Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Pushka]

Interesting Gillard was prepared to use the Disabilities Scheme as a political wedge if she was so passionate about it.

 

[amaroo]

Interesting Gillard was prepared to use the Disabilities Scheme as a political wedge if she was so passionate about it.

Correct! The ALP has been overrun with amateur student activists & political junkies. They are so high on selling a message - they forgot to create a story!

 

[Pukka]

View attachment 15648

I'll just pop this here.

I don't think anyone is buying this contrived twaddle anymore

 

[Pukka]

Yes, it's all been posted before.......yet the line "only the poor pay tax" just keeps dribbling out.

Infographic | Australians who don’t pay tax: what would Romney say?

Yes wasn't it the top 0.1% of taxpayers pay 10% of all income tax.

I think the tax system in Au is fair but they need to target tax avoidance more there are far too many people not declaring anything like their real income which is why I am a big fan of raising GST

 

[Pushka]

And there is going to be a levy to pay a Church 3 million from memory for soundproofing from aircraft noise. Like, we have soooo many planes flying into Adelaide on Sunday morning. I think the church is located in a very marginal currently Labor held seat. Sheesh. C'mon medhead, surely that riles you just a bit?

 

[Moody]

I love the fact that the issue of paid maternity leave (an ALP love child policy) is now derided by the ALP and it's supporters because it's championed by Tony Abbott.

Just saying

Just saying what? Utter nonsense?? Well that's a resounding "yes" from the jury!

I think you have mistaken a concept with a model. Paid maternity is a concept championed by Labour and supported by the Conservatives under "Nice" Tony. But the model that TA has put forward is so ridiculous that even his own party in election mode is struggling with it.

Do you need me to explain that again in words of fewer syllables?

Just saying

 

[dfcatch]

I haven't mistaken anything.

If you support the concept - why wouldn't you support a more generous model?

The only people opposing it (on the right at least) are the people whom I suspect don't wholeheartedly support the concept.

And besides - the lefties aren't attacking the model (or the largesse), simply the fact that's it's a proposal put forward by TA.

You can't dress it up any other way - in however few syllables you try and use.

Either way - my original comment stands. I am bemused

 

[medhead]

Hey Medhead the tax payable that you quote actually shoots down your argument.
See note 1 on what you have quoted-"The taxpayer population includes only taxable resident individuals – that is, those with net tax payable of more than $0."
So your quote has-9,374,184 taxpayers.
Yet the ABS says there are presently 11663200 people working in Australia-
6202.0 - Labour Force, Australia, Apr 2013

So that is over 2 million workers not paying tax yet alone accounting for the rest of our 23 million population.

Perhaps you're too busy thinking about your adventure next week. You obviously missed my point entirely. Your 2 million has nothing to do with what I'm saying. IT was claimed, as highlighted below just so you don't have to find it, that the "poorer people" pay no net tax. My point is that they do pay net tax and these numbers support that. So don't get on here throwing around irrelevance when the facts contradict the false claims being made. Casanovawa might think his misinformation has been establish just a shame he didn't bother with the facts. But don't let the truth get in the way of class warfare.

Hmm, i love this mentality... As i think has been establish several times, "poorer people" pay no net tax, they suck out of the system rather than contribute into it so there is a complete inability for them to "pay" middle class people anything...

I'm not going to quote you medhead as there is too much "stuff" to quote but I'm tired of you taking the position that we only listen to Abbott and that Sydney guy to form opinions.

And the question you need to think about is if Gillard had been honest that she was going to implement a carbon tax, then the election result would be different.

And I don't believe either party should have been given the chance to form a minority government if it meant their core promises were to be broken. Australia wanted a re election especially those who got dudded by the electorate.

The fact that you cannot address any of my points clearly demonstrate that you do only listen to one side. You have nothing to say about the fact that Abbott's paid parental leave policy involves everything that you attack about the current government.

You and the others here fail to answer the basic question: Did you change your vote?

I guess there is no answer because you didn't change your vote and therefore what she said was completely irrelevant. Crocodile tears about a lie?

I love the fact that the issue of paid maternity leave (an ALP love child policy) is now derided by the ALP and it's supporters because it's championed by Tony Abbott.

Just saying

You entirely miss the point. As I wrote, reading is that hard is it , the policy is not the problem. The problem is that it involves everything that you despise in the current ALP government. Yet you support this economic madness, this unfunded drain of our taxes, this great big new tax, this liability for future generations. Gross hypocrisy!

