Subscribe8pm on the same day the writs for the election are issued (8pm, 17th October 2007)I see.. The writ hasn't actually been issued yet, hence the date discrepancy..
If you are not enrolled, or you haven’t made sure that your name or address details on the electoral rolls are up to date, you risk missing out on being able to vote.OMG! You risk it! Sure.. If Canadian electoral offices (combined with my understanding of declaration votes) are any gauge, what they mean is that they prefer not to tell you about the mechanism, because it causes too much trouble on election day..
Professor Patricia Apps, the professor of public economics at Sydney University, says middle income earners will be paying higher effective marginal tax rates than the Government claims.It will be interesting to see how the Guvmint responds to this. My predication: "She's an academic so she must be a Labor supporter!"
While middle income earners will get a tax saving of around $33 a week over three years from next July, it is only a fraction of what the rich will get.
Professor Apps' analysis of the tax cuts announced on Monday shows wealthy people earning $180,000 are getting tax cuts fives times higher than those on average earnings of $60,000.
"This ultimately means the middle is being given an increasing tax burden," she said.
"The Government is using bracket creep to get this revenue off the middle and giving it disproportionately to those at the top."
Her analysis shows that the way the Government has structured the tax cuts is deceptive.
The Government's tax scales show people earning between $30,000 to $60,000 will face top marginal rates of 15c or 30c.
She says in reality their marginal tax rates will be 4c in the dollar higher.
This is because of the withdrawal of a tax subsidy to low income earners, the low income tax offset, once a person earns more than $30,000.
This problem arises because the Government has refused to raise the tax-free threshold, set at $6000 for all taxpayers.
Instead, it has effectively raised the tax-free threshold of low income earners by raising the low income tax offset, allowing them to earn $16,000 before they pay tax by 2010.
The Government starts withdrawing the low income tax threshold once someone earns over $30,000 at the rate of 4c in the dollar.
Professor Apps says this has the effect of raising their marginal tax rate by 4c.
Labor's final measure would deliver $400 million to a health reform plan.I think, Jimbob, what most of the peons commenting at news.com.au are forgetting is that Labor is, as I understand it, still going to cut their tax; the only people who won't recieve a tax cut next year are people earning over $180,000. Infact I think Rudd even said that since he earns that much, he can say with some conviction that people earning that much don't need a tax cut right now. Infact, if we look at the ABC News article I linked to abaove again, it says;
This would include a national elective surgery timetable to reduce waiting times for elective surgery.
... that Labor's treasury spokesman Wayne Swan says his party is supporting the bulk of the Coalition's tax cuts because they are what the ALP has been pushing for over the past three years.Looks like some economists are even giving the plan the thumbs up already.
"Something like two-thirds of all the tax cuts in the package the Government brought down go towards the low income tax offset and go towards shifting the 30 cent rate, we think that is very, very important," he said.
An economist has welcomed Labor's tax plan when compared to the Coalitions' plan.So basically it seems as though Labor has a decent tax package here, but will need to keep their cool as they try to sell it through all the hubris that the Coalition's supporters have already started to hurl.
TD Securities senior strategist Joshua Williamson says the Opposition's plan should be well received.
"Well, this when compared with the Coalition's tax package announced earlier in the week, it is a very modest set of tax expenditures deliberately designed as not being seen to fuel inflationary pressure but to actually help build skills and actually help working families deal with the rising cost of education," he said.
"The stuff about Belinda Emmett and Stan Zemanek was just outrageous, that's not funny, it's appalling taste. It reflects poorly on them and it reflects very poorly on people who think it's funny. Have a go at me, have a go at Kevin Rudd, have a go at people in public life who are alive and kicking. But to smear people like Stan and Belinda, who died in such tragic circumstances and in Belinda's case at such a young age, is just absolutely unacceptable."Who wants to be the one to tell him that they didn't actually 'have a go' at Belinda Emmett?
RAY Martin claims that the Nine Network's coverage of tonight's Sky News Debate has been "sabotaged" by someone unhappy with its use of the maligned "worm".Hopefuuly more information on this will emerge as the days and weeks go on; it actually sounds like something of a juicy apple in this campaign!
After being ordered to not use the "worm" - which indicates the reactions of undecided voters to arguments and has been a feature of modern televised election debates – the network broadcast it anyway.
[...]
Martin did not accuse any specific individual or group, but said "someone" obviously was not happy.
[...]
A spokesman from the Liberal Party said that Nine did not adhere to the agreed rules. “Nine breached the conditions of the broadcast (agreement),” the spokesman said. “It’s a matter for the National Press Club.”
"You're a disgrace John," the man said. "You're such a bad economic manager."Yeah. I guess that young man (obviously a Liberal staffer) showed him!
Mr Howard ignored the man, but a fellow walker defended the prime minister.
"Shut up you idiot," a young man said in defence of Mr Howard.
