HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh)
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Organization: CSIRO, Division of Information Technology, Melbourne
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 22:51:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.124019.9413@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.065443.3804@mel.dit.csiro.au> ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh) writes:
>>In article <miw.718260312@cc.uq.oz.au> miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:
>>>Yes, but public dept as a percentage of the economy is incredibly high
>>>in Victoria.
>>
>>I quite deliberately avoided arguing about this point as it confuses the
>>issue. I was attempting to point out to Dave Suter that states will always
>>have public debt and that there are very good historical and political
>>reasons for this.
>Well I don't think this needed to be pointed out to me thank you
>very much. (IF you had read carefully my original posting  you
>would have found that I was complaining that the LEVEL of debt was so
>high that a servicing cost of 15.5% of revenue was thought to be a good
>position by Kirner et al).

I am sorry if I misunderstood your original point. However, the way
you expressed it implied that, not only did you object to the level of
state debt, but that you objected to any state debt. I'm glad to see that
I was mistaken about this.

andrew waugh
From: jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:36:50 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of Melbourne, Australia

In <miw.718338556@cc.uq.oz.au> miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:

>But mainly because they had no choice. Regulation of banks stopped
>working sometime in the 1970s, so they had to make it official.
>Reaganomics, schmeagonomics. The same thing happened at about the same
>time, all over the world.

Right, regulation just stopped working. My understanding is that a lot
of large banks got in way over their heads with third world debt, and
their asses had to be saved. The simplest way to do this was to lift
restrictions on covering loans. My friend at Amex told them to cut
their losses in Nigeria, but he was worried for his job, because
nobody wanted to hear that, especially the Germans who had made the
loans. Deregulation did not happen in Canada, except for provincially
governed units that did not have large third world debt, and it was
those that failed. You know, I suppose, that there are Canadian banks
among the largest in the world. There was a big move to offshore 
offices to avoid Canadian regulations.

I am not sure what you mean by Reagonomics, but I understand it
as putting money and other resources into your friends' pockets
under the guise of deregulation and "user pays" principles
invoked to lower taxes. The result is debt blowout and collapse
of financial resources. Not to mention a fake economic boom and
high interest rates.

-- 
John Collier 			Email: jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- U. of Melbourne		  	Fax:   61+3 344 7959
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Private censorship, here now
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:57:21 GMT

In article <996200272@peg.pegasus.oz.au>, cwarren@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
>             WHAT HAPPENS UNDER CENSORSHIP - BRIT COPS KILL & MAIM
>             
>             For those who think private media magnates should be
>             allowed to taint the information flow into the public
>             arena by their private censorship, the following is a
>             salutary lesson in the real world:
>             
>             
... British case deleted
>             
>             ---------------------------------------------------
>             
>             Is this what we want to happen in Australia?
>             
>             Obviously there are some who are willing to countenance
>             such censorship.  But not me.
>             

Your use of the future tense is too late...

A friend of mine is on the Invalid Pention. 2 weeks ago it was 'suspended'
because he "refused" to give DSS his TFN. He doesn't have one. An officer
of the DSS intervewed one Jenny Roper, also a 'non-TFN' ex-beneficery. In
the interview she asked the officer how many other people where in the same
situation as herself. the reply was " only an ex Graylands nutcase in West-
Lederville..." ( for non Perth readers, Graylands mental hospital is the main
mental health services hospital in WA, West Leaderville a inner suburb of Perth )

The incedent was reported to ABC radio, ABC television, 4 corners, all 3 local
TV stations, the Sunday Times ( Murdock ) and the West Australian. only the
west showed any interest, but the reporter was told by the chief-of-staff
to kill the story and not contact or take calls from the person concerned.
He was intervied yesterday by the head of DSS in WA and his investigation
officer.

I have seen all the corespondence in this matter, and the signed statment
of Jenny Roper, and can post copies if any one wants them.

~Paul

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: mjt@anl.oz (Michael Tuke)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:37:13 GMT
Organization: ANL Ltd (The Australian National Line)

From article <chris.717723968@suite.sw.oz.au>, by chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby):
> 
> It just turns out that a 15% tax on school costs would impact a particular
> constituency a lot harder than others - so political expediency comes
> along and out goes ideology. Mind you, I'm not saying this is a wholly
> bad thing - it is a version of accountability - but they can't have it
> both ways.