Yes wasn't it the top 0.1% of taxpayers pay 10% of all income tax.

I think the tax system in Au is fair but they need to target tax avoidance more there are far too many people not declaring anything like their real income which is why I am a big fan of raising GST

I see that you've again failed to mention that those people also earn about 10% of the income, IIRC. (again I can't find a reference to this, but given the lack of people rushing out to disprove me I think that shows I do recall that number) 10% of income paying 10% of tax - seems pretty fair to me.

As for the GST. Nice one Arthur! Go the cash economy.

 

[dfcatch]

No Medhead - I never said I supported or (didn't say I didn't either) I said it was interesting that for a leftie policy it is opposed because it is proposed by Abbott.

I actually have an open mind on it.
I've always had an open mind on the issue of paid parental leave.

But personally - I've always supported the view that stay at home mums should receive more support (financial or otherwise).

I've never subscribed to the view that they should be ostracized as they have been, and I always believe that quality time between mum and bubs is important.

I also accept that there are economic benefits by encouraging higher workforce participation by women.

So I have an open mind. I don't support or oppose policies based on who proposes it.

 

[Pukka]

So Craig Thomson is standing as an independent at the next election, surely he hasn't got any chance at all, why is he even bothering?

 

[amaroo]

So Craig Thomson is standing as an independent at the next election, surely he hasn't got any chance at all, why is he even bothering?

If there are no HSU members living in Dobell......he'll probably get a few votes. You can never underestimate some of our fellow Australians

 

[Pushka]

Once again medhead I'm not going to quote you again as there is too much stuff.

Quite clearly you missed my post where I stated that the parental leave issue was one in which I was undecided and needed to see detail. In one post I said I would be angry if employers had to fund it.

So maybe before flinging my "one eyed" position, maybe it is you who is one eyed.

And I also said your question was not the one that should be posted but asked a different one but you did not answer that. Gillard's refusal to say there would be a carbon tax was not a vote changer for me but would be for others.

 

[drron]

Oh medhead now you are taking your arguments too far.
Back to your quote from the ATO.
There are 9,374,184 nett taxpayers from your source the ATO.
There are 11663200 in employment according to my source the ABS.
Which means that 2,300,000 people are working but pay no nett tax.
Now I know you will try to say that this group represents rich people who use tax dodges to pay no tax.Yet the ATO found how many doing that-72 wasn't it.The fact is this number is 10% of the total population so cant just be rich people.

Now to your crazy suggestion that the top 10% of people by income pay 10% of the tax.look at the ATO figures again
[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD]$180,001 or more[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]251,397[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.7%[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]34,773[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]26.2%[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Yep the top 2.7% pay 26.2% of the tax.

Now the other point you keep on harking back to is the Howard government being the highest taxing government.True if you pick your statistic.If you happen and look at the budget papers total Commonwealth government receipts have been higher in every year of the Rudd/Gillard governments except in 2009 than any year of the Howard government.However spending has been even higher.Funny you dont mention the fact that spending as a % of GDP is higher under Gillard than under Howard.

Also why are tax receipts lower under Rudd/Gillard as a % of GDP.Well for a start there were the tax cuts promised by Howard at the 2007 election and then done by Rudd.
I am afraid that you have fallen for the rewriting of economic history by Julia's economic adviser.But dont worry many financial journalists also treat it as fact.
Then there is the historically high terms of trade which the treasury says has caused a significant rise in nominal GDP hence masking the increase in real spending when using the spending as a percentage of GDP figure.So surely it has the same masking effect on tax to GDP %.
http://lowpollutionfuture.treasury.gov.au/documents/1352/PDF/03_spending_growth.pdf

 

[drron]

So Craig Thomson is standing as an independent at the next election, surely he hasn't got any chance at all, why is he even bothering?

Very interesting.the article in the SMH is saying he will quit the ALP today but also that the ALP will have to preselect another candidate.So he really was an Indepensent MP?
Thomson to stand as independent

 

[serfty]

Very interesting.the article in the SMH is saying he will quit the ALP today but also that the ALP will have to preselect another candidate.So he really was an Indepensent MP?
Thomson to stand as independent

I doubt he was going to be preselected as the ALP candidate in any case.

 

[drron]

I doubt he was going to be preselected as the ALP candidate in any case.

they apparently wanted to as the preselection was delayed-

Mr Thomson has consistently said his name would be cleared and this could allow him to rejoin the ALP and contest the election, and the ALP has kept delaying preselection for Dobell for month after month.
But Mr Dastyari said he met Mr Thomson last week to tell him the situation could not be allowed to drag out further.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[medhead]

Here's an article that demonstrates my position. Probably too confrontation for those of you stuck in blind support mode, but then you don't have to read it, the author says so.

