That is something I have noticed with many liberal governments in the last few years. Due to them I think noticing some of their failures and such economically, they have started down the path that the conservatives have been saying they must go down for many many years. I don't understand how people think that liberals are good on economy if all they are going to do is reluctantly go down a conservative economic path?

You know its hard to get a lot of good information about other countries on the web since like almost all of the web is U.S. Could you fill me in on a lot of the Australian economic systems? Sales taxes, property taxes, income, estate, etc. I am pretty sure you have national healthcare, so explain how yours works, how easy it is to get seperate plans. What you have for social security. Um, education funding. The major parties and what they endorse, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby That is something I have noticed with many liberal governments in the last few years. Due to them I think noticing some of their failures and such economically, they have started down the path that the conservatives have been saying they must go down for many many years. I don't understand how people think that liberals are good on economy if all they are going to do is reluctantly go down a conservative economic path? You know its hard to get a lot of good information about other countries on the web since like almost all of the web is U.S. Could you fill me in on a lot of the Australian economic systems? Sales taxes, property taxes, income, estate, etc. I am pretty sure you have national healthcare, so explain how yours works, how easy it is to get seperate plans. What you have for social security. Um, education funding. The major parties and what they endorse, etc.

Something I must clear up before I proceed. Our Liberal party is actually our version of the US's Republican party. The Labour party is our version of the Democrats. I have to admit though, both party's are very similar in policy and ideology (especially when it comes to economics) I mean, both are pro free-trade for instance..

Well, I'm going to have to do a little research to answer your questions on our economic systems.. but i have a heap of time on my hands tonight, so i dont really care Where do we start?

Sales Tax
We dont have a sales tax in Australia, per se, rather we have a Goods & Services Tax (GST). The GST was introduced about 5 years ago, or so, and actually replaced a whole bunch of sales taxes. Now, a GST is put on all non-essential goods and services, at a flat rate of 10%. Things that are excluded from GST are fresh foods (not processed foods like spam etc), education, and healthcare for instance.. This tax was very unpopular to start with, but has generally become accepted over the years. Although the price of many things had increased due to the GST things like imported electronics (like TV and DVD players) actually came down in price, as previous sales taxes were much higher than 10%.

Property Tax
Australia has a Land Tax, which I must admit am not very familiar with. Landowners are generally liable for land tax when the unimproved value of taxable land exceeds certain thresholds. In some states there are deductions and rebates available, depending on the use of the land. Principal places of residence are usually exempt from land tax although this is subject to certain qualifying criteria, which vary between states. Land owned and used by the following organisations are generally exempt from land tax:
- non-profit societies
- clubs and associations
- religious institutions
- public benevolent institutions, and
- charitable institutions.
(Dont get too excited, I just cut n paste that whole section )

When dealing with actual property though, I have a bit of a clue. If you buy a house as a place of residence and live in it for over a year you are exempt from any tax on its sale. If you leave the house within a year, or it is an investment property then the profit made on the sale forms part of your regular taxable income. Basically, we call it Capital Gains tax. (It's the same tax that's used when you've made a profit on the sale of shares). Capital Gains tax for individuals forms part of your regular income tax (which i will get onto in a minute), but for businesses the tax is set at a flat 30% (I think...?) rate. So, businesses pay 30% of their profits to the government every year.

Income Tax
Our income tax is similar in nature to that of the US.. by means that it's a progressive tax. Here's the tax rates that have just recently been phased out for the financial year 2003-04.

$0 – $6,000 = Nil tax
$6,001 – $21,600 = 17c for each $1 over $6,000
$21,601 - $52,000 = $2,652 plus 30c for each $1 over $21,600
$52,001 – $62,500 = $11,772 plus 42c for each $1 over $52,000
Over $62,500 = $16,182 plus 47c for each $1 over $62,500

Tax rates 2004-05
$0 – $6,000 = Nil tax
$6,001 – $21,600 = 17c for each $1 over $6,000
$21,601 - $58,000 = $2,652 plus 30c for each $1 over $21,600
$58,001 – $70,000 = $13,572 plus 42c for each $1 over $58,000
Over $70,000 = $18,612 plus 47c for each $1 over $70,000