Veteran Nine Network journalist Laurie Oakes, who was on the question panel for the debate, angrily attacked the NPC's decision.I imagine most, if not all decent journalists, will have been apalled by the NPC's decision, and would suspect that the Libs may have had something to do with it, especially given Milne's involvment. I can see them not only doggedly following this story for a little while, but resenting the Libs encroachment on free speech and turning against them for doing so.
"With a name like National Press Club, you'd think it would be out there defending the free press and the rights of the media. Instead, it rolled over supinely when John Howard said you've got to ban the worm. That was the problem last night."
COULD it be that they held a federal election and Victoria did not matter?Premier Brumby has been complaining about the distinct lack of bacony goodness round these parts the last few weeks. Kinda fair enough, we certainly pay our share of taxes and always get shortchanged on everything. Which would be fine if it was going to Tassie and SA, but to SE Qld and WA? Grrr.
Bizarrely, Australia's second most populous state, the location of the national parliament for the first few decades of the federation, the home of prime ministers Deakin, Menzies, Fraser and Hawke, could conceivably play no part in the outcome of Election 2007.
"He [Mr Cheney] did it, apparently, as part of a deal cut with [Australian Prime Minister] Howard. I kept thinking: this is the sort of thing that used to go on behind the Iron Curtain, not in America. And then it struck me how much this entire process had disintegrated into a political charade. It's demoralising for all of us."Howard denies it, of course, especially the allegation that part of the deal was that Hicks couldn't talk to the media until after the election.
1. Kohler: a rise for now, and another for Christmas
Eureka Report publisher Alan Kohler writes:
There will now definitely be a rate rise in November. The only question now is whether there will be another one in December as well, and whether the Reserve Bank will even bother waiting for the December quarter CPI in February to move a second time. As for November 7, the day after its next board meeting, if the RBA did not raise interest rates, it would be rightly seen as a blatantly political act.
So complete is the consensus in the market that there is no longer anyone on the other side of the bet and money market traders are reduced to betting on Maxine McKew futures - $2.50 for the win in Bennelong, "a snip" said one trader: "everybody’s getting on Maxine".
Forget about the relatively benign-looking headline weighted average of 0.7% for the quarter, and 1.9%. That’s not what the Reserve Bank, or anyone else, looks at any more because it is distorted by one-off irrelevancies. The weighted median is 1% (3.1%pa) and the trimmed mean, which is what the RBA actually pays attention to, is 0.9% (2.9% pa).
Those RBA measures of inflation are now at the top of its band of comfort of 2-3% and have not stopped going up. With rising prices of oil, food and rents Australian inflation is about to burst through 3% and is expected soon to be 3.5%. Moreover the inflation rate is being boosted by the statistical aberration of a low inflation shock a year ago which is now working its way through the CPI growth rate.
By the way, both the median and the trimmed mean are obtained by the statisticians listing all the components of the CPI from highest to lowest and then simply chopping off the ends of the list. For the median they cut 50% off each end of the list so they are left with the figure that’s bang in the middle; for the trimmed mean they chop off the highest 25% and the lowest 25% so they are left with the half in the middle. It’s a way of smoothing out the figure and eliminating the "noise" of big once-off price movements.
And this means that no one, including John Howard and Peter Costello, can say that inflation isn’t really a problem and that it’s only a short term blip. It’s not – inflation in Australia really is on the move and it is the Reserve Bank’s job to do something about it.
Moreover with non-farm GDP at 5.2% year on year for the June quarter and unemployment at a 33 year low of 4.2%, there is no risk in raising rates in November. The risk is all John Howard’s, and today’s CPI is undoubtedly the greatest blow he has yet suffered in his campaign to be re-elected: brace yourself for an election campaign rate hike, Prime Minister, and practice trying to explain it away.
Alan Kohler is publisher of Eureka Report. This is an edited version of a column to be released later this evening at http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=40155b42-633d-401f-9b11-4eebb8a830eb&rid=72adff62-67f1-4f85-9f67-a33d2d531be2
"I'm delighted to be here and I have to say I feel... particularly pleased to be here, I'm sure I'm going to win a lot of votes, particularly if I'm the only person prepared to debate myself on health policy," Roxon said.Not a good look for the Government...
Ms Roxon finished her address and had fielded several questions from journalists by the time Mr Abbott arrived.
"Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott has been caught swearing at his Labor opponent Nicola Roxon.Oooooo, SNAP! Looks like he's going to need to make one more apology today. Ten bucks says the PM defends him, though it'll be a hard thing to do. Hell, I hope he defends him.
Posing for photographs with Ms Roxon at the end of the debate, the pair got into a testy exchange.
Ms Roxon told the Minister he could have made it on time if he had wanted to. Mr Abbott replied: "That's bullshit. You're being deliberately unpleasant."
