Chinese imperialism and future Australian sovereignty

[David]

[5 from the wing on debut]

Yes, and I recalled your previous answer which is why I raised the issue again, as it was relevant to the discussion.
I suppose that you are also aware that the definition of "left" has changed over the years. It means something different now to what it used to mean in the 1980's, or indeed when GST was first being proposed by Hewson.

[David]

[Pies4shaw]

I don't have much interest in this debate (plainly the part of the ALP that should been in the Liberal Party supported the notion at one time - but was rightly smacked down by the actual Left) - but the following research paper prepared in 1997 for the Commonwealth Parliament has a very detailed chronology, if anyone cares: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... 798/98bp01

[watt price tully]

"Lefties in favour of a broad-based consumption tax."

Bullshiite of the highest order. No left-winger anywhere, ever was in favour of an increase in regressive taxation. (Any person in favour of an increase in a regressive tax to replace a progressive one is not left wing. The whole reason for being of the left wing viewpoint is that it favours a fairer, more even distribution of wealth and labour and income. Regressive taxes are the opposite of that and, by their very nature, cannot ever be "left wing" policies.

The fact that you and others within your echo chamber do not have knowledge of something does not mean that it did not occur. I understand that this is how internet forums work though. If you don't like something just say it's not true and set out senseless arguments to support a false conclusion. Some may be swayed by what you have said, but then children of kindergarten age are quite trusting.

I have no dog in the fight, I despise politicians and the fools that have strong political allegiances but I stand by my comments. I am certainly not going to be cowed by someone that most likely never studied the topic in question and has such a limited knowledge of history.

Economics wasn't my interest but I thought that as I was already at uni a double degree wasn't much more work than one degree, so that's what I did. You may care to pretend the world is as you would like it to be, but unfortunately for you, it isn't. Can you not recall the ALP faction in support of GST and the battle that took place between Treasurer Keating and PM Hawke over the issue? Apparently not.

Part of the argument of the "left" back then was that due to tax minimisation/avoidance systems and structures, the "rich" were not paying sufficient income tax, so they were being subsidised by the poor who did not have those options available tom them. They wanted to catch the rich on expenditure so a GST was their proposed way of doing it.

Of course, your response will be a simple "bullshit". Then you will perform a google search to look for information in relation to a topic in which you have no first hand knowledge.

I think the problem yuou might have is one of definition. The ALP are n ot left per se. The right of the ALP abd the so called left of the Libs have a bit in common.

However, the left do not and have not supported a broad based tax system. The right of the party certainly as David has pointed out through Keating. However Keating also wanted the so called safety net which has been eroding at a fast pace by the Liberal party (although thankfully restored albeit temporarily somewhat through jobkeeper and withdrawn today)

[pietillidie]

So, in the end as stated: one faction does not a party make. Not only did the left not change its mind, even Keating threw the GST under a bus because for him it was always a technocratic rather than ideological argument.

[5 from the wing on debut]

I don't have much interest in this debate (plainly the part of the ALP that should been in the Liberal Party supported the notion at one time - but was rightly smacked down by the actual Left) - but the following research paper prepared in 1997 for the Commonwealth Parliament has a very detailed chronology, if anyone cares: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... 798/98bp01

Thanks for that, it reminded me of things that were so long ago I had forgotten. I really don't care about his topic either, it was just a throw away line by me in relation to something else that started this debate. It seems to have touched a nerve in some people though.

That article did specify though that in the Tax Summit both Treasury and the Hawke ALP government recommended a 12.5% GST be introduced but it was shouted down and CGT and FBT were introduced.

Which really takes me back to where I started. The lefties in the economics faculty in the early 80's, who described themselves as that, supported a consumption tax. Then the ALP supported it, or tried to. A few years later the ALP won an election by opposing it. That's history, not controversy or opinion.

[Tannin]

"Lefties in favour of a broad-based consumption tax."

Bullshiite of the highest order. No left-winger anywhere, ever was in favour of an increase in regressive taxation. (Any person in favour of an increase in a regressive tax to replace a progressive one is not left wing. The whole reason for being of the left wing viewpoint is that it favours a fairer, more even distribution of wealth and labour and income. Regressive taxes are the opposite of that and, by their very nature, cannot ever be "left wing" policies.