There is an addition levy put on top of our tax to pay for our public health system (called Medicare). Normally, your Medicare levy is calculated at 1.5% of your taxable income but this rate may vary depending on your circumstances. So, essentially our top tax bracket it actually 48.5%.
Medicare is the scheme that gives Australian residents access to 'free' public health care. The amount of levy you pay is based on your taxable income and is in addition to your income tax. It isn’t reduced by any tax offsets you may be entitled to unless they are refundable tax offsets.
Our public health system is first rate. Sure, it's hard to get a bed in a public hospital for any elective surgery, but I can go see a general practitioner anywhere in Australia for free (so long as i flash my medicare card). Our private health system was actually given a rebate by the government a few years back to attract people to sign up. People were given a 30% discount on their private health premiums to provide incentive to sign up. Not sure if the rebate is still available, but because our public system is relatively good it still struggled to attract a significant amount of people. The vast majority of Australians dont have private health cover (especially the younger generations) simply because, again, our public system is still in good shape. Again, I'm not expert on healthcare so i'm not exactly sure what it is you mean by "separate plans"... sorry..

Social Security
Our government sponsored social security system is run by Centrelink, perhaps one of the most annoying/frustrating/incompetent corporations you'll ever deal with. They provide unemployment benefits to our lazy ******s who dont want to work, but also provide things like disability pensions (which includes mental health allowances) and also family assistance type allowances (helping out single mothers and stuff). They also provide "health care cards" which provides for virtually free medication to low income earners and pensioners. I had this card once while i was at uni, and got me access to any drug on the market for under $5, while also allowing for a discount on my car registration of $150 and concessions on public transport/theatres and sporting events. Awsome deal, in my opinion.
For those at uni they provide what we call Austudy.. This is a fortnightly allowance of a few hundred dollars given to those students that come from low income families (which is put at a stupidly low level.. something like a combined family income of $30k a year would qualify you) or given to those students who live at home but earn enough money to prove independence from their parents (something like $16k for the last 18 months is the threshold). If you're studying and living out of home you can get Austudy, and also rent assistance.
All in all.. a kick arse social security system.

Education
Education funding is also fantastic in this country, although not facing a bright future. Public schooling at highschool is fairly popular, although private schools now cover about 30-40% of the market. At university the government subsidises much of the fees a student will incur. The government, until just this year actually, subsidised two-thirds of your uni fees per year.. the remainder is up to you to pay, but the government offers you a loan (with interest equal only to inflation) if you cant pay up front. You pay this money back once you start earning over $35,000 or something... but if you never earn that much, or you move overseas to work, you basically get a free uni degree. nice... For me, my uni fees were about $4000 a year and i payed them up-front (and received a 25% discount), rather than paying it once i earned enough money.
However, since this year the rebate has actually dropped to only one-third of your uni fees.. and the up-front payment discount has dropped from 25% to 20%. So, this years uni freshmen are paying somewhere around $8000 a year (i think), for you standard commerce degree.
This new deal is highly controversial and has stopped many people from coming to uni this year (making it much easier to get a spot in your local uni) Personally, I think it's a farce, but i suppose that such high subsidising is ultimately unsustainable.

Political Parties
Now, this area of specialisation is probably more suited to someone like Renegade, rather than myself... Renegade being a member of our Democrat Party (if my memory serves me correctly). The Democrats, along with the Greens, are our 2nd tier type parties behind the Labour and Liberal parties.

The policies of our Labour party can be found at:
http://www.alp.org.au/policy/index.php

Our liberal Party (and the party in power) website can be found at:
http://www.liberal.org.au/
Mozilla is playing up, so i can access their policy page for you..

Like I mentioned before, both parties are very similar, and I often find it difficult to distinguish between the two. However, I think that the Liberals are slightly more authoritarian than the Labour party in terms that they are fairly hardlined on issues of illegal immigration and indigenous reconciliation. ie.. they refuse to say 'sorry' to our natives for past attrocities and jail suspected illegal immigrants for years at a time (including children).

The Australian Democrats can be found at:
http://www.democrats.org.au/index.htm
I suppose this party is more aligned with the Labour party than the Liberal party, in the point that it's less authoritarian. They are pro-choice, pro-reconciliation (with the aboriginies), and are compasionate to the refugees. Again, this leftist style party is probably better known by Renegade than by myself.

The Greens Party are exactly that.. Green:
http://www.greens.org.au/
This party has gained much popularity in the recent election, although their economic policy is next to negligent. They want to reduce foreign investment in Australia, and are actually anti free-trade (and pro "fair" trade).. and if there is anyone who wants to argue that fair trade is better than free trade I have enough ammo to put anyone (including the most stringent of academics) back in their holes.. I am quite passionate about the topic and can rebutt your butt off
Other than their shitty economic policy their emphasis on environmental sustainability is fairly obvious..


