Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[777]

Regurgitating ALP mantra doesn't do anyone any good.....big polluters are the only one paying.....lol.

Believing this statement only proves that the spin doctors can confuse people!

If only it was true.......everything would be free!

Two can play at that game:

So how do we all pay less if the incoming government takes money from consolidated revenue and gives it to the largest polluters?

Is this magic-fairy pixie money that Tony Abbott will use is it?

We wont have to pay! Everything will be free! There will be no tax!

You should read the article Dr Ron linked to earlier in this thread. It does as good a job as i can do of pointing out why schemes like Abbott's direct action are inefficient, expensive and ineffective compared to a straight up tax. If that doesn't work, read Tony Abbott's Battlelines where he said the same thing.

 

[dfcatch]

Two can play at that game:

So how do we all pay less if the incoming government takes money from consolidated revenue and gives it to the largest polluters?

Is this magic-fairy pixie money that Tony Abbott will use is it?

We wont have to pay! Everything will be free! There will be no tax!

You should read the article Dr Ron linked to earlier in this thread. It does as good a job as i can do of pointing out why schemes like Abbott's direct action are inefficient, expensive and ineffective compared to a straight up tax. If that doesn't work, read Tony Abbott's Battlelines where he said the same thing.

Yes well hopefully he won't actually do that.....

I'm sure it can get bogged down in committees and things like that.

In my view it's not carbon tax vs direct action.

It's carbon tax vs no carbon tax.

 

[777]

In my view it's not carbon tax vs direct action.

It's carbon tax vs no carbon tax.

So you assume Tony Abbott is lying when he says his direct action plan is more effective than a carbon tax at reducing carbon emissions and when in government they will introduce it?

 

[amaroo]

Two can play at that game:

So how do we all pay less if the incoming government takes money from consolidated revenue and gives it to the largest polluters?

Is this magic-fairy pixie money that Tony Abbott will use is it?

We wont have to pay! Everything will be free! There will be no tax!

You should read the article Dr Ron linked to earlier in this thread. It does as good a job as i can do of pointing out why schemes like Abbott's direct action are inefficient, expensive and ineffective compared to a straight up tax. If that doesn't work, read Tony Abbott's Battlelines where he said the same thing.

Well, I wasn't the one that said the line about the big polluters. As we all know - it's clearly a false statement written by ALP spin doctors & spewed out by ALP politicians with the aim of confusing, tricking & manipulating the electorate.

TBH, I wasn't a big fan of Abbott's polluters policy at the last election.......I was actually very keen on the one that the ALP promised they would deliver if they formed government.

Pity they didn't deliver it.

 

[dfcatch]

So you assume Tony Abbott is lying when he says his direct action plan is more effective than a carbon tax at reducing carbon emissions and when in government they will introduce it?

I just hope it doesn't end up being implemented.

Ohh - and I'd dump the RET too.

 

[Pukka]

Wow, now he's a coward. Fair go, maybe you should reconsider and edit that post.
I don't think anyone would dispute that Tony Windsor has delivered more STUFF for his electorate than any other sitting member EVER.

Your line on betrayal is interesting. Let me show you the history of that electorate. The electorate could have voted Labor; they could have voted National. They voted overwhelmingly for him. He did the best thing for his electorate and nobody could argue that he delivered in spades.

Well if he did the best thing for his electorate & nobody could argue that he delivered in spades & they are the only ones voting how come he has absolutely no chance of retaining his seat according to latest polls.

And I mean no chance Craig Thompson is shorter odds to retain his seat.

 

[Hvr]

<snip>
I don't think anyone would dispute that Tony Windsor has delivered more STUFF for his electorate than any other sitting member EVER.

Your line on betrayal is interesting. Let me show you the history of that electorate. The electorate could have voted Labor; they could have voted National. They voted overwhelmingly for him. He did the best thing for his electorate and nobody could argue that he delivered in spades.

If you're referring to any member including senators then I think a certain Brian Harradine may arguably have delivered more for his constituents, i.e. the people of Tasmania than any other member of Parliament.

 

[Moody]

If you're referring to any member including senators then I think a certain Brian Harradine may arguably have delivered more for his constituents, i.e. the people of Tasmania than any other member of Parliament.

