Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Skyring]

However, in this case it's not the scrapping of the tax that saves the money, it's the scrapping of the spending.

You'd have to be a mug to bring in not one but two tax plans that cost more than they raise. No wonder Treasury is jacking up.

 

[Skyring]

I have no problem with funding the Police and infrastructure but my idea of "people who need it " is not those that choose not to work, queue jumpers & general wasters.

People don't "need" money. Health, education, jobs, security and enough for food and shelter. Government should be about governing for all Australians, not so much about trumpeting how well they have their sums worked out. Give me a government made up of teachers and nurses and firemen ahead of one built out of lawyers and accountants.

 

[drsmithy]

There were and still are a number of ways for people to enjoy the benefits of the resources industries, they are called state royalties, companies paying corporate tax, working in the industry or one of the service providers for the industry, or buying shares in resource companies (by default having a superannuation balance).

Only one of those is able to deliver benefits to the entire population.

However, they're all irrelevant. The argument made was that the mining tax was "attacking big business and handing out money to those most likely to vote for them".

And don't bother trotting out the discredited stuff that Swan and Gillard were quoting in May 2010 where they ignored existing State Royalties...... the ATO stats themselves showed that the finance and real estate/insurance were the industries paying the least tax.

If you're arguing for super-profits taxes on the finance industry and more efficient taxation of property, then you won't find any disagreement from me, nor, I imagine, the Greens.

But somehow I doubt that's what you're arguing for.

 

[drsmithy]

I have no problem with funding the Police and infrastructure but my idea of "people who need it " is not those that choose not to work, queue jumpers & general wasters.

A demographic so small as to be irrelevant.

The Liberals do not redistribute tax from the poor they just don't take as much tax away from those that are already paying more than their fair share.

The tax paid by someone on $50k is, at some level, going to be put towards paying for the maternity leave of a woman on $150k, just like the tax paid by someone on $150k is, at some level, going to be put towards someone's pension.

The people not paying their fair share, are the ones benefiting from broken ideas like 50% CGT discounts and negative gearing, not the mug punters on forty grand a year who need rental assistance so they can afford somewhere to live.

The Liberals mantra may as well be: "If you don't need help, we'll give you as much as we can and make you feel entitled to it. If you do need help, we'll give you as little as possible and make you feel guilty about it."

 

[drsmithy]

Thats why we pay things like income tax and a range of other Fed/State/local - taxes/rates/fees.

Indeed. And ?

Taxing carbon and shifting the loot into marginal electorates/voters is pure socialist unproductive and wasteful wealth distribution. Not to mention it maintained the votes in parliament so the ALP could cash in for another three years.

You are conflating two separate issues.

The point of the carbon tax is to provide an incentive to move away from carbon-intensive processes.

 

[drsmithy]

One fact you left out.In Australia the minerals belong to the States and State taxes(Royalties) are paid.

I didn't "leave it out", it simply wasn't relevant to refuting the argument.

The MRRT I believe was part of the ALP's policy to weaken State Governments making them rely even more on the Commonwealth.

An Abbot voter complaining about the ALP trying to weaken State Governments is almost as ironic as another Liberals voter complaining about the ALP use "wealth redistribution" for "buying votes".

 

[drsmithy]

This focus group has nailed it.

It's good to know we can count on you to redirect the discussion back to popularity whenever it comes close to discussing something of substance.

 

[Pukka]

A demographic so small as to be irrelevant.


The tax paid by someone on $50k is, at some level, going to be put towards paying for the maternity leave of a woman on $150k, just like the tax paid by someone on $150k is, at some level, going to be put towards someone's pension.

The people not paying their fair share, are the ones benefiting from broken ideas like 50% CGT discounts and negative gearing, not the mug punters on forty grand a year who need rental assistance so they can afford somewhere to live.

The Liberals mantra may as well be: "If you don't need help, we'll give you as much as we can and make you feel entitled to it. If you do need help, we'll give you as little as possible and make you feel guilty about it."

