Shooting through …

News today, Oakeshott and Windsor will not contest the next election.

I have mixed feelings, it would have been interesting to see how their electorates responded to the duo that betrayed their relatively conservative constituents and foisted a carbon tax and a mining tax on them; and kept a hapless Labor Government in power as they squandered our taxes on failed schemes. A government that even at this late stage has delivered nothing but promises.

Barnaby Joyce graciously praised Mr Windsor as a tough competitor. That’s nice. Concrete’s tough, too, and has the same IQ.

I can’t think of anything quite as nice to say about Mr Oakeshott …

Super and Cyprus …

Let’s eat the rich …

Well let’s at least get seriously jealous and really hurt them …

After all it’s good that we let them employ people, pay lots of tax and spend money, we let them off  having to live on the age pension, we don’t make them live on New Start. Cool.

Let’s raid their super … big problem, one thing that the hysterical class warriors, from Rob Oakeshott to Wayne Swan via Fairfax’s Peter Martin, seem not to realise is that for people with squillions super offers a chance to reduce tax by a paltry amount. Here’s Peter Martin …

THINK about an executive on $1 million a year. Not quite one of Joel Fitzgibbon’s “battlers”, but someone several rungs above. His or her company pays a legislated $90,000 a year into a super fund of their choice, the payment is taxed at just 15 per cent. So instead of paying $41,850 in tax, the executive pays just $13,500. The gift from the tax system is $28,350.

What a terribly wicked rich person, well no what a complete load of bollocks, once the numbers are corrected it reads …

… a legislated maximum of $17,190 per year into a super fund of his or her choice; … The gift from the tax system is $5415.

The fact is payments into super are capped therefore the capacity to lower tax is also capped at a fairly low figure. The way to raise money from super is to forget the very rich, just hit all those who’ve been diligent in saving for their retirement. Those who gambled away their income have made their contribution.

But, notice too, the reference to a gift. I have worked hard, I have provided employment to others, we have paid our taxes and contributed to our retirement funds.

SOMEONE on $300k pays about $113k a year income (little or no govt benefits) tax yet someone on $50k a year pays about $7700 income tax (plus govt benefits). The person on $300k pays 14 times more tax for six times the wage than the person on $50k. (Terry … )

If you are going to call that amount of your earnings that the taxman allows you to keep a gift the Cyprus solution starts to look reasonable.


The Squandermonkeys …

… and their accomplice.

But first the monkeys. The lie from Wayne Swan  …

At the centre of our challenges we face in this year’s Budget is the huge hit to government revenues we’ve taken since the global financial crisis.

The truth can be seen at Catallaxyfiles


Do visit that link, there are some more graphs and some of the comments are spot on. It will show you that it ain’t the income that’s the problem, it’s the expenditure. But if you are going to sustain the expenditure you have to raise the money somehow. Your superannuation looks nice. The Cypriot solution, it’s obvious.

Enter Rob Oakeshott, he thinks it’s a great idea. Remember that he will leave the Parliament (hopefully very soon and with a large boot up his arse) with a nice big super safety net, provided under a completely different scheme to ours.

I have worked hard and saved sensibly for my retirement, reforms by Keating and Costello helped, the frequent changes to the rules did not. The only way we will ever see a good superannuation system is when the pollies are under the same rules as the rest of us.

Meantime, get your hands off my super, you thieving bitch.


A pimple …

“I stand by this view, despite the current disagreement between the two political parties on preferences,” Mr Oakeshott said in a statement on Wednesday.

“In the interests of a forward legislative agenda for Australia, both political parties should sort out their disagreement, and sort it out quickly.”

Once that happened, MPs could focus on the important issues, such as asylum seekers and people-smuggling, the Gonski education report, gambling reform and the Murray-Darling Basin, he said.

So now we have a pimple on the tail that’s wagging the dog giving instructions.

Vicar of Bray awards …

In good King Charles’ golden time, when loyalty no harm meant,
A zealous high churchman was I, and so I gained preferment.
To teach my flock, I never missed: Kings are by God appointed
And damned are those who dare resist or touch the Lord’s anointed.

When royal James possessed the crown, and popery came in fashion,
The penal laws I hooted down, and read the Declaration.
The Church of Rome, I found, did fit full well my constitution
And I had been a Jesuit, but for the Revolution.

When William was our King declared, to ease the nation’s grievance,
With this new wind about I steered, and swore to him allegiance.
Old principles I did revoke; Set conscience at a distance,
Passive obedience was a joke, a jest was non-resistance.

