HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Taxation distorting investment
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:37:28 CST
 <1992Nov10.021721.25895@trl.oz.au> <1992Nov12.102941.165082@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <1992Nov12.035006.803@trl.oz.au>

c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:

>Well I could have said that one of the fundqmental requirements of the tax
>system is that it should not UNINTENTIONALLY distort investment decisions.  I
>would hope the Government did not want the distortion caused by negative
>gearing and inflation but it didn't do anything sensible about it.

Certainly, negative gearing is one good reason why we
collectively lost so much money in the 80s.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:09:33 GMT

In article <brian.721533215@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>
>	(I do wish that you would put a blank line between the quoted and your
>own text, it makes it much easier to read you know)
>

So be it.

>	No I beg to differ.  I said that it was a "possible outcome", not as you
>are implying here, and elsewhere, a "certain outcome" of an already existant
>conspiracy.  Therefore you do owe me, IMO an apology and until you provide one,
>this discussion is at an end.
>

So be it.

d.s.

-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:48:20 GMT

In article <brian.721369072@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>>A vote is a vote is a vote.. and only counts
>>once (no more no less). 
>
>	Really?  Then what happens to the preferences you cast David?
Nothing if you don't vote for anyone but those belonging to
the two most popular parties. If your 2nd preference is used then it
is because your 1st preference has been eliminated and this
preserves your one vote amongst a choice from the remaining
parties. Everyone's vote (not just mine) counts once in exactly
the same way.
Are you really so ignorant of the operation and rationale
for proportional voting? Or have you just decided that you must challenge
everything I say?
d.s.

-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 6 Nov 92 09:54:40 CST
 <1992Nov5.131832.164998@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <1992Nov5.072350.28551@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>

suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>In article <1992Nov5.131832.164998@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>>Both the UK and the US have a history of having highly
>>unrepresentative governments. Thatcher stayed in power for
>>a long time withonly 38% of the vote of those who actually
>>voted. Similarly, how many black/gay/female congersdroids
>>are there? The fact is that in the US you have to have an
>Are you that sure our record is better? 

It is better, in terms of black/gay maybe not, but we have
more women in parliament than either the UK or the US. In
fact I think there are going to be a total of 5 or 7
congresswomen due to the latest election (congress = senate
+ reps). Counting Janet Powell who has resigned from the
party the Democrats have that many women in the Senate alone
and there are at least as many other women in the senate
such as Senator Bronwyn Bishop (Libs) and Sen. Margaret
Renolds ALP, I know there are senators for the Libs in Tas
who are female and we have several women in the House of
Reps also. I have never said our system is perfect, we don't
have enough black/gay/women in parliament because our lower
house is not representative. But the fact that we have
preferential voting in the reps and Hare-Clark in the
Senate makes it far more representative than either the UK
or the US. World socialogical atlases to not list Australia
as a representative democracy.

>>awful amount of money behind you to have a chance of getting
>>elected. That is hardly equal access and yes I would say
>>that democracy has failed.
>>
>>As for I have no responsibility. Sounds like the argument
>>the economic irrationalists make about market forces.
>>Elect me to government so I can do little, have all the
>>privilages but no responsability for the economy, I'm going
>>to take myself out of the loop, and when it all fails in the
>>worst recession since the depression, it's not my fault it
>>is the market.
>>
>>Bullshit, gutless Bullshit.
>It's pretty easy to build something into a virtue isn't it.
>*I* always know who to vote for. *I* always do my democratic
>duty - in fact I val;ue it so much that *I* am going to up
>the ante in how much you have to pay to demonstrate *YOU* value it
>also.
I really do not follow the the concept of how much you pay
in this argument, just what do you mean by it?
And I wouldn't call it a virtue, just the least I could do.
I would call it a necessity.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 9 Nov 92 10:48:05 CST
 <1992Nov5.071408.27387@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> 
 <1992Nov6.093823.165003@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <1992Nov6.004312.10717@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>

suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>In article <1992Nov6.093823.165003@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>>David,
>>	so far you have avoided the major issue,
>>how am I guaranteed that my vote will count fully if you do
>>not vote? (In real life this would be a non-issue as I'm
>>sure we would vote almost in opposite directions.)
>I am not avoiding the issue. My vote counts once same as yours.
>I can't be held responsible to ensure that you are a member of
>a party that can motivate reasonable numbers to turn out. Think
>of those poor demoralised Trotskyites .... are you suggesting
>we give them a few thousand extra imaginary votes just
>on the off chance they may disenfranchise themselves by
>realising they have no chance of winnig?
>Come on Mike, be real. If your mob are apathetic or easily demoralised
>then get out there and motivate them - don't invent a stick (compulsory
>voting) to beat them to the election with and then turn the same stick
>on me fer christs sake!
>d.s.