Treasurer's faith in theory is touching

If you want partisan black and white answers, stop reading now. This issue is not like that. Both sides are trying to con us.

Oh and before you come out with a trite little "why don't I say anything about the ALP". There are enough of you already doing that, and the ALP is irrelevant. They're gone. What interests me is the future not the past. Just a shame you're all stuck fighting yesterday's war.

Oh medhead now you are taking your arguments too far.
Back to your quote from the ATO.
There are 9,374,184 nett taxpayers from your source the ATO.
There are 11663200 in employment according to my source the ABS.
Which means that 2,300,000 people are working but pay no nett tax.
Now I know you will try to say that this group represents rich people who use tax dodges to pay no tax.Yet the ATO found how many doing that-72 wasn't it.The fact is this number is 10% of the total population so cant just be rich people.

Now to your crazy suggestion that the top 10% of people by income pay 10% of the tax.look at the ATO figures again
[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD]$180,001 or more
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]251,397
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]2.7%
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]34,773
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]26.2%
[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Yep the top 2.7% pay 26.2% of the tax.

Now the other point you keep on harking back to is the Howard government being the highest taxing government.True if you pick your statistic.If you happen and look at the budget papers total Commonwealth government receipts have been higher in every year of the Rudd/Gillard governments except in 2009 than any year of the Howard government.However spending has been even higher.Funny you dont mention the fact that spending as a % of GDP is higher under Gillard than under Howard.

Also why are tax receipts lower under Rudd/Gillard as a % of GDP.Well for a start there were the tax cuts promised by Howard at the 2007 election and then done by Rudd.
I am afraid that you have fallen for the rewriting of economic history by Julia's economic adviser.But dont worry many financial journalists also treat it as fact.
Then there is the historically high terms of trade which the treasury says has caused a significant rise in nominal GDP hence masking the increase in real spending when using the spending as a percentage of GDP figure.So surely it has the same masking effect on tax to GDP %.
http://lowpollutionfuture.treasury.gov.au/documents/1352/PDF/03_spending_growth.pdf

Seriously drron, your procedure next week is on your mind isn't it?

The fact remains that "poorer people" DO pay tax and are not a drain on tax revenue. That is the point. These numbers demonstrate that. There is little point in you commenting if your not going to bother to follow the context.

If you followed the context you would also see that I did not say "the top 10% of people by income pay 10% of the tax".

Did you actually read what I wrote? This is a serious question.

Because it pretty obvious that you didn't read it at all. I can't imagine you motivation for completely verballing me by making up what you think I said. I'll quote it for you below. :-|

I'm not even going to bother with your use of mixed numbers to try to rewrite history. Try comparing apples with apples. % of GDP seems to be your preferred measure when it suits you. I have no idea why you wouldn't use a comparable number like a percentage but would instead use an absolute figure that is not comparable across time due to the lack of a consistent base. But if you wish to take gross government receipts then I guest we can say that the Protectionist Party was the lowest taxing government.


Here is that quote, I've even put in who whose people are so you don't have to follow the context of my comment.

I see that you've again failed to mention that those people [the top 0.1% of taxpayers pay 10% of all income tax] also earn about 10% of the income, IIRC.

 

[Danger]

View attachment 15648

I'll just pop this here.

Considering the Member for Lilley (Swan) was the speaker immediately following the Prime Minister (and spoke for several minutes) and not the Member for Jajajaga (Macklin), this is a clear example of propaganda and deception on the part of the person who created the profoundly incorrect image.

 

[Pushka]

Well, a number of people watching Parliament on TV commented to me today how quickly Gillard switched from distressed mode to joking mode so who has tried to con who?

 

[Danger]

Well, a number of people watching Parliament on TV commented to me today how quickly Gillard switched from distressed mode to joking mode so who has tried to con who?

The photo clearly shows the Member for Jajajaga speaking when Hansard and proceedings of the day reflect that it was not her who spoke in the minutes following the Prime Minister, rendering the accompanying caption and the implied meaning incorrect.

I would also proffer that it is not an easy thing to pretend to fight back tears and choke up to the point your speech becomes impaired. 'Fake crying' is one thing but, in my opinion, the Prime Minister was clearly moved at the time she made the speech.