Well, this has got to be my longest post EVER.. (i dont post nearly as much as most people on here though.. i like to read.. ) Hope this enlightens you on a little bit of Australia.

___________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire

Okay appreciate the info. I self taught myself economics so yeah your right free trade is correct--it is proven by law of comparative advantage. I wish many of my party around here would learn this and I guess your liberal party too, but law of comparative advantage also applies to immigration as well. Open immigration is good(assuming customs of course for national security purposes). Um don't call a political party authoritarian though, the two are kind of oxymorons--political party; authoritarian don't match.

Centrelink--they shouldn't be only having one corp do it, they should find multiple ones that they have to compete against.

You kind of answered what I meant by seperate plans--seperate insurance plans that operate on the free market and aren't provided free from government is what I meant. You know general practionishers are no longer big in the free market economy anymore. What I mean is that if you take a look at a the U.S. that atleast is still 50 percent open market healthcare, the natural swings in the market have almost made general practioners obsolete. Everybody wants specialists today. So your and many of the other socialized healthcares out there will grow even farther in not competing with the U.S.

30-40 percent private education that is good news.

Yeah thanx again and vote for the liberal party next time. You seem like a very reasonable guy--the footage from Iraq on election day spoke volumes. So give the liberal party their due credit they helped free millions of people, and deliver them another vote next election.

When dealing with the whole free/fair trade arguments it isnt all just comparative advantage issues that fair trade advocates will throw at you. They'll try and tell you that paying premium prices for goods such as Brazilian coffee beans in good for poverty in Brazil, remembering that Brazil actually has comparative advantage in coffee production.. Simple comparative advantage economics isnt going to win you an argument. I'm not going to get into it too much now, but if you're ever interested (and if anyone gives you grief about it) I wrote a paper on the issue that can help. It is a little technical in its terminology, but I have simplified a lot of it for the average joe to understand. I can send it out to you if you ever need..

Centrelink... It is government run/owned and I doubt that there'll be any interest from private firms to run the place. Competition doesnt seem a likelyhood.

On Iraq, my friend, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Being a native of the Balkans I am too used to wars and find that they solve nothing, even though at face value might be good... I just cannot stand even the thought of war..

___________________
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Opus you didn't even fucking answer the first question.

I considered your question highly unrealistic and downright silly, so no I didn't answer it. Perhaps you should state your point without silly hypotheticals, and then you might get a direct answer.

quote:

You only said that they wouldn't stop working, so many of you guys want super high percentage taxes on the wealthy, right? For an example of taxing the guys to oblivion, lets say you guys somehow get a tax through that everybody making over 200 grand a year gets taxed at 70 percent while everybody below 200 grand gets taxed at 45 percent.

Taxing them to "oblivion". Boy for some reason those darn affluent folks seem to be able to land on their feet okay, despite our progressive income tax and regressive payroll tax.

quote:

What happens if all the wealthy people leave or stop working. Believe me there are plenty of places they can go. The U.S. would atleast only be 40 or so percent. Cayman Islands have no tax, you can find plenty of countries in latin america with low or no income tax. Luxembourg I think has super low income tax(correct me if I'm wrong)could be Lichten. Hong Kong has 15 percent. And Russia has I think either 15 or 20 percent(thats the case but still to much red tape in Russia).

As pointed out here, why would they leave or stop working? You seem to have this strange premise that they would stop working because they are being taxed so high. Well they CHOOSE to continue working here, and many of them CHOOSE to evade our tax laws regardless, putting their money in the Caymans, putting their business P.O. Boxes in the Bahamas, etc. etc. We have a great deal of lost revenue as a result of these folks finding the myriad of loopholes in our tax laws, yet our President seemingly does so very little to stop them.

Now truth be told, it's not just the affluent that evades taxes and finds loopholes - certainly folks in the middle and lower class do this as well. But the revenue lost is certainly not as great for them.

Regardless, your point being is that our government relies on their tax revenue, right? And so if they quit, our government would be hurting, right? Well, so what's your point? Yes, we'd be hurting.

Surely there's reasons why they stick around in our country, right, other than having to being taxed to "oblivion"?

quote:

Tickling feet and rubbing his weenie, huh. In liberal world would you would be burned at the stake. We don't torture. We have perfected humane ways of not doing that.

