Thread: The carbon tax is wonderful

Originally Posted by q9

I "live" in toowoomba, but anytime I work in the city, I look for accomodation within walking distance. It doesn't really matter what it costs, as the time saved out of my day is well worth it.

I'd get weird comments from people that couldn't understand how I could drive back to toowoomba at weekends - it is so far away (2 hours on a slow day). Yet they'd happily sit on a bus for an hour - hour and a half EACH way, EVERY day of the week...which is crazier?

People live and work where they do for a variety of reasons.

I was previously stationed in a suburb of Ipswich and the chap at the next desk drove from Toowoomba every day. He couldn't live in brisbane for the week not only because of the cost but being away from the wife and kids for 5 days at a time.

My house is 30 kms out. There is NO PT withing 10 kms, unless you count taxis.

It's quite common to travel 2 hours each way in Sydney. I'm taking between and hour and one and a half hours each way to travel a lousy 10 kms.

I don't presume to judge peoples life choices, what I do question is that our society has allowed itself to become so CBD centric. There are many people who would happily leave the cities if they could find work in rural areas.

I'm big on carrots, not so on sticks.

Originally Posted by damian

There are many people who would happily leave the cities if they could find work in rural areas.

damian

Now there's a subject that is worthy of it's own thread if you would like to put it up. The question being whether they really would leave for work.

Regards
Paul

Well if I ever find someone silly enough to buy my properties in Brisbane I'll be going with no work. I can just about get by without a job so I'm unusual in that respect, but I have heard people say time and again they only moved to the city, and indeed from NZ, because of the work opportunities.

Most of the people in the coal fields wouldn't live there without the big $.

I think it's safe to say if they could get a decent job with a decent wage in a nice scenic country town many would be off like a shot, especially those with a wife/family. Maybe young people want the excitment....such as it is.

I don't know. I don't understand how anyone votes for the labour party so I guess I'm out of touch with a signifigant portion of the population.

No you're not
Thugs, bullies, criminals, do-gooders and misfits. They run our country and our councils and the labor party is loved by the lazy and the poor, misguided in their attraction, only a strong business community can generate wealth.

Greece is an example of how a country can be stuffed through poor government, a bloated public service, unaffordable pensions and benefits and strong union power.

We could be heading their way unless we have a change of Government soon. Thankfully Victoria, NSW and WA have got rid of their albatross Governments.

Greg


I don't know. I don't understand how anyone votes for the labour party so I guess I'm out of touch with a signifigant portion of the population.[/QUOTE]

(Greg) And I'll join the ranks of being out of touch too Damian.

People look at issues and say they are to hard. People suggest there will be job losses. They get up in arms and destroy the new.
Well what is this, Its the industrial revolution in the UK. They smashed the looms and did all sorts to stop progress. Well it didnt work then, and it wont work now.
We know man is using energy beyond that that can be sustained. We know man is tossing crap into the air beyond that that can be sustained.
So the questiion is simple, what do you want to do about that.
Its not a question of tree hugging or stopping progress.
Man has a unique gift, he can see the past and predict the future. He also has the gift of innovaion and invention. So should the two centuaries between 1900 and 2100 be the disaster years for man.
Man can not kill the planet, all he can do is kill himself and the majority of life that exists on it now.
The planet will recover to see out its days, whether man is there at the end or not, is our choice now.
argueing the toss as to climate change is arguing against the majority. Or the weather changes we are now seeing. Snow in NZ or rain in Queensland. No one can predict what the changes will be, all we can say is they will get more violent more often, and more deadly.

Will they?

"true believers". I think that lends a clue.

There was a time when workers were terribly exploited by their employers/landlords or whatever. The unions and the labour party played an important role in reining that in.

The trouble is that as far as I've seen socialist organisations tend to be lead by corrupt or incompetant despots. Every socilist government that I can recall degenerated into totalitarian dictatorship. You could forgive them incompetance if thier motives were true, but the unions have degenerated into unaccountable overtly and utterly corrupt institutions with only a casual interest in the members, and of course the labour representatives are drawn from this.

Hawke's government was a tremendous shift. They were probably the most radical right wing government we have had. The word radical in that sentence is always a problem, but their intentions were tainted further by their corruption and possibly a lack of understanding of what those "reforms" would bring, a few years of untethered economic boom followed by a tragic fall which damaged many peoples lives. The amalgamation of the unions resulted in them being divorced from members, the accord brought a drop in real wages. All the while the ruthless pillaged the country for thier own gain. We had a manufacturing industry once.

The labour party had learned that to win and hold government they could ignore their traditional base (who would never vote coalition) and focus spin, pork and "policy" on the socialist elites and perhaps a snow job to pick up some middle class votes. The results was 13 (?) years of labour and social devastation. The BOS notes a doubling of poverty in Australia between 1984 and 1994. So much for socialism.

