[cturner]

Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria.

Arden is indefensible. She increased the size of government, decreased social cohesion via critical theory, housing promises went nowhere. Worse balance sheet, worse outcomes, across the board.

[squishington]

Howard era policies have strongly contributed to the housing problems in Australia today. His policies were short sighted.

[fud101]

>Howard/Costello era in Australia. Reagan 80s. Pinochet - fits your criteria.

Ok, no one really needed NBN and Howard didn't destroy the housing market completely to name just two lasting legacies of the Howard era. Lets not leave out GST either.

[cturner]

If not a GST, what do you think was the appropriate reform to the indirect tax system?

[cam_l]

Well for a start, he outright lied about the introduction of the GST. Not once, but twice. First that he would never introduce one, second that it would replace other sales taxes to simplify the system.

Well, neither of those were true, and gst we got was used to cut taxes to the wealthy and as a bargaining chip to reduce the power of the states. It is inherently regressive, the implementation increases the tax burden on businesses, and it did't even raise enough revenue to allow them to simplify the tax system.

[cturner]

For all your words, you have dodged the only question of my last post.

By the late 80s, the wholesale sales tax was creaking at the seams. Toys were taxed at 24% but luxury goods at 0%. Also it was complex and expensive to administer. The wholesales sales tax was awful public policy.

Keating knew the GST was good policy, but lacked the conviction to stand up to “jellyback” Hawke (Walsh’s characterisation) and his caucus for it. Keating had taken it to the Tax Summit as his preferred policy “Option C”. Lacking meaningful policies of his own, Keating won the 93 election on a platform of opposing the GST and could not engage in reform as a result.

In the aftermath of the 93 election, Howard said never ever to a GST. Then, during government, cabinet and treasury looked at the indirect taxation mess and concluded that the GST was the optimal policy.

They could have done several things at this point. They could have done nothing, and focused on holding onto power, as Keating had done. They could have dressed it up as a VAT. Or they could have just introduced it with their majority. Instead, Howard gave a speech where he plainly recognised that he had said never, and said he had made a mistake, and his conviction was it was the right policy.

He then called an early election, in full knowledge that he was bad in the polls, and made the GST cause the centrepiece of that campaign.

This was the greatest act of political courage and decency of our lifetime. They risked everything on that conviction. Costello then ran a meticulous publicity campaign in which he made not a single mistake to open ground to the rerun of the ALP scare campaign. Against those odds, the Coalition won the election and made the reform, which now has bipartisan support.

But if you think there was a better reform to the indirect tax system available, let’s hear it.

[cam_l]

>This was the greatest act of political courage and decency of our lifetime.

What a frighteningly hyperbolic thing to say. I think you have been watching too much sky news.

It was a cynical play at retaining gov in the face of what was sure to be, and what was, a massive swing against the gov.

Anyways, I already outlined the issues with the implementation of the tax. I don't need to repeat myself.

[cam_l]

Howard may have talked a lot about decreasing the size of government, cutting red tape, and reducing legislation and the cost of government. But all these increased under his terms.

Most of the early economic gain was due to the opening up of Australia in the nineties along with the floating of the dollar.

Dude was a dog whistling neo con, so I never liked him. But what is really telling is that the shitshow that is the current Australian housing crisis was foretold and discussed at length in the late nineties when he introduced the changes to cgt and ng.

He and everyone else knew what would happen even then with these changes. The liberal party thesis, openly discussed, was to prioritise legislation that would promote individualisation in order to break unions and get people to vote against their interests.

Plenty written about the other two you mention. Maybe you should read some of it.

[cam_l]

and fuck.. pinochet?

arden is indefensible, but you like pinochet? your barometer for a good right wing government improving the quality of life is an actual dictator who tortured and murdered thousands of people?

and.. fuck pinochet.