Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[11sjw]

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

Yes and that was due to the states being granted rights to raise royalties on all minerals mined from within. How is that not a benefit to the community?

 

[drsmithy]

Yes and that was due to the states being granted rights to raise royalties on all minerals mined from within. How is that not a benefit to the community?

I never said it wasn't.

 

[11sjw]

I never said it wasn't.

So why the double dipping?

 

[moa999]

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

Liberal Democrats have been around for a few cycles... agree very confusing...
See history - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Australia)

Equally confusing is the Democratic Labour Party, that got a senator elected in Vic in 2010
history - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Labour_Party_(Australia)

Also if you dig into the aec senate guide LD preferences run DLP, then LNB, then LAB ...
This blog shows NSW Senate Preference flow between some of the major and major-minor parties in NSW:
http://democracy-at-work.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/nsw-senate-group-preference-flow.html

More scary is this blog which shows that due to the crazy preference deals the No Carbon Tax party could get a Senator elected in SA with as few as 500 votes (assuming 1.25m eligible voters in SA)
http://originaltruthseeker.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/south-australian-senate-no-carbon-tax.html

 

[Pukka]

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.

By welfare I presume you mean legitimate tax deductions.

The concept that someone earning $50k is contributing to those legitimate tax deductions is nonsense. The higher rate taxpayer may in some way be funding their own tax deductions but that's about as far as it goes as after those legitimate tax deductions they are still contributing many extra thousands of dollars to the overall pile which goes to fund welfare for those on a lower or zero income.

And if we are talking about the maternity payments (of which I'm not a massive fan ) I think it's totally reasonable for a woman who earns bucket loads to expect the country to give her a contribution back for a few months as thanks for all the tax she has paid so that she doesn't suffer significant financial loss just for having a baby.

 

[drsmithy]

So why the double dipping?

Uh, a federal tax wouldn't be double dipping. Double dipping would be the same entity taxing twice. Like, say, GST on top of fuel excise.

 

[drsmithy]

By welfare I presume you mean legitimate tax deductions.

No, I mean things like family tax benefits, baby bonuses and paid parental leave.

Or, for the retired, part pensions and health card benefits to couples living in multi-million dollar houses and a million bucks in the bank.

Tax structures designed primarily to aid the already wealthy are a whole other kettle of fish.

The concept that someone earning $50k is contributing to those legitimate tax deductions is nonsense. The higher rate taxpayer may in some way be funding their own tax deductions but that's about as far as it goes as after those legitimate tax deductions they are still contributing many extra thousands of dollars to the overall pile which goes to fund welfare for those on a lower or zero income.

So we come back to the fact this is how progressive taxation works. Are you making an argument against progressive taxation ? Because it certainly sounds like you think people shouldn't receive any more from the Government than they pay it.

And if we are talking about the maternity payments (of which I'm not a massive fan ) I think it's totally reasonable for a woman who earns bucket loads to expect the country to give her a contribution back for a few months as thanks for all the tax she has paid so that she doesn't suffer significant financial loss just for having a baby.

Wow. The entitlement mentality writ large. Sadly not the one Hockey has any interest in attacking, though.

Let me get this straight. You think my taxes should pay an income to someone earning well over twice the typical wage, just so she doesn't "suffer significant financial loss" for choosing to have a baby ?

Undoubtedly you'd turn around and nearly in the same breath argue against payments to a single parent with no job because "if she couldn't afford to have a baby she shouldn't have it".

Like I said, all the help for people who don't need it, and as little as possible for those who do.

 

[Mal]

And again I see the main reason why I left Australia... "I am sorry sir, you spent money and time to ensure that you earn a good wage. However you are now the prime target for any new tax."

I'm earning in the UK slightly less than I was earning in Australia but I really feel better off overall.

 

[drron]

No, I mean things like family tax benefits, baby bonuses and paid parental leave.

Or, for the retired, part pensions and health card benefits to couples living in multi-million dollar houses and a million bucks in the bank.