I am not talking about any one particular party. In fact in
a more specific sense, I am sure my beliefs would be
advantaged by optional booth attendance. I am talking about
the fact that everyone's vote must have a chance of reaching
it's full level. And that can be a major party too. Also 
I was not specifically talking about parties, I was refering
to the way over time certain issues can drop off the
political agenda because they do not appeal to the people
who have been taught to vote. 

You have still failed to address why you should be allowed
to devalue someone elses vote by not turning up. A few
percent could and would make the difference between the 2
biggest political parties next election. Such a distorted
result would be bad for the country.

You have not addressed the issue of either the potential
to devalue some peoples votes. Nor the long term potential
to place voting power in the hands of a clique. 

You also have to accept the fact that there is a cost to
this, but that when all things are added up the costs are
much preferable to the alternative.

Any system which disenfranchises a section of the community
for whatever reason, will eventually have a detremental
effect on the whole community.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:53:56 GMT

In article <brian.720945926@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>>>
>>>	And has been explained here many times Australia does NOT have a 
>>>"compulsory voting system".  It does have a compulsory _attendance_at_the_
>>>polling_station_system.  In other words, you are required by law to attend
>>>a polling station and have your name marked off.  If you decide to vote,
>>>thats up to you.  You are not required by law to even take a ballot paper
>>>if you should choose not to.
>
>>So what difference does that make. 
>
>	It MEANS that we DO NOT HAVE A COMPULSORY VOTING SYSTEM.  C
The electoral office says different.
>Are you claiming that you should not be compelled by society to attend
>particular places if societ decides that is best?  If you do, then you'd
>better perhaps explain why then we have compulsory education, compulsory
>driving tests (if you want to drive) and other aspects of our lives which
>we accept as needing some degree of regulation.
NO. So why suggest i am?
>
>>					It's still undemocratic to make
>>people do something that makes no difference to the welfare of
>>others. The obvious INTENT (and indeed they don't proclaim from
>>the tree tops that you don't actually need to vote, hence
>>adding deception to the crime) 
>
>	Nor do they deny it.  If you are too stupid to work it out, then you
>deserve to be considered one of the sheep IMO. 
Well you've just won arrogant bastard of the year award. Happy. Gee 
all these people talking about compassion and democracy and then they
are happy to sanction such.
>
>>					is to make people vote. As I've
>>said before, if the govt cam out and made it clear through
>>advertisements that voting itself is not compulsory then
>>the whole system would die a natural death - people would
>>rightly object to be required to go to a polling booth
>>just to have their names ticked off. Instead, the system
>>hoodwinks the ill-educated and unaware people (the very people
>>they claim to be defending) into going out to the polls and voting.
>>>
>	Look mate, you might not like it, but having compulsory attendance
>at the polling station does not make Oz an undemocratic country.
Certainly makes it less democratic until your sanction the right
to abstain.
>	David, the only person who is seeing conspiracies is yourself.
Funny - I thought you were the one that suggested that making
voting non-compulsory and/or allowing non-compulsory registration
makes us open to such exploitation. Must have been dreaming.
Damn, some bastards are inserting conspiracy theories into your
writings - y'now suggesting we've got all sorts of people
waiting in the wings to swoop just in case we ever make voting
optional.
d.s.

-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: b_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Brian Duke)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Date: 9 Nov 92 15:33:14 +0900

In article <1992Nov5.142736.4177@darwin.ntu.edu.au>, b_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Brian Duke) writes:
> In article <miw.720925004@cc.uq.oz.au>, miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>> Sorry to sprag the wheels of this argument (the thrust of which I agree
>> with), but isn't it still the case that voting is *non-compulsory* for
>> aborigines?
>> 
>> mischievously,
> Indeed.
> 
> I believe the same law applies to aboriginals as it does to non-
> aboriginals in the NT, but I suspect that the Electoral Commission does
> not chase up and fine aboriginals in remote communities. As I said in my
> post, I believe Everingham tried to change it, but did not. Does anyone 
> really know what the situation is?

