Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drsmithy]

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.

In actual fact, Howard's unsustainable tax cuts paid for (at the time) by once-off windfalls like asset sales and a temporary economic boom, are why we have a deficit today.

 

[dfcatch]

In actual fact, Howard's unsustainable tax cuts paid for (at the time) by once-off windfalls like asset sales and a temporary economic boom, are why we have a deficit today.

No we have a deficit today because of unsustainable "spending".

By all means be critical of spending under both colours of government.

But this notion of simply raising tax revenue (and that it's Howard's fault for cutting it) is false at best, and dangerous stupidity at worst.

You can't have the argument both ways - you can't argue Howard was the highest taxing, and then say it's his fault he reduced taxation revenue!

Listen to how stupid that sounds.

The bottom line is that despite how noble your individual spending cause is - you have to have limits or else pollies (of all persuasions) will not keep spending under control.

Everyone is in favor of general savings, and particular expenditure

 

[drsmithy]

I'm not against taxation but I am against government wastage [...]

I've never met anyone in favour of "government wastage".

The issue is usually what's defined as "waste".

[...] and taxing people to the point they think why bother working harder.

And at what point do you think that happens ?

 

[Pukka]

At Father's Day breakfast good to see they have some nice unbiased "journalism" to read lol

 

[eastwest101]

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" ?

The real problem with the MRRT is that indeed it was a compromise between Gillard/Swan and some big mining companies, this is because the original RSPT was announced while the consultation was still being done as a surprise to the mining industry and also a surprise to the states. Rudd and Swan have form and runs on the board with this, they consistently fail to consult with the organizations that need to be informed about changes to economic policy. It was merely part of a pattern of behavior that we saw all the way through the Rudd, Gillard and now the 2nd Rudd government.

A couple of points - the initial RSPT announced bears little resemblence to Ken Henry's original idea of a Resource Rent tax. When walked through the details of the proposed RSPT even Ken Henry agreed that Swans coughized original RSPT was completely unworkable. Under the original RSPT the Federal Government would have been paying money to the mining companies in 2011-2013 - not very clever.....

Swan and Gillard negotiated the MRRT and excluded Treasury officials from the room, so its their baby and theirs alone.

It wasn't so much an attack on big business - if you were going to do that you would have seen them attempt to roll out a super profits tax on the banks, it was an attempted tax grab from an industry that the ALP thought was going to be an 'easy target' because a super profits tax on banks would just end up being paid for by the banks customers (essentially everyone) and that would be too politically painful, as it happens mining companies can't pass on costs to their customers because they are and export focussed and compete against mines in other countries. Unfortunately for Swan, Rudd and Gillard - the ALP and most of Treasury themselves did not understand the industry that they were meddling in. They did not understand that orebodies may be immoveable, but they are worthless dirt stranded somewhere in the middle of nowhere in an uncertain location until the investment, exploration and construction is done. If it was that easy to make a profit in mining why do you think there weren't more companies doing it? Oh thats right - it requires large amounts of capital and taking a risk.....

 

[drsmithy]

No we have a deficit today because of unsustainable "spending".

There's two sides to the equation, no matter how much you try to insist otherwise.

But this notion of simply raising tax revenue (and that it's Howard's fault for cutting it) is false at best, and dangerous stupidity at worst.

I don't think anyone has presented the "notion of simply raising tax revenue".

Tax is a complicated beast. There any many, many ways our tax system could be improved to remove distortions, poor incentives, unfair loopholes and inefficiencies. Ken Henry wrote a whole report on it.

You can't have the argument both ways - you can't argue Howard was the highest taxing, and then say it's his fault he reduced taxation revenue!

Actually I can, because it's what happened.

Listen to how stupid that sounds.

Doesn't sound stupid at all. Let's use a simple example.

Taxation initially by the Howard Government is 8. Howard reduces it to 7, and puts in place a whole bunch of spending commitments that increase expenditure. Labor then reduce it further to 6, but don't remove the spending commitments because of the deafening cries from people on a hundred grand a year about how they can't possibly survive without Government handouts after a decade of entitlement entrenched by Howard.

8 > 7 > 6.