Extreme capitalism brings a different evil. As I've said before I believe in moderation and balance, it just seems to me labour make a bigger hash of things than the coalition do. I have no great affection for either.

Howard's gun laws were dreadful, tiered hex, middle class welfare, a litany of disasters, but not on the scale of Hawke and now Rudd/Gillard.

2c.

Some of you have found it incredible that anyone could vote labour. Others have pointed to how Labour might have good intentions, but arguably fail to deliver.

It is not easy. Some governments are blessed with good fortune that is no doing of their own (Howard) and others suffer disasters which are also no doing of their own (Gillard). Having said that the Gillard regime does seem to be making even more of a hash than most.

I have made no secret that not only am I a swinging voter, but also I only ever vote people out. I have never voted anybody in. Although I voted labour at the last election I would vote Liberal at the next if they can see their way to removing Abbott.

It is very unfortunate, but quite human, that politicians rarely do what is best for the nation as a whole. Their primarly concern is to keep themselves in office. Their argument is that only by doing the latter can they do the former. Maybe. Probably not as self-interest is a powerful player.

What is there after politics for an ex MP? Unless you have completed the pre-requisite terms of office (three I think) there is only what you did before. If you were wealthy or a lawyer, there is only further prosperity. If you were a tradesman probably nothing much unless you leave out your spell in parliament from your CV .

I am just trying to point out why politicians behave the way they do. Also see the well known phrase at the bottom of my post.

Regards
Paul

I never can figure out why politicians become politicians.

I dont know the statistics but I would assume that most politicians come from a legal back ground such as being a lawyer or possibly accounting.
I honestly cant name one politician that has a tradesman background.
Maybe if they spent 3 months on a construction site in the middle of summer, doing hard yakka, they might appreciate better what they should be doing as politicians.
I tune out to the petty whinging and bickering that is thrown down our throats on the idiot box every bloody night of the week.

Lawyer's make pretty decent coin, a lot more than politicians.
I find it hard to believe them, when they preach about making the country/world a better place for mankind, etc, etc.

Maybe it's the whole power trip thing, flying first class for free, chauffeur driven cars. Free this, free that!
The politicians these days behave more like rockstars than public servants.

What do you blokes reckon?
Why would you become a politician if you already are a practising lawyer?

Justin.

Originally Posted by justinmcf

I never can figure out why politicians become politicians.

I dont know the statistics but I would assume that most politicians come from a legal back ground such as being a lawyer or possibly accounting.
I honestly cant name one politician that has a tradesman background.

Justin

I don't know the stats either. I currently work with an ex MP. He is an electrician by trade. I was talking from personal experience in my earlier post.

My one time accountant is also the leader of a political party.

Why do they do it? Good question.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by justinmcf

I never can figure out why politicians become politicians.
.

Yeah...me neither...I know a couple and have come to the conclusion that ...the desire to become a politician should automatically exclude you from ever becoming one

I live in the Southern Highlands and work in the Sydney CBD. I made the decision to return to working in Sydney over 3 years ago, and at the time I evaluated what my options were regarding transport. I could take the train to and from Bowral each day - 5 hours per day on a train. Or I could drive to work each day - roughly 5 hours per day in the car (which I could reduce if I left home each morning at 5am and then didn't drive home again until 7pm - but that would leave me with less than 8.5 hours per day at home).

I knew that in my field any job I took would mean a minimum of 10 hours a day at work. So I decided that I would stay up in the city during the week, in spite of that meaning that I would not see my family during the week. It took me a year or two to get used to that emotional upheaval, but I still think it was the right decision.

Then I looked at options for living in the city during the week. Given the appalling state of PT in Sydney after 15 years of being mis-managed by the most corrupt and incompetent state government in Australia, I decided that I would live close enough to the CBD to walk to work. And that is what I do.

Would I choose to live up here if I didn't have to work to support my family? No, not in a pink fit. Would I prefer to be able to work close enough to my family so that I didn't have to live apart from them during the week? Absolutely. Unfortunately my circumstances are what they are (there are reasons which I won't go into), and thus I live the way I have to live.

If anyone believes that the government will do good things with the money that they collect with the carbon tax then they should look at how the government spends the tax they already collect. Wake up people - this is another tax! They'll do the same with this lot of money that they do with the rest of it - waste whatever they can't steal.

Undie

I suspect it is a power quest in at least some measure. It is an authority that is handed to them when they are successful in winning an election.

However there are then a couple of problems. Firstly they are bound by the policies of their political persuasion ( and arguably without which they would not have been successful) whether they believe them or not. Therein lies the potential for their first deception.

Secondly, just because they were sufficiently articulate and persuasive enough to become elected, it does not mean they have any real ability. How does that old story go? The one that says in a company structure we are promoted to our own level of incompetence.

Clearly in politics that can happen very quickly. They can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk Then we are stuck with them and if they are in a safe seat we are stuck with them for a very long time.

Regards
Paul