TONY JONES: Mr Howard, you talked a lot about 'me too-ism', but during the course of this campaign you've actually been guilty of that in the past yourself, haven't you?Me too, George!
JOHN HOWARD: Well, I've undoubtedly in the past agreed with the Labor Party when it's done something sensible.
TONY JONES: On this occasion I'm actually thinking of George Bush, actually.
JOHN HOWARD: You're talking about the past. I see. He's not a candidate in the election, is he?
TONY JONES: No, but the 'me too-ism' works in relation to him and in relation to you, do you think? I mean George Bush says he won't sign Kyoto, John Howard says he won't sign Kyoto.
JOHN HOWARD: I think you're struggling a bit with that question. 'Me too' in the Australian political context at the moment is about the attitude of Kevin Rudd towards John Howard and the attitude of John Howard towards Kevin Rudd. I think it's a pretty long bow to bring George Bush into the Australian domestic political debate.
TONY JONES: It's just the White House has had a considerable impact on your policies evidently. I'll just go over these things. George Bush says he won't sign Kyoto, John Howard says he won't sign it.
George Bush says he's going to invade Iraq, John Howard says 'me too'.
George Bush says clean coal and nuclear energy are the main solutions to global warming. You also go down that path shortly afterwards. I'm just wondering if there isn't an element of 'me too-ism' in the relationship between the White House and your Government?
JOHN HOWARD: John Howard, when he became Prime Minister of Australia in 1996, brought in national gun control laws. George Bush would never do that. John Howard's led a Government that signed the International Criminal Court charter, George Bush would never do that. I can list many things where our positions are quite different. John Howard happens to think the social security safety net in the United States is far too weak.
John Howard happens to have told George Bush that he should have a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in America similar to the scheme that we have in Australia. I think he would like to 'me too' on that, but for a combination of reasons he hasn't been able to do so. You can always find similarities in approaches around the world. There are a lot of similarities in the language as well as the policies used by Mr Rudd and Mr Beazley before him with those of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
But Mr Turnbull says he has never expressed an emotional view on the pulp mill. "I don't recall saying that, and I've not expressed an emotional response to the pulp mill per se," said Mr Turnbull. "The pulp mill itself, what I have been appalled by and very, very unhappy with, has been the way in which the Tasmanian Labor Government cut short the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) process.''So no denial and no claim that it was only a joke, Malcolm? Bwahahaha! :P
"This week’s Newspoll figures have the problem of slightly undervaluing the preference flows the ALP receives from the minor parties, meaning that it’s more likely than not that the next Newspoll will probably fix that up. These slight rounding problems and sampling volatility of the minor parties all come out in the wash over a few polls. When you combine that with the ALP primary looking rock solid at 47/48, it’s almost expected that in the next poll or two, the two party preferred headline figure will show the ALP increasing its lead – simply as a result of the high ALP primary vote combining with this minor party sampling error and rounding issues. But should that happen, the headlines will undoubtedly scream “Interest Rate Backlash!” as some new 55/45 poll shows the ALP gaining a two point lead from the previous poll, the best poll the government had enjoyed for 12 months, but one which no-one paid attention to because the ponies were on."I love Possum. In the absence of Matt Price, his writings have been the best piece of electoral analysis this election.
Last month, anti-asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton visited the office of the Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott to call for the drug's subsidy. Mr Abbott accused Mr Banton of staging a political stunt, but later apologised.Trying hard not to be cynical here... but isn't the timing of this good news story just too perfect?
Today, Mr Banton is reported to be delighted at the decision to subsidise the drug. He was too sick to speak to the media, but was quoted by his wife as saying 'at last'.
The Federal Opposition has also welcomed the decision.
"I thought he just confirmed everything that Peter Garrett had said. Peter Garrett had said we'd change it all when we get in, and Mark Latham says that we all expect, we all hope, that it will be a lot more, he uses the word 'progressive', I use the word 'radical', a lot more radical if the Labor Party gets in."For all important context, here is what the Prime Miniature was referring to. Latho said;
"Undoubtedly many people in the Labor movement are expecting Labor in power to be far more progressive than its stated election promises. Behind the scenes, they are reassuring each other that once Howard has gone a radical reform program can begin. I think the reverse is true. I expect a Labor administration to be even more timid, more conservative."Ah, sweet, sweet context. How, exactly, does Latham saying "Labor won't change shit" equal "Labor will change it all!" We've seriously entered the looking glass here people. Sorry dosen't mean sorry. Interest rate rises are signs of good governance. Everything means something other than what it means!
"For a total radical failure, Mark Latham certainly seems to command a lot a media time. It wasn't that long ago that John Howard was making Latham out to be close to a raving idiot and now he is treating his comments as if they are of significance."Not really a revelation there or anything, just a good point. Howard looks increasingly desperate as the finish line draws nearer and the polls don't budge for him. It'd be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
posted by Jimbob at 7:53 PM on October 13, 2007