The Forum > Article Comments > An agenda for Labor > Comments
An agenda for Labor : Comments
By Tristan Ewins, published 22/2/2007Labor needs to build for the future rather than embracing a policy that relegates the movement to 'one step forward, two steps back'.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Under Hawke, if I remember correctly, the rate was around 39%. Then it went down to 36%, an eventually (I think) 30% today. Now the BCA wants this brought down to 25%. Unlike the labour movement, the business community is ALWAYS on the offensive - and yet, wanting more expenditure on infrastructure - it wants to have its cake and eat it too. This is just to show things have not always been as they are today. Yes, we need to remain competitive - but providing infrastructure is part of this equation, and it is only reasonable that business pay its share. Given that you also oppose halving or abolishing dividend imputation, I assume you prefer to 'turn a blind eye' to the infrastructure backlog, or otherwise raise income tax and cut programs. And who - I wonder - would you choose to pay in such a scenario?
And Mat - whatever caused Latham's defeat, I don't think it was Medicare Gold. Medicare Gold was a modest program that appealed to pensioners. What I'm proposing is a more robust injection of funds (at least $5 billion) - to meaningfully slash waiting lists for all of us. As for dental care - as far as I'm aware the public program has been drastically cut under Howard with waiting lists that are beyond the pale. I'm on a pension and I pay the full commercial rate for my dental care. Given waiting lists, there's little choice.