Look at the education graph, it tells the entire story here. The more likely you are to have gone to uni and learned how to effectively source factual information by yourself, learned how to skim read longer and more complex source material, maybe even learned something of Australian history beyond the whitewashed and over-simplified version in high school, the less likely you were to be influenced by a No campaign that was primarily about spreading as much fear and misinformation on social media as possible.
The mobile booth results from remote Indigenous communities in the NT is also really interesting. The yes vote aligns with the inner city seats, which is not something you’d usually expect to see.
I think the interesting bit about that is not the inner city polling, which leaned Yes (relatively speaking) everywhere, but the fact that the Yes campaign seemingly struggled to appeal to remote Indigenous communities (again, relatively speaking) despite putting a lot of effort into reaching those people. Conversely, the No campaign was mostly run online and through the media - they had only a fraction of the volunteer and on-the-ground support - yet they performed above expectations in those areas.
At its furthest extreme, the argument is that land and licences to exploit finite natural resources (potentially including the rights to mine minerals and emit greenhouse gasses) should be taxed heavily.
For property, the tax should only be levied against the underlying land, and not any buildings or improvements that add value. So you get taxed on what the price would be if it were a vacant lot (the unimproved site value).
Meanwhile, all other taxes on productive wealth generation — income tax, company tax, GST, etc., should be completely abolished.
Advocates generally combine this with a universal basic income.
The logic is that taxing finite natural resources will cause them to be used more efficiently, and the benefits distributed widely throughout society.
Meanwhile, activity that creates wealth or adds value should be encouraged, and that means it should go untaxed.
When land and resource taxes are combined with a universal basic income, what ends up happening is that people with a lot of expensive land or who use a lot of natural resources pay a net tax.
Meanwhile, people who use few resources get a UBI that's higher than their tax bill, and therefore a net credit.
What it offers is a way that free market libertarians can respond to climate change and other environmental issues.
That being said, even if you don't agree with the full Georgist program, there is still a decent case to be made that more of the tax burden should be filled by taxes on land and natural resources.
This is interesting. So therefore a plot of land in the centre of a city would be so expensive for land taxes that the best way to reside on it would be for it to be subdivided and have lots of people be responsible for its cost. Therefore, it encourages densification through tax.
… and then, in the penultimate paragraph, they undermine their thesis by pointing out that The Greens are successfully soaking up the economically precarious young voters who the thesis argues are easy pickings for the far right.
I think the three major party’s young voting contingent must be made up of those who stand to inherit significant wealth from their parents. Their policies certainly are only aimed at that cohort.
Typical of this Labor govt, this policy is about appearing to do something, than actually doing it effectively.
Why not have levies for all houses sitting vacant, not just foreign owned? Why not make annual fees higher and higher if you own more than say 3 properties? How about fees for land banking in cities ?
Also better make sure that a house used for air BNB 2 weeks a year doesn’t count as being used.
Well if they can appeal to people’s xenophobia to deflect from the problems of landlords and capitalism in general then they’ll do that. Gotta keep capitalism chugging along, even while they tut-tut about all the problems it’s causing.
Honest fact: It’s dear, but firstly, AUKUS is more expensive, and secondly, when it’s storing energy we’re going to forget the amount we spent and really enjoy the amount we’re saving.
Wow there isn’t even a punch line, Andrew Marlton just skewers those involved. I think this was a criticism of the NACC when it was founded. Albo basically neutered it till it was useless.
EDIT: For some excellent coverage of Robodebt, see www.youtube.com/
I’m having NBN flashbacks… Labor has a good plan that’s getting implemented, Liberals propose a terrible plan that has the potential to undo all of the good that’s underway… And next minute we’re on FTTN / implementing nuclear.
That’s such a 1950’s mentality, nuclear energy is the future!
It cost $500m to build RAC arena in Perth, construction of a nuclear power station will cost 10’s of billions, and we’d need more than 1. Who is going to run it? We don’t have trained nuclear technicians so we’d have to headhunt them from overseas in the short term until we can train local people.
Given we don’t have a nuclear power history, we’d be better to invest all that money in renewables. We have the land mass for solar farms, we have the coast line for wind and wave energy generation and there is no waste that lasts for 50,000 years that we have to store somewhere.
It just seems dumb at this point. Nuclear energy is so incredibly expensive compared to the alternatives. Most countries are moving away from it due to it being commercially unviable. And yet here we are with the NLP acting like it’s the best thing since sliced bread.
I know they see it as their duty to push the opposite of whatever Labor’s doing but they don’t seem to care that it’s just a bad idea.
They won’t have a path to 76 seats if they can’t win back the Teal seats. Seems like they’ve given up on that, and they are trying to rally their right wing base in QLD just to keep hold of that region.
To have any chnave we have to engage in demand destruction. There are NO solutions involving growing the economy, we’ll fuck around trying though and make it much worse
It doesnt have to mean a shitty life, it does.mean a differnt life eg no car and cycle and PT means no car costs, denser quieter cities, large houses banned, small really well insulated homes only, less deaths from car polluton etc. We need to ban flying, close airports etc
All we’re doing now is greenwashed nonsense and blah blah blah. At mimum we should be building no more roads and only funding e trains and e bus lanes etc
We’ve barley started with planned withdrawal from coast lines.
We either crash the economy (preferably equitably) or we collapse civilisation, were out of choices, we have left it to long. Neither the ALP nor the LNO are up to the task but that’s on voters supporting those assholes.
Probably simple, whilst incredibly difficult. We can begin with removing by-products and side effects and every last synonym of the two from our vocabulary.
Coal and gas energy comes with green house gases which we conveniently called side effects and ignored. Only those side effects have grown exponentially to haunt us.
Nuclear energy comes with the question of nuclear waste.
No idea about what solar panels and wind turbines come with.
Every energy generation endeavour is an all or none, take it or leave it deal. Unless our culture accepts this, incredibly difficult.
Incredibly difficult because every listed business is required by law to grow at all costs and deliver profits and growths to the shareholders. Who has the backbone to put a strict speed limit on profits and growths? How do we police the speeds of business growths? Or how and where do we start?
More incredibly difficult because of sustained campaigns such as individual carbon footprint with backing from some of the deepest pockets.
While on the topic of side effects and by products, another huge elephant in the room is the agriculture industry. I think we can leave it for another discussion.
She seems to have a lot of negative stories she tells herself about money. Luck definitely plays a part in things, but it’s not everything. I think with her attitude things are unlikely to change for her, unfortunately.
australianpolitics
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.