When Royal Anne became our queen, the Church of England’s glory,
Another face of things was seen, and I became a Tory.
Occasional conformists base; I blamed their moderation;
And thought the Church in danger was from such prevarication.

When George in pudding time came o’er, and moderate men looked big, sir
My principles I changed once more, and I became a Whig, sir.
And thus preferment I procured From our new Faith’s Defender,
And almost every day abjured the Pope and the Pretender.
The illustrious house of Hanover and Protestant succession
To these I do allegiance swear — while they can hold possession.
For in my faith and loyalty I never more will falter,
And George my lawful king shall be — until the times do alter.

I received a comment. By the time the profane and defamatory words were removed it wasn’t worth posting but in essence it pointed out that there were four independents elected to the house of reps, that the writer had a low opinion of them and that I had given two of them an easy ride. And so I have.

Lets have a look at them.

At the last election Mr. Wilkie took the safe labor seat of Denison. His electorate would probably have been very disappointed if he had thrown his lot in with the Coalition. In the past he has been a member of both the Liberal Party and the Greens which suggests a rather inconsistent thought process but throughout this recent period he has taken a principled stand against the pokies, principled but totally ineffectual. Best thought of as a very well-meaning jellyfish.

Bob Katter, now a member of his own party, represents Kennedy which is an enormous chunk of north Queensland. I drove through that part of the world during the last election campaign and as I approached each town I could see off in the distance a poster with an ice-cream cone on it. This would mysteriously turn into a photo of Katter as I got closer. He is described as a social conservative. His electorate would probably have been disappointed had he thrown his lot in with Labor. Prone to the odd bit of poofter bashing, best thought of as a loose cannon.

Both these guys have put their mediocre talent to the service of the people they represent. They can go back to their electorate before the next election and say they tried. And lets face it, they both have some entertainment value.

Mr. Windsor is a far better candidate for the Vicar of Bray award because he rode into office appearing to be just the type of bloke they needed. Like the original Vicar of Bray he displays that flexibility that will keep him in place for as long as possible, but he relies far too much on deflection of argument. Perhaps he is simply not smart enough to learn his lines. Instead he hasn’t seen the evidence, or due process gets in the way.

Which leaves the winner, only a shadow of the real vicar, but the man with best contemporary grasp on the repertoire, the careerist  … Mr. Oakeshott.
And this be law, that I’ll maintain until my dying day, sir
That whatsoever king may reign, I’ll be the vicar of Bray, sir.

A, B, C …

Mr. Thomson gave his explanation to parliament yesterday, today we have had the post mortems.

Mr. Oakeshott was glad to see him stand up. And I agree he did stand up and his performance was not the worst parliamentary speech I’ve heard. Standing up though is merely the equivalent of writing your name on the exam paper, it’s what you write on the answer pages that get you the marks. The Herald Sun, I thought, did a pretty good job of demolishing the content.

Mr. Thomson, himself, also gave us a clue. In the phone cloning claims he gave the example of criminals conversing by phone, the cops had a warrant to listen in to calls between phone A and phone B, only to discover that the call was billed to phone C. Problem is Craig your phone was phone A – the calls were billed to you.


Code of conduct …

As Mr. Latham told Paul Murray Labor governments have never been shy of hounding folk out of office,

I remember ten years ago, I was part of the Labor Party effort to drive Peter Hollingsworth from office, someone who was never charged, never went before a tribunal, never had any adverse findings against him …

But of course neither side of politics hounds its own out of office. Trial by parliament is determined by the numbers, not the evidence, and herein lies the problem with a code of conduct. If gross misconduct is countenanced by the majority party what does it matter if there is an explicit code or not.

Not that the present government has a majority in its own right, it relies on the independents and as the bard said,

some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.

Clearly Shakespeare wasn’t talking about Windsor and Oakeshott. One is a dullard disguised as a decent local bloke who took a seat safely held by the National Party/Country Party since 1919 and delivered it into the hands of Labor. The other is a careerist without the discipline to belong to a party. Their prospects at the next election are not good. They have in fact achieved the highest of all levels of independence, not only have they turned their backs on party they have also turned their backs on their electorates and decency. They are representing no one but themselves.

Update …

9News reports

Federal MP Craig Thomson now faces several inquiries and could be censured by parliament, but key independent MPs won’t back a push to suspend him because it would deny the former unionist natural justice.

Whilst Mark Latham sees it differently …

So the whole thing reeks of hypocrisy. Thomson should be judged on a moral standard not a criminal standard and on that moral standard he’s as guilty as sin.