I have checked with the electoral office. Commonwealth law makes registration
and voting compulsory (I skate over the question whether this means attending
or actually filling in a ballot paper, so don't reply on that point), for
aboriginals and non-aboriginals alike if elligible to vote. The office 
believes NT law is no different.

Rioli won the bye-election for the ALP and increased the vote, in spite
of excessive pork-barrelling and attempts at dividing aboriginal from 
aboriginal by the CLP.
-- 
                  Brian Salter-Duke (Brian Duke)
School of Chemistry and Earth Sciences, Northern Territory University
        GPO Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811, Australia.
Phone 089-466702   FAX 089-410460    E-mail B_DUKE@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:07:44 GMT

In article <brian.721532963@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:
>
>>In <brian.721369072@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>
>>>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>>>
>>>>In article <1992Nov9.104806.165040@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>>>
>>>>A vote is a vote is a vote.. and only counts
>>>>once (no more no less). 
>>>
>>>	Really?  Then what happens to the preferences you cast David?
>
>>I'm not sure what you're trying to say. A preferential vote only
>>counts once too. It's just that its probabilty of counting once
>>is >= 50%, whereas in the first past the post system it's <= 50%.
>>Got it?
>
>	Under the preferential system we have, effectively you get not
>just one vote, but as many more votes it takes to get the candidate which
>is most likely to represent your views (_but_ not necessarily your first
>choice) elected.  Therefore, your vote is not counted just once (as David
>like to maintain) but as often as is necessary to gain a result.
What do you mean by "counting often" and "necessary to gain a result".
You seem to have a warped view of the operation and motivation for
preferential voting. In any case, this is totally off the track. You
very well know that the initial context in which I said the above 
was that Mr. Pilling wanted to say that under certain circumstances
a vote can be devalued (presumably less than one). If you want
to maintain your warped view that if your vote goes to your next preference
then so be it. However, I suspect you very well know that the preferential 
voting system is designed and operates to as to preserve your *one* vote
even if your first choice turns out not to be in the run.
d.s.
>
>
>--
>Brian Ross_____Brian@Coombs.anu.edu.au________________________________________
>	"Three discoveries are essential to the contented and civilised life -
>sex, wine, and bookshops, by no means necessarily in that order."
>_________________________________Tony Baker, Adelaide Review, October 1992____


-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:37:04 GMT

In article <6689@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:
>>>At least I hope I haven't insulted *you*.
>> You have. You claim to know what's best for me and deny me a fundamental
>> right - to abstain with dignity
>
>Not once have I suggested such a thing.  You have manufactured such a
>suggestion in your head.
I guess I entirely imagined the article that started "Diddums....
You accept all of the benefits and none of the responsibilities".
If that wasn't insulting and didn't imply exactly the inference I drew
then I will apologise.
d.s.

-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Jeff Kennett: good for workers ?
Date: 11 Nov 92 13:15:55 +1100
Distribution: aus
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia

In article <1992Nov10.094005.5883@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au>, pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.112832.165060@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>>
>>If a federal election for the House of Reps were held today
>>which one of the following would your vote for? If
>>uncommitted, which party do you lean to?
>>
>>		ALP	Lib/Nat	ADem
>>Oct 23-25 92	37	49	6
>>Nov 6-8		45	41	5
>>
>>This was in the australian front page.
>>
> 
> Although it is doubtful that Jeff Kennett is good for much, I think he
> deserves the credit for this one. 

      You're being unfair on poor old Jeff. When he gets sacked as Premier he
can always take up a job as recruiting officer for Trades Hall Council. Since
Kennett has taken office, thousands of Victorian workers have joined unions
EACH DAY!

      Kennett can also take credit for yesterdays march in Melbourne yesterday.
It was the largest in Australia's history. More than 150,000 marched (figures
from SBS World News). Some reports have the figure at close to 200,000.

