mfd101

18 minutes ago, CapraIbex said:

Labor's campaign was politically dumb - they went all or nothing rather than going for incremental changes.

The removal of ranking credit refunds was a poorly thought out policy - after all, the white paper that suggested franking credits explicitly states that they are the first step and the second step is the refunds. The problem is how that policy interacts with the pension phase of super. If they had come out and said, for example, we are introducing a 5% "levy" that can not be reduced by franking credits then they probably would have gotten more support. They were suggesting a 30% decrease in people's income - that was, obviously, far too ambitious!

Banning refunds of franking credits all together would have affected everyone (you receive them in your super while you are still working). A better way of dealing with this is by reforming super, and may happen organically by governments over time when spikes in income are needed.

Yes, I agree will all of that. 2 comments:

- The teenager tendency of the Left & the Greens: All or nothing. If you won't give me 100% of what I ask, I'll I'll I'll I won't vote for you. Or sumpthink. The underlying attitudes are all too often anti-democratic. The authoritarianism of the Greens is little different in that regard from the fascist instincts of the various 'new' & extreme Rights in Europe. The issue is how a modern liberal democracy is to make, over time, the massive changes of economy & lifestyles that climate change requires of us. There is no easy answer. Our modern globalized & multicultural world is hugely complex & becoming more so.

- The ALP seems to regard anyone who earns, from whatever source, more than, say, AUD80,000pa as 'the big end of town'. In the Australia of 2019 where the average salary is around 80K, that's simply ridiculous.

11 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

With the ever growing disparities in Australia and the discrimination against older Citizens. With a Central Government that has little regard for the populace at large where do you think there is Hyperbole? My statement was simple neither of your major parties really listens to the view of the Public. Businesses and minority pressure Groups dictate direction and Policy or do you wear Blinkers to make the days rosier.

Good grief. Which part of Australia are you familiar with? Certainly not any part I can recognize ...

On climate change, the firm response from Nth Queensland needs to be absorbed: All politics is local, and noone - not you, not me, not anyone - is going to vote to have their own job abolished, with no workable alternative, for the sake of saving the planet.

And having the spoiled brats of the bourgeoisie come to lecture the workers of the outer suburbs or the mining towns on morality doesn't go down too well.

In relation to One Nation & Palmer's UAP: Without their preferences the Libs would not have won.

There is a lesson in this: When you have a closely-fought battle with preferential voting, the only way you're going to win is if you have 1 or 2 client or sympathetic minor parties who can attract locals on primary vote & then pass on their preferences to 'their' major party. This was the function of ONP & UAP this time round for the Coalition, as the Greens were for the ALP, and as the DLP was for the Libs from 1956 to 1983.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

This is sad. Climate change and inequitable distribution of wealth  are major issues in Australia. In re-electing the Coalition, the majority of Australians opted for the status quo. Multinationals will continue to profit shift and avoid their fair share of taxation. The Adani mine will go ahead. A big chance to be the premier exporter of renewable energy will go begging.

What's happened to Australia? We used to be bold and inventive. Now the majority of Australians are fearful and timid.

I really fear the decision by the majority of Australians yesterday will haunt them for decades, as we drift into irrelevance.

I think that ScoMo will now move on climate change. Nothing could happen before while he lacked the authority he has gained overnight, and while Tony Rabbit (as my b/f calls him) was still in the Parliament. The issue is not whether to address climate change but how to & at what speed, noting the degree to which coal currently contributes to Australia's remarkable continuing prosperity.

As to 'inequitable distribution of wealth' the OECD regularly has Oz in the top half-dozen countries for redistribution from rich to poor ... Certainly a world away from Outback Thailand, with its determined autocracy, rigid social hierarchy & b/s 'democracy'.

It was nice to spend several hours this afternoon & evening watching a REAL democracy at work - egalitarian & law-abiding in spirit, with courteous call from the defeated party leader to the continuing PM with congratulations & best wishes.

The people were presented with a real choice between the 2 main parties and their choice, at the national level, was pretty clear. Final results for the House should be in by Monday or Tuesday, the Senate shortly after. Then the new government sworn in & back to work.

An example some other countries could learn from ...

The death of Bob Hawke reminds us that there was once a high-quality Labor government in Oz that understood Economics 101 and knew how to bring the people - not to mention the trade unions - along on major reform (including the most important decision any Oz government has made since WW2, namely the float of the dollar).

Makes the current pollies, of both sides, look pathetic by comparison. The effect - if any - on the election outcome tomorrow is unpredictable. Reminder of past glories might just push Little Billy over the line. But the comparison with now might have the opposite effect ...

8 hours ago, pegman said:

Very commendable what he and the other Commonwealth leaders, except for despicable Thatcher, did to end South Africa's apartheid regime. 

Malcolm Fraser actually, in Australia's case.

39 minutes ago, bobinkolat said:

Been in Thailand for over 11 years 2 years ago changed fro non o to retirement visa I AM 73 years old & find it near impossible to get medical insurance, as are many of My mates on long stay visas  

Don't worry, the wunnerful Thai administrators will think of a way.

If it is mandatory for, say, a 90-year-old living 'permanently' in Thailand to have health insurance (as it should be), it will be mandatory for Thai insurance companies - or at least those who wish to partake of the profits - to offer cover. The question will be, as always: What's the cover & what's the cost? It would be nice to think that competition between insurance providers might be helpful to customers ...

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Should have gone in and dealt it to the Iranians the day they declared war on the US by invading US territory.

He did, as I recall. But the post-Vietnam US army screwed up. Remember helicopters in the desert?

Not a great President, but a decent human being.  Not obvious that the two things are entirely compatible in any case.

7 minutes ago, WorriedNoodle said:

The health insurance in the news article does not mention extensions - just visas and visa renewals!?

>According to Nattawuth, the new rule applies to both new applicants for the non-immigrant visa (O-A), which offers a stay of up to one year, and those wishing to renew their visa. 

And the difference between a 'visa renewal' and a 'visa extension' is?

Almost always chokka now, compared to, say, 5 years ago.

The price of success. And of failure to continue investing & upgrading.

Modernity continues to evade Thailand's best efforts ...

Oh dear, I thought it was going to be about the 'election' outcome & the formation of a 'new' government.