The one big difference between school education and just about any
other good/service (I can't actually think of another in the same
category as education) is that a school education is available free to
just about anyone - at huge expense to the taxpayer.  To tax those who
make a personal sacrifice (and let's not have any crap about only the
rich affording private schools) and save the taxpayer a fortune is
hardly fair!
-- 
Michael Tuke			Phone:	(03) 869-5364	My opinions, not
Information Technology Dept.	FAX:	(03) 869-5110	my employer's.
ANL Ltd				ACSNET:	mjt@anl.oz		OK?
432 St. Kilda Road, Melbourne, 3004.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Distribution: aus
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 02:29:16 GMT

jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier) writes:

>In any casse, the effects of deregulation on banking were
>both predictable and predicted before the event. Yet gov'ts
>went ahead with it because it was politically correct (or
>more sinisterly, they were out to benefit their friends).

But mainly because they had no choice. Regulation of banks stopped
working sometime in the 1970s, so they had to make it official.
Reaganomics, schmeagonomics. The same thing happened at about the same
time, all over the world.

cheers,


--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.  -- Seneca
From: apeel@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Andrew Peel)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:25:01 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia

schuller@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Wayne Schuller) writes:

>Okay, I was just wondering, I have seen Labor voted in again and again, by 
>voters who appear to be afraid for change.
>I have also seen Australia's economy go down and down, with Labor in charge..
>I take it News readers are fairly educated.. so who are the newsreaders
>voting for? I mean, you arent all going to vote Labor again?
>I want to know who is best to vote for, but I mean compared to Labor anything looks attractive...

You are quite correct to assume that most Victorians don't want to vote Labor.
The present government is perceived to be as incompetent and dishonest as
any in recent memory.

However, the Liberal party has not offered a very attractive vision of the
future. They have been deliberately vague about the details of their agenda,
but we do know that it is founded in `New Right', economic rationalist 
precepts. Many voters are suspicious of this ideology. 

The Liberals tell us that the SEC, gas, water, ports, airports, etc must
be privatised, but they have not explained why they beleive this is 
necessary. When confronted with examples of privatisation from abroad, they
become quite elusive. They will not outline the mechanism they will use
for privatisation, nor the safeguards to protect the public interest. They
merely say 'there will be safeguards'.

To deliberately dismantle and sell off (possibly to foreigners) these 
services seems wasteful, unnecessary, even dangerous.
In short, the Liberal party is offering an organised vandalism of the
public utilities. 

The damage caused by this course of action, if it isn't successful,  would take
several decades, and many billions of dollars to repair. 

Perhaps another 4 years of Labour muddling and the Trades Hall Council 
doesn't look so bad after all.