The fact that you and others within your echo chamber do not have knowledge of something does not mean that it did not occur. I understand that this is how internet forums work though. If you don't like something just say it's not true and set out senseless arguments to support a false conclusion. Some may be swayed by what you have said, but then children of kindergarten age are quite trusting.

I have no dog in the fight, I despise politicians and the fools that have strong political allegiances but I stand by my comments. I am certainly not going to be cowed by someone that most likely never studied the topic in question and has such a limited knowledge of history.

Economics wasn't my interest but I thought that as I was already at uni a double degree wasn't much more work than one degree, so that's what I did. You may care to pretend the world is as you would like it to be, but unfortunately for you, it isn't. Can you not recall the ALP faction in support of GST and the battle that took place between Treasurer Keating and PM Hawke over the issue? Apparently not.

Part of the argument of the "left" back then was that due to tax minimisation/avoidance systems and structures, the "rich" were not paying sufficient income tax, so they were being subsidised by the poor who did not have those options available tom them. They wanted to catch the rich on expenditure so a GST was their proposed way of doing it.

Of course, your response will be a simple "bullshit". Then you will perform a google search to look for information in relation to a topic in which you have no first hand knowledge.

Clueless nonsense. You have advanced no evidence whatever to support your original claim that "lefties" supported a consumption tax. Being a member of the Labor Party certainly does not make you a "leftie" - consider the NSW Labor right as a shining example.

Mate, I don't need to search for this sort of thing. I was there.

[Tannin]

I suppose that you are also aware that the definition of "left" has changed over the years. It means something different now to what it used to mean in the 1980's, or indeed when GST was first being proposed by Hewson.

Wrong again. Left wing means, and has always meant, "in support of fairness and economic equality". Right wing means (and has always meant) "in support of wealth and privilege". The terms date to the arrangement of representatives during the lead-up to the French Revolution in 1789, aristocracy and royalists on the right, workers and intellectuals on the left.

Many and various other causes have been attached to each of these wings from time to time. These come and go. The competing core values of privilege vs fairness, however, are always with us.

[5 from the wing on debut]

[stui magpie]

VICTORIA’S controversial Belt and Road deal with China has been binned by the Morrison government in a move that will inflame tensions with Australia’s biggest trading partner.

Good. Well done Morrison Et al.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victo ... 08410e2891

[stui magpie]

I suppose that you are also aware that the definition of "left" has changed over the years. It means something different now to what it used to mean in the 1980's, or indeed when GST was first being proposed by Hewson.

Wrong again. Left wing means, and has always meant, "in support of fairness and economic equality". Right wing means (and has always meant) "in support of wealth and privilege".

Nah. That's just a left wingers version of the world, justifying themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%8 ... onalism%22.

The terms date to the arrangement of representatives during the lead-up to the French Revolution in 1789, aristocracy and royalists on the right, workers and intellectuals on the left.

Many and various other causes have been attached to each of these wings from time to time. These come and go. The competing core values of privilege vs fairness, however, are always with us.

The terms did originate there but the meanings you ascribe to them aren't right.

You may choose to see the world and your politics through that lens, you can even choose to believe it. Doesn't mean it's correct.

[Tannin]

Use your own terms then. Still mean the same thing: one side wants the world to be fairer, the other side wants it to be less fair. And no, that doesn't mean that the other side is wrong, there may be good reasons why fairness is a bad thing, and right wingers all over the world have been very good at dreaming up such reasons since the dawn of time, but in the end it comes down to one basic disagreement: more fair or less fair. Everything else is decoration.

[5 from the wing on debut]

Absolute rubbish.
Name one country where a “left” revolution has done anything other than redistribute wealth to those that then gain power. The useful idiots that supported those revolutions have always missed out.

[watt price tully]

VICTORIA’S controversial Belt and Road deal with China has been binned by the Morrison government in a move that will inflame tensions with Australia’s biggest trading partner.

Good. Well done Morrison Et al.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victo ... 08410e2891

Remember when this was done the county including the Federal Government was all over China. As you know Pollies couldn’t get enough of China.

I don’t know enough about the actual deal to see if it was good or not good. However, we need to examine the legislation that the c*nt Scotty from Marketing has used to be able to accord themselves with power to override the states; as I understand it extends much further than stopping twice elected Victorian state government.