Comments on ABC report “Greens want means test for flood levy”, 25/01/2011, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/25/3121040.htm?section=justin
Mr Brown got it half right, that is, all taxpayers including corporate taxpayers should pay it should a levy is imposed.
But he is wrong to have it means tested.
The tax is already too progressive to be fair for further increasing those who pay a large tax.
While it is easy for Mr Brown to make a political argument to tax even more heavily on higher income earners, it is much more unfair given that they already pay so much. In per capita terms, they pay as much as many low income earners combined pay.
Mr Brown’s argument is misleading and conceals such facts.
There is no use to try to be politically popular and be really hypocritical in terms of facts and truth.
It is politically coward to simply to be ‘rich’ beating to score political points!
Showing posts with label greens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label greens. Show all posts
2011-01-25
2010-11-24
PM, defeat the Greens without saying blowing apart them
Comments on Janet Albrechtsen “PM, blow apart the Greens”, 24/11/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/pm-blow-apart-the-greens/story-e6frg6zo-1225959731430
The PM and Labor are unlikely to blow apart the Greens. They cannot afford of doing it.
However, what they could do is to develop its own good policies to 'compete' with the Greens. In this way they can distinguish itself from the Greens and defeat then without saying they are blowing them apart.
It is a matter of real leadership and independence as well as cooperation and competition among the loose coalition that is the basis of its minority government.
Gillard and Labor can only marginalise the Greens by having good policies of its own.
If Labor cannot do that, it should ask the nation for another election to seek a new mandate, rather than for short term power at the expenses of longer term viability.
At the moment, Labor is in danger of being eaten away by the Greens. It should and must respond effectively with good policies. Only substance matters now and Labor and Gilalrd must grab it.
The PM and Labor are unlikely to blow apart the Greens. They cannot afford of doing it.
However, what they could do is to develop its own good policies to 'compete' with the Greens. In this way they can distinguish itself from the Greens and defeat then without saying they are blowing them apart.
It is a matter of real leadership and independence as well as cooperation and competition among the loose coalition that is the basis of its minority government.
Gillard and Labor can only marginalise the Greens by having good policies of its own.
If Labor cannot do that, it should ask the nation for another election to seek a new mandate, rather than for short term power at the expenses of longer term viability.
At the moment, Labor is in danger of being eaten away by the Greens. It should and must respond effectively with good policies. Only substance matters now and Labor and Gilalrd must grab it.
2010-09-03
The hung is good for the Greens but bad for the nation
Comments on Robert Carling “Tax policy devised by party that is green with envy”, 3/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/tax-policy-devised-by-party-that-is-green-with-envy/story-e6frg6zo-1225913534872
While the GFC may have caused people to reflect on the far right approach or market fundamentalism, the far left like the Greens in Australia are by no means the solution to the problems/issues that contributed to the GFC.
Unfortunately for Australia, we've just got a hung parliament and the Greens are in a very strong position to explore the situation to its advantage to move Australia to the Left's agenda.
The gutless current government has been so keen to embrace the support of the Greens for alliance to form the next government.
That is bad for the nation, and for the ALP itself in the media to long run.
It is likely that the ALP will see more of its supporters to move to the Greens at the next election.
While the GFC may have caused people to reflect on the far right approach or market fundamentalism, the far left like the Greens in Australia are by no means the solution to the problems/issues that contributed to the GFC.
Unfortunately for Australia, we've just got a hung parliament and the Greens are in a very strong position to explore the situation to its advantage to move Australia to the Left's agenda.
The gutless current government has been so keen to embrace the support of the Greens for alliance to form the next government.
That is bad for the nation, and for the ALP itself in the media to long run.
It is likely that the ALP will see more of its supporters to move to the Greens at the next election.
2010-08-24
ALP and the Greens - the worst combination for Australia
Comments on Matthew Franklin and Patricia Karvelas “Julia Gillard's Green path forward”, 24/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-green-path-forward/story-fn59niix-1225909144872
The most immediate and important question is:
Is that combination and stability good for the nation?
I have to say it is highly doubtful!
The Greens are too far to the left.
That combination would magnify the ALP's wastes by many times.
That would be costly to the taxpayers.
Gillard would be better off not to rely on that argument.
Having used that argument, she is continuing to show poor judgement!
Hope the independents can see the danger of that combination and prevent that from happening.
The most immediate and important question is:
Is that combination and stability good for the nation?
I have to say it is highly doubtful!
The Greens are too far to the left.
That combination would magnify the ALP's wastes by many times.
That would be costly to the taxpayers.
Gillard would be better off not to rely on that argument.
Having used that argument, she is continuing to show poor judgement!
Hope the independents can see the danger of that combination and prevent that from happening.
2010-03-12
Left and Leftist thinking!
Comments on Nick Dyrenfurth “The battle for the Left”, 12/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-battle-for-the-left/story-e6frg6zo-1225839752277
It appears that the author confused himself very deeply and in the course also effected confusion for the readers.
He confused The Australian economic fundamentals with Labour's superficial management role - if no recession is proof of good economic management, many current governments in the world are much better economic managers, but are they really? What about the gifts from decades of economic reforms and prudential management by its predecessors? Further, what are the true and unnecessary costs to the budget and government debt?
He confused the already discredited Rudd/Wong ETS with real market based approach - what are those free handouts of the rights to pollute to polluters and inequitable subsidies?
In terms of thinking logic, one has to wonder the author is not an “extreme left” himself!
But certainly some sorts of extremist.
It appears that the author confused himself very deeply and in the course also effected confusion for the readers.
He confused The Australian economic fundamentals with Labour's superficial management role - if no recession is proof of good economic management, many current governments in the world are much better economic managers, but are they really? What about the gifts from decades of economic reforms and prudential management by its predecessors? Further, what are the true and unnecessary costs to the budget and government debt?
He confused the already discredited Rudd/Wong ETS with real market based approach - what are those free handouts of the rights to pollute to polluters and inequitable subsidies?
In terms of thinking logic, one has to wonder the author is not an “extreme left” himself!
But certainly some sorts of extremist.
2009-10-13
Pragmatic measures required for reducing emissions
Comments on Giles Parkinson “Head-in-the-sand economics”, 13/10/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/CPRS-Greens-Steve-Fielding-Garnaut-Copenhagen-pd20091013-WRREF?OpenDocument&src=sph
Is the International Energy Agency god and are its projections convincing and why?
How can it represent the international community?
One has got to be realistic in the degree and the path of emissions reduction. Start with practical goals and send the correct signals to businesses and consumers. Then technical innovations and technological breakthroughs will follow and the next appropriate steps can be taken at that time.
Neither the race to bottom nor to the top is the right thing to do. Neither of them is a responsible way to resolving global warming issues.
More often than not, the Greens are environmental extremists and economic vandals. Is there any question about that?
Is the International Energy Agency god and are its projections convincing and why?
How can it represent the international community?
One has got to be realistic in the degree and the path of emissions reduction. Start with practical goals and send the correct signals to businesses and consumers. Then technical innovations and technological breakthroughs will follow and the next appropriate steps can be taken at that time.
Neither the race to bottom nor to the top is the right thing to do. Neither of them is a responsible way to resolving global warming issues.
More often than not, the Greens are environmental extremists and economic vandals. Is there any question about that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