Tax structures designed primarily to aid the already wealthy are a whole other kettle of fish.


.

I'm retired,dont live in a million dollar house,dont have a million bucks in the bank and dont qualify for a part pension or health card benefits even if I didn't work part time.Mrsdrron is in the same position and doesn't work part time.

 

[drsmithy]

I'm retired,dont live in a million dollar house,dont have a million bucks in the bank and dont qualify for a part pension or health card benefits even if I didn't work part time.Mrsdrron is in the same position and doesn't work part time.

The means test for a part pension for a couple allows a touch over a million in assets.

The family home is, "of course", not included.

Insanity.

 

[drsmithy]

And again I see the main reason why I left Australia... "I am sorry sir, you spent money and time to ensure that you earn a good wage. However you are now the prime target for any new tax."

I'm earning in the UK slightly less than I was earning in Australia but I really feel better off overall.

That's because your cost of living is lower. The cost of living in Australia is astronomically high.

You're paying more tax than you would be here. There are few countries that have lower taxes than Australia. Even fewer you'd actually want to live in.

 

[casanovawa]

Aren't the wheels falling of Kruddy's campaign... This is starting to get a bit embarrassing...

And drsmithy knows all the words/terms to use and the confected outrage to express about all us terrible richy types ripping off the down and outers (even when they are paying no net tax we are still ripping them off somehow), all the lefty stereotype cough about how the Libs are all for giving all the money to the millionaires and squat to the poor under privileged... Not Like Labor put mum's with school aged kids on the dole rate... And didn't maintain the CGT regime for all those terrible greedy investors...

He's seen through all of us... If only we could all think and act like the lower socio economic types who of course neverrrrr have a sense of entitlement that someone, anyone owes them big time... What a paradise we would all live in...

 

[11sjw]

Uh, a federal tax wouldn't be double dipping. Double dipping would be the same entity taxing twice. Like, say, GST on top of fuel excise.

It is double dipping based on the fact that there is already a special tax that "those greedy" mining companies pay. To then specifically target them with a new tax is double dipping on them.

Guess it's a perspective issue. For all intents and purposes a layer of Australian government has taxed them based on their activity after another layer of government has been mandated to collect a tax based on that activity since Federation.

 

[drron]

It is double dipping because the owners of the minerals have already obtained their tax cut though called royalties.The Commonwealth Government does not own Australia's minerals not even in trust for all the people.Therefore their bleating that the MRRT was to get a return on investment for the real owners of the mineral wealth is yet again an ALP lie.It was a desperate grab for money as they just cant help spending and despite the cherry picking of the Left they are the highest taxing and spending Government we have had.
Just have to go to the ABS website.Both Income and Expenditure under the ALP have increased at a rate well above inflation.Problem is that spending is increasing at twice the rate of income.

And don't give me that rubbish that tax as a % of GDP means Howard was the biggest taxing Government.Increasing Government spending increases GDP.If spending increases at a rate greater than income then the income as a % of GDP falls-it certainly doesn't mean that people are paying less taxes adjusted for inflation.I am certainly paying more tax despite earning less.

 

[Pukka]

No, I mean things like family tax benefits, baby bonuses and paid parental leave.

Or, for the retired, part pensions and health card benefits to couples living in multi-million dollar houses and a million bucks in the bank.

Tax structures designed primarily to aid the already wealthy are a whole other kettle of fish.


So we come back to the fact this is how progressive taxation works. Are you making an argument against progressive taxation ? Because it certainly sounds like you think people shouldn't receive any more from the Government than they pay it.


Wow. The entitlement mentality writ large. Sadly not the one Hockey has any interest in attacking, though.

Let me get this straight. You think my taxes should pay an income to someone earning well over twice the typical wage, just so she doesn't "suffer significant financial loss" for choosing to have a baby ?

Undoubtedly you'd turn around and nearly in the same breath argue against payments to a single parent with no job because "if she couldn't afford to have a baby she shouldn't have it".

