun Reardon. He said he wanted the removal of secret ballots and notice periods before protected strike action could be taken, and called on Mr Shorten to give unions unfettered rights to enter workplaces. He also said Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard were “probably the worst Labor prime ministers” in Australia’s history.
The Coalition accused Mr Shorten of having a “secret deal” with the CFMMEU, which backed him as leader over Anthony Albanese and continues to provide factional support for him in Victoria.
Workplace Minister Craig Laundy said Australia could expect a “return to a 1970s-style of industrial disputation” under a Shorten government.
|Posted by: Phillip J. May 23 2018, 06:27 PM|
| Totally old news now, I know, but seeing that the subject has been raised, I guess I'll ask:-
Why did Kate say bye-bye? I think that I know why! I will say one thing. Kate never once acknowledged anyone else's views, or ever conceded even the most minor point, (unless it was Bill's!) It did seem as though she was the president of the "Bill fan club!" (And there's nothing wrong with adulation!)