You need look no further than this thread, with a whole bunch of people I have little doubt on quite high incomes, raging about how they might lose some of their rorts like PHI rebates and vehicle salary packaging, or pay slightly more tax, to see what's wrong with this country. Note the support for expenditure like paid parental leave to people on six figure incomes, and then the cognitive dissonance displayed to turn around only a few posts later and complain about "government wastage".

Here's a nice infographic about the Federal Budget. Have a look at it and tell me which of those boxes you intend to make smaller by enough to matter.

 

[medhead]

No we have a deficit today because of unsustainable "spending".

By all means be critical of spending under both colours of government.

But this notion of simply raising tax revenue (and that it's Howard's fault for cutting it) is false at best, and dangerous stupidity at worst.

You can't have the argument both ways - you can't argue Howard was the highest taxing, and then say it's his fault he reduced taxation revenue!

Listen to how stupid that sounds.

The bottom line is that despite how noble your individual spending cause is - you have to have limits or else pollies (of all persuasions) will not keep spending under control.

Everyone is in favor of general savings, and particular expenditure

And an open ended PPL is sustainable. A new baby bonus from the coalition. More middle and upper income earner welfare instead of spending on infrastructure.

Regardless the fact remains that Howard's tax cuts have lead to a fall in revenue as economic conditions have changed. Then there is his ludicrous middle class welfare that is a major drain on the budget. Little things like phi rebates for all. When the ALP does the sensible thing and puts a cap on the PHI rebate, the screams are deafening. It's ironic that the ALP is attacked for restraining spending and also accused of being poor economic managers.

So far it is only the coalition that is promising out of control spending. It's almost as if they believe the GFC didn't happen. As if they believe the ALP caused the GFC. Anyone who believes the coalition spin is deluding themselves.

I heard one coalition supporting dolt this week say "you can't get government hand outs if you don't pay tax". Typical overblown sense of entitlement. How about not paying the tax in the first place if it is only going to be handed back!!! The coalition created this stupid situation. They are the worst economic managers ever.

 

[medhead]

And at what point do you think that happens ?

Don't bother asking Pukka that question. They've already demonstrated they don't understand taxation. Glass half full person, they think paying a $45 tax is a disincentive to earning an extra $100. Don't worry about the extra $55 that would end up in their pocket. They also think that the top tax bracket applies to all of your income mot just the income above the relevant threshold.

In fact if we followed their reasoning we should stop working once we get into the 15% tax bracket.

 

[drron]

For the period of the Labor Government revenue has increased at a rate greater than inflation.Howard's tax cuts would still be affordable if we had had a Government that could keep spending at the same rate revenue rose not double it as this lot has.
Medhead I have never attacked this Government for restraining spending because they never have.

 

[Sprucegoose]

And an open ended PPL is sustainable. A new baby bonus from the coalition. More middle and upper income earner welfare instead of spending on infrastructure.

Regardless the fact remains that Howard's tax cuts have lead to a fall in revenue as economic conditions have changed. Then there is his ludicrous middle class welfare that is a major drain on the budget. Little things like phi rebates for all. When the ALP does the sensible thing and puts a cap on the PHI rebate, the screams are deafening. It's ironic that the ALP is attacked for restraining spending and also accused of being poor economic managers.

So far it is only the coalition that is promising out of control spending. It's almost as if they believe the GFC didn't happen. As if they believe the ALP caused the GFC. Anyone who believes the coalition spin is deluding themselves.

I heard one coalition supporting dolt this week say "you can't get government hand outs if you don't pay tax". Typical overblown sense of entitlement. How about not paying the tax in the first place if it is only going to be handed back!!! The coalition created this stupid situation. They are the worst economic managers ever.

I will only suggest the people will decide next Saturday.

I used to enjoy my middle class welfare.

Personally I would cut family tax benefit A&B. too many bludgers around on a free jaunt these days and bring in a flat rate of tax.

the rich have been plummelled in this country...

 

[11sjw]

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

It is a second tax on an industry that already has a "special industry targetted" tax via the royalties that the states collect.

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" ?

Ken Henry didn't want to, from what I've read (haven't read the entire document) many of his tax reforms make sense. However, Rudd, Swan and Gillard cherry picked the RSPT out of the entire review, tried selling it using the old ALP Class warefare "Those greedy mining companies" and got their collective butts handed to them.