Like I said, all the help for people who don't need it, and as little as possible for those who do.

Australia is full of givers and takers.

I'm a big giver overall so my conscience is clear.

I'm not against taxation but I am against government wastage and taxing people to the point they think why bother working harder.

 

[dfcatch]

It is double dipping because the owners of the minerals have already obtained their tax cut though called royalties.The Commonwealth Government does not own Australia's minerals not even in trust for all the people.Therefore their bleating that the MRRT was to get a return on investment for the real owners of the mineral wealth is yet again an ALP lie.It was a desperate grab for money as they just cant help spending and despite the cherry picking of the Left they are the highest taxing and spending Government we have had.
Just have to go to the ABS website.Both Income and Expenditure under the ALP have increased at a rate well above inflation.Problem is that spending is increasing at twice the rate of income.

And don't give me that rubbish that tax as a % of GDP means Howard was the biggest taxing Government.Increasing Government spending increases GDP.If spending increases at a rate greater than income then the income as a % of GDP falls-it certainly doesn't mean that people are paying less taxes adjusted for inflation.I am certainly paying more tax despite earning less.

Plus - Howard's Fed tax take was on the back of record company tax revenue.

Not because he increased company taxes, just simply that a booming economy generates more company tax revenue.

Howard continuously reduced the rate o personal income tax - quite significantly in fact.

Goes to show that cutting tax rates does not automatically mean lower tax revenue.

A lesson that our socialist friends still don't understand.

Hawke and Keating got it.

 

[Pukka]

That's because your cost of living is lower. The cost of living in Australia is astronomically high.

You're paying more tax than you would be here. There are few countries that have lower taxes than Australia. Even fewer you'd actually want to live in.

Well here I agree with you that's why I left the UK.

The exchange rate was 0.4 then though so Australia seemed cheap if you were bringing £'s in. There's been a huge role reversal now though it was a very lucky decision.

 

[dfcatch]

Australia is full of givers and takers.

I'm a big giver overall so my conscience is clear.

I'm not against taxation but I am against government wastage and taxing people to the point they think why bother working harder.

The key policy lever to get right is the "incentive" issue.

You need to maximize the incentive to work and earn, which also means you need to make sure that those who have worked and earned (and actually pay the bulk of tax) are not penalized for doing so. Otherwise you take away the incentive to work and earn / invest and bear risk.

Welfare as a hand up to those who need it is important. Welfare that takes away the incentive to work is counter-productive.

Everyone bleats about those on low incomes - but bear in mind that those on low incomes contribute far less (sometimes nothing at all) to tax revenue.

I'm guessing most here (on both political sides) agree with most of the above.

The trick is managing the policy levers to balance the many shades of grey that exist.

 

[drsmithy]

It is double dipping based on the fact that there is already a special tax that "those greedy" mining companies pay. To then specifically target them with a new tax is double dipping on them.

Pretty sure the MRRT was paid on the net after state royalties were taken out, not before.

The real problem with the MRRT is that it was the product of backroom dealings between a few giagantic foreign mining companies and a handful of traitorous politicians, rather than the original super-profits tax envisaged by Ken Henry.

However, the original argument made, to which I responded, was that the mining tax was meant to attack big business, which is a load of rubbish. Unless you think Ken Henry wants to "attack big business" ?

 

[drsmithy]

Aren't the wheels falling of Kruddy's campaign... This is starting to get a bit embarrassing...

And drsmithy knows all the words/terms to use and the confected outrage to express about all us terrible richy types ripping off the down and outers (even when they are paying no net tax we are still ripping them off somehow), all the lefty stereotype cough about how the Libs are all for giving all the money to the millionaires and squat to the poor under privileged... Not Like Labor put mum's with school aged kids on the dole rate... And didn't maintain the CGT regime for all those terrible greedy investors...

I'm not quite sure why you think I approve of Labor, because I most certainly don't.

In a "least worst" comparison, they barely squeak in front - but that's not saying much.