                                   Tony Hartin
                                   International Socialist Organisation
                                   Melbourne
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: lawriew@runx.oz.au (Lawrie Waller)
Subject: Re: ALP in the Lead
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 06:57:25 GMT

In article <1dnb0vINNm09@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au> hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell) writes:
>mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>>If a federal election for the House of Reps were held today
>>which one of the following would your vote for? If
>>uncommitted, which party do you lean to?
>>		ALP	Lib/Nat	ADem
>>Oct 23-25 92	37	49	6
>>Nov 6-8		45	41	5
>
>	Well there's something to look forward to. 
>
>

	Yep 4 more years of Pope Don Pauli Cactus Keating and his
incompetent crew-assumimg of course we aint all disappeared down the
gurgler before then :-).
>--
>		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au


-- 
===========================================================================
lawriew@runx.oz.au              |Friend is sometimes a word devoid of
Lawrie Waller-SYDNEY AUS        |meaning;enemy,never.(Victor Hugo)
============================================================================
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Vic Ministers Get $20,000 pay rise.
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:37:22 CST
 <1992Nov2.215018.10125@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> 
 <1992Nov4.010133.19002@trl.oz.au> <1992Nov4.232430.6955@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1992Nov5.063335.25043@trl.oz.au>

c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:

>>>calculate a fair tax on houses because different councils used different
>>>methods for calculating the rates.  Talk about not seeing the forest for the
>>>trees, even a fixed percentage of rates would have been fairer than $100 per
>>>house.
DS>Agreed. But it would still hit the poor old retiree who managed to
DS>put his money to better use (save and buy a relatively expensive house)
DS>more than one that frittered most of their money away and now have
DS>become a burden to all.

>In spite of the fact that this is pure Liberal party propaganda, I will go to
>the trouble of pointing out the flaws in the argument.  First, "poor old
>retiree" is not so poor if he has a relatively expensive house.  Also, the
>government can still apply its hardship provisions if they are needed in such
>circumstances.  Second, the Liberal party view is that those "who are a burden
>to all" should have that burden minimized by whatever means available, fair or
>foul.

There are several things wrong with this burden argument.
First, if we are looking for fritterers of money, lets go
for the bulk of the money first.
	Skase
	Bond
	Westpac
	Elliot
	Homes a court (less so perhaps but still)
Second this argument assumes that the burdensome person had
the opportunity and capacity to save. Not that under the new
compulsory superannuation arrangement causual workers will
be losing a substantial sum in wages over the years as a
trade off but really only manage to save 30c per week
because the account charges are flat (regressive).
(PS Chris the word I was looking for and could not remember
re FID/BAD in SA was geometric the closest I could think of
at the time was exponential.)
Thirdly, these people who are not a burden (cause they have
houses) may have been able to save so much through tax
avoidance such as discressionary family trusts etc etc.
So a blanket statement like that is unjustified.

However, I do agree that there is little incentive to
provide for yourself given that you may end up little better
off than someone who spends to the hilt. I personally am
very wary of superannuation because I have no idea
whatsoever if or how I will be allowed to use the proceeds
when I am 65 (and the fact that it is 60 for women is
discriminatory especially given women outlive men). I would
be better off paying off my house than putting it into
super. Moreover, in terms of frittering money, there are no
incentives in our taxation regime to encourage productive
(industry building) as opposed to nonproductive (property)
or speculative (play the money market) investments.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 02:26:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.105315.165041@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>>I also thought it was obvious that what I was arguing was that
>>there is no clear evidence that compulsory voting improves our society.
>>Against this it is entirely evident that it has the adverse effect
>>of masking the "couldn't give F*CK vote" purely to make us look
>>better on paper.
>
>This is the first time you have ever mentioned this David,
>all your argument has been along the lines of how dare you
>invade my civil liberties with compulsion.
Well that's not entirely true but perhaps it's the first time
I've used an expletive to catch peoples attention. Well what
more can I say.... Failure to adequately highlight
the bleeding obvious? Anyway, judging by other peoples reactions I've
said enuf already.
Warmest regards.
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: ALP in the Lead
Date: 10 Nov 1992 03:41:19 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.itd.adelaide.edu.au

mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>If a federal election for the House of Reps were held today
>which one of the following would your vote for? If
>uncommitted, which party do you lean to?
>		ALP	Lib/Nat	ADem
>Oct 23-25 92	37	49	6
>Nov 6-8		45	41	5

	Well there's something to look forward to. 


--
		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au
From: brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Date: 10 Nov 92 04:17:52 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.76.2

suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>In article <1992Nov9.104806.165040@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:

>A vote is a vote is a vote.. and only counts
>once (no more no less). 

	Really?  Then what happens to the preferences you cast David?

	
--
Brian Ross_____Brian@Coombs.anu.edu.au________________________________________
	"Three discoveries are essential to the contented and civilised life -
sex, wine, and bookshops, by no means necessarily in that order."
_________________________________Tony Baker, Adelaide Review, October 1992____