Ah yes - he had both sides over a barrel of pork for many a year, and if Tony Windsor's electorate had any brains they would hope for another hung parliament.

Actually I hope for the same - the last couple of years have been very entertaining and surprisingly productive.

 

[dfcatch]

Ah yes - he had both sides over a barrel of pork for many a year, and if Tony Windsor's electorate had any brains they would hope for another hung parliament.

Actually I hope for the same - the last couple of years have been very entertaining and surprisingly productive.

I would hardly call it productive.

"Passing legislation" does not equate with productivity.

Surprisingly - you will find that at all levels of government - even the most bitterly divided local governments have incredibly high statistics when it comes to pieces of legislation passed.

If legislation couldn't be passed - then there wouldn't be a government.

Realistically - any government should have a 100% success rate in the House, and a Labor government should have that in the Senate too.

 

[medhead]

First it was move north. Now turn the rivers west. What next? Seems Abbott is up to 1950s Menzies Liberal party. Give me a break!

 

[Pushka]

According to The Australian, Gillard has their eyes on SMSF. On the basis they have too many tax breaks. What bunkum. They have no more tax breaks than any Super Fund, they are just able to react faster. of course this is to shore up their deficit. Keep your hands of the SMSF! :evil: that money is in there from years of hard work and salary sacrifice and is not yours to touch. We already pay the same taxes as other Super Funds.

 

[medhead]

According to The Australian, Gillard has their eyes on SMSF. On the basis they have too many tax breaks. What bunkum. They have no more tax breaks than any Super Fund, they are just able to react faster. of course this is to shore up their deficit. Keep your hands of the SMSF! :evil: that money is in there from years of hard work and salary sacrifice and is not yours to touch. We already pay the same taxes as other Super Funds.

I doubt the changes will be retrospective. The only mutterings in the press that I've seen have been about changing the taxes on all super accounts for "high" income earners. This could only be applied "moving forward", IMO.

The press have also muttered about one of the perks of my current job. When it happens I'll be concerned.

 

[Hvr]

And yet not a word about Abbott removing super tax benefits for low income earners? Wonder why?

 

[eastwest101]

I doubt the changes will be retrospective. The only mutterings in the press that I've seen have been about changing the taxes on all super accounts for "high" income earners. This could only be applied "moving forward", IMO.

The press have also muttered about one of the perks of my current job. When it happens I'll be concerned.

Are we talking the tax concessions in the Not for Profit sectors like charities/healthcare or such? Not being nosy - just curious if that is what you were implying.

 

[Hvr]

Are we talking the tax concessions in the Not for Profit sectors like charities/healthcare or such? Not being nosy - just curious if that is what you were implying.

Yes that has been mentioned.

 

[medhead]

Are we talking the tax concessions in the Not for Profit sectors like charities/healthcare or such? Not being nosy - just curious if that is what you were implying.

Yep news ltd had an opinion piece digging at those.

 

[SQ421]

Meanwhile, from the party that claims it has been "ready to Govern" since the last election (and has been begging for one since 21st August 2010)

''hopefully by the election, we will have all that together for a definite plan to put to the Australian people''.

Read more: Abbott's Big Dams Idea​

 

[SQ421]

We already pay the same taxes as other Super Funds.

So? Any reason why you shouldn't? Not sure what you mean by "already paying the same taxes". Its a Super Fund, it is taxed as such. Whether it is managed by Joe Bloggs or a compuhypermegaglobal fund manager is irrelevant.

FWIW, a well managed SMSF can delay paying the contributions tax till after the financial year (unlike retail funds who deduct tax from accounts every month/quarter) and a fair chunk of it can be negated by franking credits.

 

[Limewood]

I wish they would stop moving the super goal posts, all persuasions do it from time to time, I mean how can I tell if I will have enough to live on my yacht on the Riviera .

 

[Pushka]

I doubt the changes will be retrospective. The only mutterings in the press that I've seen have been about changing the taxes on all super accounts for "high" income earners. This could only be applied "moving forward", IMO.

The press have also muttered about one of the perks of my current job. When it happens I'll be concerned.

They are saying it will apply to all SMSF with funds over 1 million dollars. The taxes wont be applied retrospectively, but this will impact on any future investment strategies