It all goes into a big pile. The person on $50k is paying a relatively small amount into that pile, they then take back quite a lot of that in the form of various tax benefits family allowances etc

The person on $1M pays lots and gets back some benefits in the form of CGT reductions etc but overall is still a massive contributed to the overall pile.

The pregnant woman on $150k has certainly contributed enough to cover the costs of her maternity leave she's not been subsidized by the lower rate tax payers on the contrary the higher rate tax payers are clearly subsidizing everyone else.

 

[drsmithy]

You'd have to be a mug to bring in not one but two tax plans that cost more than they raise.

They didn't.

 

[drsmithy]

It all goes into a big pile. The person on $50k is paying a relatively small amount into that pile, they then take back quite a lot of that in the form of various tax benefits family allowances etc

The person on $1M pays lots and gets back some benefits in the form of CGT reductions etc but overall is still a massive contributed to the overall pile.

The pregnant woman on $150k has certainly contributed enough to cover the costs of her maternity leave she's not been subsidized by the lower rate tax payers on the contrary the higher rate tax payers are clearly subsidizing everyone else.

We call this system "progressive taxation". Are you arguing for a flat, or no, income tax ?

If you are giving people on high incomes welfare payments, anyone who has paid tax is in some way contributing to those welfare payments. That's the point. There is no reason why people in the top 10% of income earners in the country should be receiving welfare payments.

 

[11sjw]

The mining tax was to create benefits for the whole country from the once-off sale of our assets, rather than the handful of people employed in mining, a couple of billionaires, and a whole bunch of foreign investors.

Isn't that what Royalties do?

 

[drsmithy]

Isn't that what Royalties do?

Yes, with the caveat that such royalties are limited to the States.

 

[amaroo]

Indeed. And ?

And what?

are conflating two separate issues.

The point of the carbon tax is to provide an incentive to move away from carbon-intensive processes.

Do people still believe that tripe......it was nothing more than blatant vote buying. Poor sods can't even do that right.

 

[amaroo]

Isn't that what Royalties do?

The greedy greens want to be in charge of the till.

How to take a system and completely stuff it - let the ALP form an alliance with the greens. Thank goodness the electoral cycle is only 3 years.

 

[drron]

Yes, with the caveat that such royalties are limited to the States.

Who own the minerals.

 

[drsmithy]

And what?

And is there an actual point there ? Maybe some reason why the mining tax and carbon price were any different to those other "Fed/State/local - taxes/rates/fees" ?

Do people still believe that tripe......it was nothing more than blatant vote buying.

Right. An immensely unpopular "tax" was "blatant vote buying". Buying votes from who ?

The point of a carbon price is the same as any other tax on negative outcomes - to provide an incentive not to do those things, or find more [tax-] efficient ways to do them.

 

[drsmithy]

Who own the minerals.

Yes. And ?

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

On another note, when I voted yesterday I was a little disturbed that the first party on the NSW senate ticket is "Liberal Democrats" - a lunatic infested far right party, which the average punter may confuse for "Liberal National" i.e. the coalition.

I have reported my dissatisfaction on this to the AEC who are going to investigate post-election.

For those playing at home in NSW, the Liberal National party can be found centre-right on the senate ticket, how appropriate

 

[drsmithy]

The greedy greens want to be in charge of the till.

Yes. Just like the "greedy Liberals" or "greedy Labor", or "greedy whoever".

That's the point of politics. To be in charge of "the till" so you can enact your policies.

At least the Greens policies generally aim to benefit those other than the wealthy and big business, unlike teams Red and Blue.

How to take a system and completely stuff it - let the ALP form an alliance with the greens. Thank goodness the electoral cycle is only 3 years.

Indeed. It means the upcoming Coalition disaster will be over all the sooner. Shame about the damage they'll cause in the meantime. Fortunately for myself and, I imagine, most posters here who fall into a similarly high income bracket, it's largely irrelevant at a personal level who is in power since we fall into a demographic that all parties pander to.

 

[amaroo]

<snip>

It means the upcoming Coalition disaster will be over all the sooner.

I'd say TA is looking at 3 terms......the party might be good for 4 after the baton is past to another