Sensational-Adelaide.com

Aidan wrote:

Waewick wrote:

stumpjumper wrote:Stretch... yawn... wow - Sept 2013!

Progressive is a good word to try to hijack for your side's exclusive use. It's an impressive word, and its opposite is regressive - a perfect word to describe your foes. It's like renaming the white-skinned races 'the clever races'. You're spreading a bit of propaganda every time you say it.

That is true on social issues, and even arguable for environmental issues. But when it comes to economic issues, the label can't be hijacked so easily - it's totally objective. Progressive policies are the ones that benefit the poor more than the rich, while regressive policies are those that benefit the rich more than the poor.
that is an interesting slant on things really.

so if I come out and say tax 99% on income and give it to the poor, you would consider it progressive?

Yes - being progressive doesn't necessarily involve being practical or advantageous. So although I (and practically everyone else) would oppose such a plan, that wouldn't prevent it from being progressive.

Of the serious political proposals nowadays, the progressive ones do tend to make more economic sense than the regressive ones, but a tendency is not a defining characteristic.

see I just don't see it that way at all.

It assumes that people that are poor, automatically deserve money to be taken from someone else and given to them.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't people that are not disadvantaged, but broadly stating that progressive policy means poor people getting more handouts just doesn't cut it for me.

edit- I'm assuming this debate is separate from the progressive tax system similar to what we have with different tax brackets (I'm not a huge fan of this either but anyway)

-

Waewick wrote:

Aidan wrote:

Waewick wrote:


so if I come out and say tax 99% on income and give it to the poor, you would consider it progressive?

Yes - being progressive doesn't necessarily involve being practical or advantageous. So although I (and practically everyone else) would oppose such a plan, that wouldn't prevent it from being progressive.

Of the serious political proposals nowadays, the progressive ones do tend to make more economic sense than the regressive ones, but a tendency is not a defining characteristic.

see I just don't see it that way at all.

It assumes that people that are poor, automatically deserve money to be taken from someone else and given to them.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't people that are not disadvantaged, but broadly stating that progressive policy means poor people getting more handouts just doesn't cut it for me.

edit- I'm assuming this debate is separate from the progressive tax system similar to what we have with different tax brackets (I'm not a huge fan of this either but anyway)

'Tis not separate at all - indeed that's a good example of the economic meaning of progressive.

Progressive policy doesn't necessarily involve handouts, and not all handouts are progressive. The Libs' PPL scheme is an example of regressive handouts.

-

Dog wrote:Progressive v Regressive
I think any handouts that don't have the deliberate intention of helping someone move from dependence to independence are all regressive.

Then you're wrong. Progressiveness is where the money goes to those who need it most; regressiveness is where it goes to those who need it least.

Dependence is a completely separate issue, and while independence sounds desirable, it's not always achievable. Pensions are the classic example (and the biggest social security expense) - surely you don't think their objective should be to get the pensioners back into work?

Unfortunately President Reagan's view - that payments create dependency and dependency is extremely bad - become mainstream, resulting in widespread abandonment of progressive policies, and made many worse off.

The real problem that's holding people back is lack of alternatives and opportunities. Addressing that does not and should not need to threaten existing entitlements.

-

Dog wrote:

Aidan wrote:

Dog wrote:Progressive v Regressive
I think any handouts that don't have the deliberate intention of helping someone move from dependence to independence are all regressive.

Then you're wrong. Progressiveness is where the money goes to those who need it most; regressiveness is where it goes to those who need it least.

Dependence is a completely separate issue, and while independence sounds desirable, it's not always achievable. Pensions are the classic example (and the biggest social security expense) - surely you don't think their objective should be to get the pensioners back into work?

Unfortunately President Reagan's view - that payments create dependency and dependency is extremely bad - become mainstream, resulting in widespread abandonment of progressive policies, and made many worse off.

The real problem that's holding people back is lack of alternatives and opportunities. Addressing that does not and should not need to threaten existing entitlements.

Obviously not, a retirement income (pension) as far as I am concerned are not "welfare" at all, it's a right and nothing to do with progressive v regressive.

It is direct government payments to people based on a perceived need or entitlement. That's the definition of welfare.

Welfare is always a right. And as progressive and regressive have specific economic meanings, you can not truthfully claim it's nothing to do with them. Pensions have a progressive effect.

-

I would say that the Opposition's comments are pretty reasonable - not promising something that they simply cannot fully understand until they are in Government. Multi-billion dollar "gold plated promises" during an election campaign may win votes, but they stuff up everything else once in Government and all the true facts and figures are tabled to a new Government.

Sounded like a firm commitment to me to undertake a proper investigation, and publish a position within 18 months of the election through a new White Paper.

And all for something we hope to never use in reality...damned if you do, damned if you don't with defence.

-

The trouble with submarines is that because they're used for espionage, the public can have no idea of whether or not they're good value for money.

-

well, I think i'll vote Liberal then.

-

Dog wrote:I noticed that no one took up my previous challenge to list the positive things the federal Libs are going to do for SA.

Dog, no one has taken up your challenge because no one is reading your posts. The only people replying are Aidan when he's feeling grumpy enough, and occasionally Waewick. Other than that, you're talking to yourself in this thread. Posting page after page of extremely partisan political commentary is not the way to engage with people. Neither is making completely baseless claims, such as that the Liberals will redistribute GST revenue to WA and QLD. If you have evidence that this is an actual policy of the Liberal Party, please feel free to post it. That's my challenge to you.