Why wasn't there a super profits tax on banks? They're killing the pig and have their very existence legislated via the "four pillars" policy. Why cherry pick one item from the entire reform and attempt to implement it? Either do it all or there's more taxpayer money wasted.

 

[dfcatch]

And an open ended PPL is sustainable. A new baby bonus from the coalition. More middle and upper income earner welfare instead of spending on infrastructure.

Regardless the fact remains that Howard's tax cuts have lead to a fall in revenue as economic conditions have changed. Then there is his ludicrous middle class welfare that is a major drain on the budget. Little things like phi rebates for all. When the ALP does the sensible thing and puts a cap on the PHI rebate, the screams are deafening. It's ironic that the ALP is attacked for restraining spending and also accused of being poor economic managers.

So far it is only the coalition that is promising out of control spending. It's almost as if they believe the GFC didn't happen. As if they believe the ALP caused the GFC. Anyone who believes the coalition spin is deluding themselves.

I heard one coalition supporting dolt this week say "you can't get government hand outs if you don't pay tax". Typical overblown sense of entitlement. How about not paying the tax in the first place if it is only going to be handed back!!! The coalition created this stupid situation. They are the worst economic managers ever.

Medhead - welcome back

Reality is you and I are a lot closer on these thoughts than we would care to admit.

I'll pull you up one one thing though.....

You're argument against Howard's tax cuts is only valid if Rudd/Gillard held spending constant, which they haven't. (Or if revenue stayed constant - which it didn't).

But by all means argue against Coalition spending - any spending by anyone is up for argument in my opinion.

 

[drsmithy]

Personally I would cut family tax benefit A&B. too many bludgers around on a free jaunt these days and bring in a flat rate of tax.

Sure. So long as it's a flat rate of tax on assets.

 

[eastwest101]

Why wasn't there a super profits tax on banks? They're killing the pig and have their very existence legislated via the "four pillars" policy. Why cherry pick one item from the entire reform and attempt to implement it? Either do it all or there's more taxpayer money wasted.

Correct - because banks pass on increased taxation costs onto voters, and we don't want voters to be responsible for budget surpluses or deficits, we want 'someone else' to fund hand outs to voters......

 

[medhead]

Medhead I have never attacked this Government for restraining spending because they never have.

Right they never means tested the private health insurance rebate. Ok then, you tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Now talk to me about Abbott's ppl

 

[drsmithy]

It is a second tax on an industry that already has a "special industry targetted" tax via the royalties that the states collect.

Yes, but by the Federal Government rather than State.

In many places in the world (eg: Switzerland, America) you pay income tax at both the State and Federal level. Would you call that double dipping ?

Ken Henry didn't want to, from what I've read (haven't read the entire document) many of his tax reforms make sense.

One of Henry's recommendations was a Resources Rent Tax.

However, Rudd, Swan and Gillard cherry picked the RSPT out of the entire review, tried selling it using the old ALP Class warefare "Those greedy mining companies" and got their collective butts handed to them.

Yeah, thanks to an unprecedented and comprehensive media campaign by mining companies.

Calling companies greedy, when they're being greedy, isn't class warfare.

Why wasn't there a super profits tax on banks? They're killing the pig and have their very existence legislated via the "four pillars" policy. Why cherry pick one item from the entire reform and attempt to implement it? Either do it all or there's more taxpayer money wasted.

No arguments from me there.

 

[Limewood]

I know who I'd rather have in charge of spending and balancing funds it isn't Rudderless and his mob.

 

[Pukka]

I've never met anyone in favour of "government wastage".

The issue is usually what's defined as "waste".


And at what point do you think that happens ?

Well my personal rule is when you are giving the government more than you are getting. I'm not saying its like that here but the UK & France are good examples of punitive taxation that doesn't work

 

[moa999]

No different to the pro Labor stance in 2007

 

[Skyring]

At Father's Day breakfast good to see they have some nice unbiased "journalism" to read lol
View attachment 18561

At a certain point, one simply cannot report that both leaders and their parties are exactly equivalent. The ABC, scrupulous on bias, is openly labelling the Rudd campaign a disaster, and nobody is pretending the past three years have been good ones.

Having said that, I don't know that Australia needs Tony, except insofar as he's the best choice on offer.