Oh really? Why am I not surprised at your mere dismissive attitude at the reports that have come out of Gitmo, Afghanistan, Abu Ghraib, etc.?

quote:

If you don't talk we provide the bare minimum of food maintain nutrition, you do talk you eat 3 big meals a day. You don't talk you will probably have to live in low or hot temperature cell, nothing even close to dangerous at all but is discomforting(basically either goosebumps or sweating their ass off). We can't have women sweet talk them because that is called sexual coercion. Just think of it, we are so evil of people we even draped an Israeli flag around one detainee, wow the horror.

Are you seriously trying to deny the fact that we haven't tortured any individuals at all? Please fucking tell me you're kidding, right?

quote:

Don't call these extreme hypotheticals either. Both events are highly plausible and you well know that.

Umm, they are still quite hypothetical, sorry.

quote:

Who would hire you to work if there are no wealthy people owning Microsoft, McDs, GM, or Sony? No high paying jobs to get.

Why do I care? And why the strawman? I have no argument against those who have money, nor do I have any argument against those affluent who hire me. What the hell is your point here, if you ever had one?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Provide any evidence that we have used any form of torture. We haven't even in Abu Ghraib the people were made to get naked, eww oh shit everybody we are so evil. Even then the administration came down hard on the people in charge at the prison. Come on Opus lets hear all the evil details on the U.S. interrogation. Um ready go...

I can give countless examples of rich people saying we've had enough of this shit. Even your own statement shows they do that when they send their moneys to places like the Caymans. If you close the loophole they'll just take their money and move to the Caymans than they aren't "acting on a loophole" when they stick it in a Cayman account.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Provide any evidence that we have used any form of torture. We haven't even in Abu Ghraib the people were made to get naked, eww oh shit everybody we are so evil. Even then the administration came down hard on the people in charge at the prison. Come on Opus lets hear all the evil details on the U.S. interrogation. Um ready go...

Ok ... here's some:

quote:

(1) (U) Physical Abuse. Several Soldiers reported that they witnessed physical abuse of detainees. Some examples include slapping, kicking, twisting the hands of a detainee who was hand-cuffed to cause pain, throwing balls at restrained internees, placing gloved hand over the nose and mouth of an internee to restrict breathing, “poking” at an internee’s injured leg, and forcing an internee to stand while handcuffed in such a way as to dislocate his shoulder. These actions are clearly in violation of applicable laws and regulations. (2) (U) Use of Dogs. The use of military working dogs in a confinement facility can be effective and permissible under AR 190-12 as a means of controlling the internee population. When dogs are used to threaten and terrify detainees, there is a clear violation of applicable laws and regulations. One such impermissible practice was an alleged contest between the two Army dog handlers to see who could make the internees urinate or defecate in the presence of the dogs. An incident of clearly abusive use of the dogs occurred when a dog was allowed in the cell of two male juveniles and allowed to go “nuts.” Both juveniles were screaming and crying with the youngest and smallest trying to hide behind the other juvenile. (Reference Annex B, Appendix 1,SOLDIER-17).... e. (U) The physical and sexual abuses of detainees at Abu Ghraib are by far the most serious. The abuses spanned from direct physical assault, such as delivering head blows rendering detainees unconscious, to sexual posing and forced participation in group masturbation. At the extremes were the death of a detainee in OGA custody, an alleged rape committed by a US translator and observed by a female Soldier, and the alleged sexual assault of an unknown female. They were perpetrated or witnessed by individuals or small groups. Such abuse can not be directly tied to a systemic US approach to torture or approved treatment of detainees. The MPs being investigated claim their actions came at the direction of MI. Although self- serving, these claims do have some basis in fact. The climate created at Abu Ghraib provided the opportunity for such abuse to occur and to continue undiscovered by higher authority for a long period of time. What started as undressing and humiliation, stress and physical training (PT), carried over into sexual and physical assaults by a small group of morally corrupt and unsupervised Soldiers and civilians. Twenty-four (24) serious incidents of physical and sexual abuse occurred from 20 September through 13 December 2003. The incidents identified in this investigation include some of the same abuses identified in the MG Taguba investigation; however, this investigation adds several previously unreported events. A direct comparison cannot be made of the abuses cited in the MG Taguba report and this one.... 4) (U) Incident #4. ... DETAINEE-08 stated the next evening he was transported by CPL Graner, 372 MP CO MP, to the shower room, which was commonly used for interrogations. When the interrogation ended, his female interrogator left, and DETAINEE-08 claims CPL Graner and another MP, who meets the description of SSG Fredrick, then threw pepper in DETAINEE-08’s face and beat him for half an hour. DETAINEE-08 recalled being beaten with a chair until it broke, hit in the chest, kicked, and choked until he lost consciousness... (5) (U) Incident #5. In October 2003, DETAINEE-07, reported alleged multiple incidents of physical abuse while in Abu Ghraib. DETAINEE-07 was an MI Hold and considered of potentially high value. He was interrogated on 8, 21, and 29 October; 4 and 23 November and 5 December 2003. DETAINEE-07’s claims of physical abuse (hitting) started on his first day of arrival. He was left naked in his cell for extended periods, cuffed in his cell in stressful positions (“High cuffed”), left with a bag over his head for extended periods, and denied bedding or blankets. DETAINEE-07 described being made to “bark like a dog, being forced to crawl on his stomach while MPs spit and urinated on him, and being struck causing unconsciousness.” On another occasion DETAINEE-07 was tied to a window in his cell and forced to wear women’s underwear on his head. On yet another occasion, DETAINEE-07 was forced to lie down while MPs jumped onto his back and legs. He was beaten with a broom and a chemical light was broken and poured over his body. DETAINEE-04 witnessed the abuse with the chem-light. During this abuse a police stick was used to sodomize DETAINEE-07 and two female MPs were hitting him, throwing a ball at his penis, and taking photographs. ... (7) (U) Incident #7. On 4 November 2003, a CIA detainee, DETAINEE-28 died in custody in Tier 1B. Allegedly, a Navy SEAL Team had captured him during a joint TF-121/CIA mission. DETAINEE-28 was suspected of having been involved in an attack against the ICRC and had numerous weapons with him at the time of his apprehension. He was reportedly resisting arrest, and a SEAL Team member butt-stroked him on the side of the head to suppress the threat he posed. CIA representatives brought DETAINEE-28 into Abu Ghraib sometime around 0430 to 0530 without notifying JIDC Operations, in accordance with a supposed verbal agreement with the CIA. While all the details of DETAINEE-28’s death are still not known (CIA, DOJ, and CID have yet to complete and release the results of their investigations), SPC Stevanus, an MP on duty at the Hard Site at the time DETAINEE-28 was brought in, stated that two CIA representatives came in with DETAINEE-28 and he was placed in a shower room (in Tier 1B). About 30 to 45 minutes later, SPC Stevanus was summoned to the shower stall, and when he arrived, DETAINEE-28 appeared to be dead. SPC Stevanus removed the sandbag which was over DETAINEE-28’s head and checked for the detainee’s pulse. He found none. He un-cuffed DETAINEE-28 called for medical assistance, and notified his chain of command. LTC Jordan stated that he was informed of the death shortly thereafter, at approximately 0715 hours. LTC Jordan arrived at the Hard Site and talked to CIVILIAN03, an Iraqi prison medical doctor, who informed him DETAINEE-28 was dead. LTC Jordan stated that DETAINEE-28 was in the Tier 1B shower stall, face down, handcuffed with his hands behind his back. LTC Jordan’s version of the handcuffs conflicts with SPC Stevanus’ account that he un-cuffed DETAINEE-28. This incident remains under CID and CIA investigation.

Plenty more in the Army report:
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/doc...fay82504rpt.pdf

Rape, beatings, sodomy ... very humane.

___________________
Retro ...

I do apologize for the pathetic attempt at a war by Clinton in the Balkans. He didn't want is poll numbers to go down so he kept the war at 40 thousand feet. If they truly wanted to fix the Balkans for good they could have.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby I do apologize for the pathetic attempt at a war by Clinton in the Balkans. He didn't want is poll numbers to go down so he kept the war at 40 thousand feet. If they truly wanted to fix the Balkans for good they could have.

What the fuck does Clinton and the Balkans have anything to do with what Occ posted, sir?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I thought Clinton did good in prompting some action but because of the half heartedness, liberals are coming back to the conservatives saying that we might have to go back in again. Wars do accomplish when they are faught whole heartedly. In our case: Revolutionary War establishes us. Civil War kept the country together and ended slavery. WWII ended German and Japanese imperialism. These wars produced great results, I apologize that a half hearted war by the U.S. soured you regarding the good results many wars can produce.

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby I thought Clinton did good in prompting some action but because of the half heartedness, liberals are coming back to the conservatives saying that we might have to go back in again. Wars do accomplish when they are faught whole heartedly. In our case: Revolutionary War establishes us. Civil War kept the country together and ended slavery. WWII ended German and Japanese imperialism. These wars produced great results, I apologize that a half hearted war by the U.S. soured you regarding the good results many wars can produce.

And what the fuck does that have to do with what Occ posted....ie...the evidence that torture did take place....or are you a total asshole in denial that it ever took place....