Tax cut talk 'when there's trouble'

[cal04]

(can someone tell me a little about Beazley? Why he's so behind Howard
Thanks)

FEDERAL Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said whenever the Howard Government gets into trouble it talks about a tax cut. But what it has not done is "given a tax cut to the ordinary taxpayer, the ordinary Australian", Mr Beazley told Channel 9 today.

He said the Government should use its reported $14 billion budget surplus for a tax cut for ordinary Australians. Mr Beazley said the Government would raise the idea of a tax cut to distract from widespread criticism over its planned industrial relations changes.

"Whenever this Government gets into trouble it talks about a tax cut," he said. "The Opposition wants them to do a tax cut and do it fairly.
"They have given weak tax cuts so far repeatedly." Mr Beazley said he would support tax reform that would encourage people to participate in the workforce.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17348668%255E1702,00.html

[Matilda]

1. This article goes a long way to explaining just why Beazley

can't make headway against Howard.

He's from the right-wing of the ALP, who've had control of the party
since the 1970s. I guess the closest comparison would be the DNC,
from what I've read of US politics. They're not into idealogy at
all, but more inclined to make whatever deals it takes to win power.

On tax cuts - the reality is that yes, Howard offers tax cuts as a
bribe, and it generally works, although only the wealthy ever really
benefit, but a good Labor man, in my view, should be saying "use
the budget surplus to back health care and education. Give it
back to the community, not just to a select few", but Beazley is
basically playing the same game as Howard.

One very savvy political journalist, Alan Ramsay, said a few weeks
ago that the person who has most influence with Kim Beazley is the
person he last spoke to, and that's probably bang on. It's hard to
know what he really does believe or stand for. Too often he either
agrees with Howard, or doesn't seem to have an opinion at all.

Industrial Relations is the one issue where he's made a fairly
strong stand, although he's still not giving Howard a really hard
time. He has to on this one, because the union movement is still
a strong supporter of Labor, even though they were sold out under
Hawke and Keating, and this legislation I think is really aimed
in the long-term at killing off the Labor Party. Beazley alone
can't stop it, only a defection from the Coalition in the Senate
can do that, but if he makes a good showing, he may be able to
save himself long enough to lead the party to the next election.
If he doesn't, he won't make it even that far.

[cal04]

3. thank you for the information

I read the australian papers everyday but know very little about their politics
but I'm learning. Thanks again.

[PinkUnicorn]

4. And intererting opinion piece

...appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald today regarding Johnny.

Linky

Almost 16 years ago, Milton Cockburn, later to become editor of this newspaper, wrote a Herald profile of Howard, which was published on January 7, 1989, under the headline "What makes Johnny Run?". In it he wrote, in part: " parents were supporters of the newly formed Liberal Party. He vaguely recalls the post- turmoil of the long coal strike and the effects of petrol rationing on the Howard family garage at Dulwich Hill.

"Although he was only 10, he has a clear recollection of the 1949 election campaign that brought Menzies to power. He recalls the elation of his parents on the night of the election . He spoke recently of a celebratory backyard bonfire to burn the rationing card. His elder brothers, however, remember petrol rationing as more a nuisance than a hardship and recall the fun they used to have counting the coupons their father brought home.

"John's father, Lyall, was a proud patriot. There are family suspicions he was a member of the New Guard, the unofficial militia which prospered between the wars." Lyall Howard was laid off in the 1930s as a fitter and turner with CSR. He and his father, Walter, then bought the garage that would be the family's livelihood for 20 years.

And more ineterstingly regarding this New 'Guard' mob

The National Archives website says of the New Guard: "It was formed in Sydney in February 1931. It stood for 'unswerving loyalty to the throne, sane and honourable government, suppression of any disloyal and immoral elements in government, industrial and social circles, the full liberty of the individual'. At its height, the New Guard had 50,000 members. The movement was almost exclusively based in NSW, with its heaviest concentration in Sydney. It appealed to conservative returned servicemen who were strongly anti-communist and deeply suspicious of (the Lang Labor government)."

Definetly sounds like Jackboot's style

[Violet_Crumble]

5. On tax cuts he is playing the same game as Howard, but...

within the govt, there's bickering over what sort of tax-cuts there should be and who should benefit from them. I think Beazley, not being the most astute polly in the world, is falling into the trap of resigning himself to the fact there will be a tax-cut, and arguing for the one pushed by Costello that most directly benefits middle to low income earners, as opposed to Malcolm Turnbull's one, which only directs high income earners. Beazley should imo be fighting against any tax cuts and pushing for the surplus to be put into the areas that need it...

Turnbull tax plan rewards the rich

People earning $1 million a year would pocket income tax savings of more than $100,000 under cuts to the top marginal rate proposed by the Government backbencher Malcolm Turnbull, secret Treasury documents obtained by the Herald show.

A worker on the average full-time wage of $50,000 would get only $600. The politically unpalatable sums cut to the heart of a stand-off between Mr Turnbull and the Treasurer, Peter Costello, who is known to favour cuts for people on lower and middle incomes.

In an executive minute to the Treasurer, the Government's top economic adviser, the Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry, attached a document detailing the full distributional and budgetary impacts of three of Mr Turnbull's 281 proposals for tax reform.

Treasury's tax analysis division found Mr Turnbull's preferred option - to abolish the top 47 per cent rate, reduce the 42 per cent rate to 35 per cent and increase the tax-free threshold from $6000 to $10,000 - would deliver annual savings of $109,450 to those with a taxable income of $1 million. Those on $2 million would save $229,450.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/11/20/1132421548434.html?from=rss

[gemini_liberal]

2. Sounds just like the Republicans over in the US

and it works on a lot of people too. I have an online buddy from New York who is average income, quite socially liberal. Pretty blue state type, yet is a strong supporter of fuckface and the gop and absolutely loathes the Democrats - why? Because he buys into the "Dems are going to tax the crap out of you and pour it into welfare and government pork projects, wheareas Republicans want you to keep your money and be successful" myth. It's pretty much a part of the new game the coalition are playing - be the Australian GOP.

As for the other comment in this thread, while I agree money is better invested in healthcare and benevolent social programmes, in Beazley's defense I don't believe he is saying that there has to be tax cuts, but rather that if there is a tax cut, it should be a fairer one that helps take the burden off those who require their paycheques to survive, not top tier cuts, to help Scrooge McDuck get another yacht.