Andrew Peel
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Peel.					University of Melbourne,
apeel@cs.mu.OZ.AU				Computer Science Dept.
Ph. (03) 344-4045	Fax. 61 3 348-1184	Parkville, 3052.  Australia.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Organization: Monash University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:02:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.050644.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.121340.11665@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>...
>> I think the explicit nature of the GST is one of its best features
>> (I can hear the howls already from the average person about
>> "complicated nature" of having a quoted price and then allowing
>> for the tax as a separate item on every goods/services bought.)
>> but I think it would be a tremendous step forward (with or without
>> the trappings of GST/fightback) if everything we purchased detailed
>> exactly on the docket how much the  government creamed off.
>Could you quote a primary source? I have not seen anything to the effect that
>the GST will be a separately costed part of the 'price tag' Infact, at the
>moment it is illegal to price things that way.
>Given that the explicit revalation is of no benefite to either political party,
>or the beaurocracy, I would give it the same chance as the snowball in hell.
>
>The GST will be 'exempt', 0%, or, 15%. This is a small improvment on 'exempt'
>0%, 20%, and 30%, but will not stop the aguments about the boundaries and
>exemptions. Infact, when you consider that services are to be taxed as well, it
>opens up a whole new vista for new and interesting law and accounting...
I did not mean to suggest that itemizing the tax on the dockets was
the current stated policy of the opposition. Rather just that there were
fewer categories (which you acknowledge) and a BROADER base to the 
tax makes it easier for you and I to see the tax when we pay and
would make it easier to go the whole hog (as I suggested and would prefer).
I agree that it is not in the interests of the powers that be (well not
directly) but such a system is in place in the US and similarly with VAT in
the UK.
I did not realise that it is illegal to price things with sales tax as
an explicit item - do you have a primary source? I am sure
I have purchased items where sales tax WAS an explicit item.
Mostly I think it was when you purchase from distributers that
normally sell to tradespeople (e.g., electronic components, plumbing
materials etc).
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
From: ianr@ee.mu.OZ.AU (Ian Rowlands)
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Organization: Electronic and Electrical Engineering - University of Melbourne 
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:43:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.050644.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.121340.11665@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>...
>> I think the explicit nature of the GST is one of its best features
>> (I can hear the howls already from the average person about
>> "complicated nature" of having a quoted price and then allowing
>> for the tax as a separate item on every goods/services bought.)
>> but I think it would be a tremendous step forward (with or without
>> the trappings of GST/fightback) if everything we purchased detailed
>> exactly on the docket how much the  government creamed off.
>Could you quote a primary source? I have not seen anything to the effect that
>the GST will be a separately costed part of the 'price tag' Infact, at the
>moment it is illegal to price things that way.

	I don't think it's illegal. If you drove through Morwell (VIC) you
could buy petrol for about 21 cents/litre. This was "without federal and
state taxes" (which of course was added on at the pump). I think somebody
would have done something about it - there were about 3 petrol stations doing
it for a period of at least 12 months.

					Ian


Ian Rowlands, former student in  | Uni  : ianr@ee.mu.oz.au 
Dept. of Electrical Engineering, | Home : ianr@gpark.apana.org.au
 (including Computer Science)    | 
University of Melbourne          |  [This space for rent] 
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:57:48 GMT

chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris Maltby) writes:

>Here's another anomaly. The work done by unpaid housekeepers and
>child-minders (mostly women) is neither counted in the GNP nor will
>it be subject to GST, even though it clearly adds "value" in the
>same way that car-wash companies add value.  This means a hidden
>subsidy to those who can afford to support an unpaid worker, as
>opposed to those who must pay for these services and who must pay
>the GST.

Yes, but what has this got to do with GST? Unpaid help has always been
"anomolous" in this sense. And rightly so! If it isn't paid for, it can't
be taxed. 

They also tell me that, under GST, cancer will often be incurable and the
Victa won't start at the first zip on the doo-dah.

cheers,

--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.  -- Seneca
From: cwarren@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Free Speech and ACP
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:14:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:dyfl.717262466@munagin:2091383100:peg:996200271:000:1055
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!cwarren    Oct  3 15:14:00 1992




****** free speech and our capo-anarchists *******

As usual, Daniel Lam, faced with the moral problem of censorship,
misses the whole point and raves on about ACP (Australian
consolidated press) being a private corporation.

So what!!!  Do private corporations have special rights to act
unethically or avoid community standards?.  Only in the
dream-State of capo-anarchy - I hope.

Even if they are "free" their act is still censorship and more
intelligent people than Lam should still ask questions about the
influence of corporations on the news (and other aspects of social
life) that we are fed.

To Lam-bleat that "ACP can't stop others publishing what they
want" only avoids the issue of ACP stopping people reading other
than what ACP feels convenient.

Censorship based on community standards is (arguably) acceptable -
censorship based on commercial interests by private corporations
like ACP, against the community interest and in defiance of
community standards is morally repugnant as is every banal
keystroke from our capo-anarchist Lam.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:27:08 GMT

In article <miw.718338556@cc.uq.oz.au> miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
writes:
>jcollier@ariel.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier) writes:
>
>>In any casse, the effects of deregulation on banking were
>>both predictable and predicted before the event. Yet gov'ts
>>went ahead with it because it was politically correct (or
>>more sinisterly, they were out to benefit their friends).
>
>But mainly because they had no choice. Regulation of banks stopped
>working sometime in the 1970s, so they had to make it official.
>Reaganomics, schmeagonomics. The same thing happened at about the same
>time, all over the world.

