What would be your private members bill? (1 Viewer)

[townie]

Scenario, ur an Australian member of parliament (State or Federal) and the govt. will let u pass one Private Members bill, anything u want (has 2 be constitutional of course), wat legislation would u introduce, ammend?

Myself: i dont know how, but i'd pass some kind of bill that would guarantee that infrastructure (particularly health/education) got more money in budgets.


P.S. this is for giving ur own ideas, not bagging out other people's

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Apart from completely reforming the ridiculously messy and obese tax act, fixing up the marriage act and abolishing the Civil Liabilities Act, mine would be:

A statute that sets up an independent body to determine judicial appointments to the high court. There would be a vote cast by the members - including lawyers, judges, academics and the attorney-general would also have a vote or two.

 

[transcendent]

Introduction of the death penalty for the most dangerous repeat offenders with a review of those that get let off for mental instability.

 

[thorrnydevil]

Mine would be the introduction of the death penalty for cases proven far beyond reasonable doubt, war crimes and terrorism. Also, chemical castration for serious rapists who have seriously harmed/killed another.

 

[frog12986]

Hmmm...

I agree with moonlight sonata, simplifying the taxation system would be a high priority. However, leaving that to him.....

I would probably introduce a bill which aims at implementing a more rigid screening process of the complaints system that exists in conjunction with the PIC and IA (for the police basically). Obviously this would be aimed reducing the capacity of offenders to manouvre their way around charges and through the court system by displacing the attention towards 'police malpractice'.....

It would obviously be very involved and need immense review in order to prevent an autonomous force developing... a tough one....

Well thats my two bob..

 

[Jonathan A]

Apart from completely reforming the ridiculously messy and obese tax act, fixing up the marriage act and abolishing the Civil Liabilities Act, mine would be:

I would too consider downsizing the CLA.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The tax act is fat for a reason.

Yes, poor management

They tried to reform it ages ago but then left it half finished

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Flat tax of 7%, no-tax threshold raised to $25,000.

^ i kno that couldn't be done, but since we're saying stuff we'd like i figured i'd post it anyway.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It was orginally quite small but amendments have been added continuously in order to fill of the loopholes...ie why it is so big.

The cynic says it will be easier to avoid tax if the tax act is 'simplified'...

The cynic would be wrong.

 

[spell check]

you're the expert

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Under systems such as America's, or those operating in most of western Europe, the incentives for the rich to avoid tax (legally or otherwise) are enormous; and the opportunities to do so, which arise from the very complexity of the codes, are commensurately large. So it is unsurprising to discover, as experience suggests, that the rich usually pay about as much tax under a flat-tax regime as they do under an orthodox code.

http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3861190

 

[Not-That-Bright]

NTB you sound like the finance spokesman for the one nation party.

Also your sig quote as also full of shit...:\

Just because one nation suggested a Flat Tax doesn't make the concept flawed.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I cannot take you seriously because most of what you say is utter garbage.

Like look at your sig...It is true but unless you are some kind of narrow minded fool you would realise that all the economic liberalism in the world won't do you any good if other factors are in place.

No, What you said before, was utter garbage...

You: Simplier tax systems lead to more tax avoidance.
Me: No, Simpler tax systems don't [post link so you can read a little for yourself then respond].
You (in response): You sound like the finance spokesman for one nation (obviously implying that a flat tax is stupid, simply because one nation proposed it).
Me: Just because one nation suggested it doesn't make the concept flawed.
You: Most of what you say is utter garbage. You're sig is true but you're narrow minded.

Asquithian - By not engaging me on the theory of a flat-tax and merely shrugging me off as another racist scum, you are being narrow minded.

 

[spell check]

if he got into a debate with you about a flat tax he would say is it regressive and benefits rich people over poor

and you would say OMGROFLZOR that doesn't matter and then make up a statistic/assert something that isn't necessarily true

 

[Not-That-Bright]

if he got into a debate with you about a flat tax he would say is it regressive and benefits rich people over poor

and you would say OMGROFLZOR that doesn't matter and then make up a statistic/assert something that isn't necessarily true

But it doesn't benefit rich people over poor, my suggested no-tax threshold would be around $20,000 a year. Also, as currently the richest of the rich avoid taxes through the many loopholes in the taxation system, chances are they'd end up paying about the same ammount of tax.

But basically spell check you are right... but that's what debate/open discussion should be about.

I mean can you use a little bit of analysis and think to yourself 'Why is the tax act so big? Why is tax so complicated?'

Of course I understand why people would think that having a complicated tax code is a good idea, it is the idea is that the complexity should lead to resources being allocated more effectively.
It is definately worthwhile to consider that as the economist etc could have a hidden agenda, you still need to engage with the concept.

You are. You are far right wing jerk...and you love it. You are disgusting. Why can you not admin you are far right wing? Why can't you recongise that being far right wing is just as bad or extreme as being far left wing? Both extreme are just as flawed as the other.

I am definately economically far right wing, as for me not 'recognising' that being far right wing is as 'bad' as being far left wing.. You believe what you believe, you have no real 'choice', and being in the centre doesn't necessarily mean that your beliefs have any more basis to them than someone on the far left or right, what matters is how you back up your beliefs.

 

[townie]

how did this turn into a discussion about tax