Would you care to give a list of countries that are financially deregulated to
the extent that Australia is?  There must be some reason why the Australian
dollar is the world's fourth or fifth most traded currency.

Chris O'Neill

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Organization: Monash University
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:02:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.232329.23488@mel.dit.csiro.au> ajw@squid.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Andrew Waugh) writes:
>
>As you say, to claim the 15% back a business will need to keep records of the
>items sold. I do not agree, however, with your implicit assumption that the
>keeping these records will always be economically feasible.
>
>The relative cost of keeping the necessary records will rise as the unit cost
>of the sales falls. A wholesaler sells in bulk to retailers. Each sale is
>therefore for a fairly large amount of money and there are few sales to keep
>track of. Consequently the overhead in keeping the records is small.
>
>A retailer sells items individually to customers. The number of transactions
>is high, but the sale price of each transaction is lower. Each transaction
>needs a record, consequently the overhead in keeping the records is high.
>
>This overhead increases as the sale price decreases. Businesses which sell
>many small items - such as many small businesses do - will find it
>expensive to keep the necessary records.
>
>Further, the cost of keeping the records will depend on the degree of
>computerisation. Large companies, with access to cheaper funds than small
>businesses, can afford to install sophisticated systems to keep their
>records. Large companies also have the turnover to make such systems
>economic. Consequently the cost of keeping the necessary records will be
>lower for large companies than for small companies competing in the same
>marketplace.
>
>For these reasons, I can easily imagine that for many small businesses it
>will not be economic to keep the necessary records to claim the money back from
>the government. The cost of keeping the necessary records will outweigh the
>return. For many small businesses, if they do make claims on the government,
>it will only be by devaluing the cost of the owners time in keeping the records.
>
>Incidentally, the cost of installing the necessary accounting systems to keep
>track of the GST will not be a trivial cost. This cost should be bourne in
>mind when evaluating the costs and benefits of the GST.
>
>andrew waugh
If they can't already buy a cash register system from NCR etc. that
is capable of keeping track of each transaction with a little micro-chip
then I'll be the first to set up a company supplying such beasties.
Really!
The reality is that a GST exists in many countries in the world
and even though this is not a compelling argument for us to
follow suite it does show that most of the objections raised
that paint a scene of resultant devastation are just plain nonsense.
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
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Organization: Monash University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:17:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.002656.27681@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:
>By the way the State government's debt relative to State GDP is less than it
>was during some of Bolte's years.  Short memories...
And who said that he was a great premier in the first place. Certainly not
I. Could it be that the debt was too high in both cases?
Furthermore, the debt was reduced. That's what I am saying now, what Kirner
refused to do, and what Kennet promises. He now has his four years
to start delivering.
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
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: GST - Bloody Stupid
Organization: Monash University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 01:48:08 GMT

In article <996200273@peg.pegasus.oz.au> cwarren@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
>
>            GST
>            
>            One contributer (Andrew Waugh) made the useful point
>            about the necessary amount of paper work needed to
>            reclaim GST.  Typically, one thoughtless soul snarled
>            back - let 'em all get cash registers.
>            
>            As usual, the snarls came from boring ol' suter.  He
>            obviously knows scant about real life private enterprise
>            in the current economic crisis.
>            
>            Placing such a burdensome paper-work task onto small
>            business (particularly self employed people, not
>            capitalists) will upset the balance between small, middle
Gee - rising to the defence of small business Cris! That reminds me
(yes - boring old suter wants to keep you honest) - you still haven't
delivered your promised definition of capitalist property rights
(remember, you used that term just after berating others for not
defining thier terms). I await your definition with interest
(presumably it will also explain why the small business people aren't
capitalists and why their business possessions aren't capitalist
property).
BTW did you really learn such an emotional and unobjective style
of writing in your political science course? Or are you practicing
to out-do the Hinch's and other investigative "journalists"
of our age?
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