Australian Federal Election
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="578357" data-time="1462780388">
<div>
<p>The ETS issue will go down in history as one of the more bizarre ones because at the time there were some in Labor that were actually hoping it wouldn't go anywhere as well because it would be something to hang Rudd over. Rudd was already on the nose internally at that point. Couldn't deliver an ETS even with a 'friendly' opposition leader, some would say in the background.<br><br>
Meanwhile it was something completely different for the Coalition.<br><br>
One day I'll write a book about all the corridor meetings I saw up on the Hill between certain pollies from different sides.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Let's say Mal wins this one ACTC - what are your thoughts on his way forward from where you sit?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Are barb and I on the right track, in that he doesn't want to rock the boat until he wins an election <em>as</em> PM?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>How do you rate Shorten's chances?</p> -
Ronin, a consumption tax is sound policy. What Australia's problem is when it comes to tax is federalism. It doesn't really matter what the Commonwealth do because State taxes are the cash cows that no State Govt wants to give up. And there are some very expensive and efficient ones. <br><br>
By the way that Henry tax review was a phenomenal document that R-H-R took one thing from in amongst over 130 recommendations. And they botched that one as well..... -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="578361" data-time="1462783252"><p>Let's say Mal wins this one ACTC - what are your thoughts on his way forward from where you sit?<br><br>
Are barb and I on the right track, in that he doesn't want to rock the boat until he wins an election <em>as</em> PM?<br><br>
How do you rate Shorten's chances?</p></blockquote>
<br>
There's a bit of disquiet in the backbench that MT didn't call the election when he was riding high. Since then he's very much been a holding pattern to try and keep the wets and drys at peace. I think he will do okay in the debates and he's quite personable. <br><br>
Shorten is an interesting character. I think some people think "meh" when they think about him, but on the other hand he is pretty good in off the cuff settings, like drinking a beer at the pub and shooting the breeze with locals. <br><br>
His default is the one line zinger, but he is a lot more disciplined in his messaging of late. He's also had a makeover, new suits that actually fit, neat haircut etc. -
<p>Once more on the Greens; If anyone is unsure about the economic vandalism these clowns would unleash on Australia, one only needs to visit Tasmania to see the effect closing down industries has had and the sad reality of the dribble that is their suggestion everyone can go work in hospitality. That's before you laugh a hernia at the remuneration differences between skilled industry and bringing someone a latte.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Tasmania has become a retirement village. Based on the <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3101.0Sep 2015?OpenDocument'>ABS data</a>, there are less people of each age from one to 29 now than there were during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>RoninWC</strong> - you won't see me defending Abbott and Hockey's era much. Particularly not in their inability to create and sell a narrative for their policies. That's even accounting for the imbeciles they had to work with in the Senate. The reality is the budget position they inherited had a structural deficit built into it thanks to the previous Government and the sooner you address it, the better. Unfortunately they managed in a number of ways to make it worse in a resounding success for politics over good management. Case in point the deal they did in the Senate to remove the Carbon Tax; they kept all the electoral bribes associated with it. So the expenditure remained.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The reality is that we've had massive investment in Health, Education and infrastructure. Not once in living memory has Federal spending in these areas decreased. There's also 2,676 people in the Department of Education and Training. Not bad for a department that doesn't run a single school. Health is even worse; 4,483 employees for next financial year and they don't run a single hospital. There's never enough money you can throw at the health system considering they're run by the States and most of the cash is wasted in outpatient and palliative care. Small wonder the waiting lists for surgery get longer. Doesn't help that the most successful union in Australia is the College of Surgeons who artificially constrain student numbers.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I agree that we've missed the boat when it comes to proper tax reform. It doesn't help that we have three year election cycles. Bipartisan support for far reaching reforms ended thirty years ago. Best we can hope for now is a party gets a majority in both houses of parliament.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We've had it far too good for far too long. The politics of envy has cemented itself with an apathetic, ignorant and increasingly selfish electorate. 24 hour news coverage now means politicians go for buzzwords and slogans. <em>"Health, Education, Kids, Green, Climate Change, etc."</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>"We've got a policy to fix Education and Healthcare"</em> Hang on a second, you were in power not three years ago when you had policies to fix this. What the fuck were you doing?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="578364" data-time="1462784438">
<div>
<p>Ronin, a consumption tax is sound policy. What Australia's problem is when it comes to tax is federalism. It doesn't really matter what the Commonwealth do because State taxes are the cash cows that no State Govt wants to give up. And there are some very expensive and efficient ones.<br><br>
By the way that Henry tax review was a phenomenal document that R-H-R took one thing from in amongst over 130 recommendations. And they botched that one as well.....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I absolutely agree ACT, a consumption tax is sound policy.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, the best implementation of this was the model proposed by Hewson which ultimately lost him the chance to be PM.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have absolutely no issue with a GST, VAT or whatever else you want to call it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the problem here was the way it was implemented, if you look at how it was implemented in Canada and New Zealand, at the same time as introducing a consumption tax, both jurisdictions took the additional and key steps to also undertake true tax reform across the entire tax base. The results for both countries are a simpler and fairer tax system.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yes I agree that Federalism does hinder this, but again, it it had been implemented properly with true tax reform which included the implementation of a consumption tax, we would not have nearly as many issues as we do now.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And I am a huge fan of the Henry Tax review, an amazing piece of work and when you read not only what by the recommendations but the rational behind the recommendations and the benefits of those recommendations, it astounds me as to why both sides of politics aren't crawling over each other to implement the great majority of the recommendations.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Personally, I would support and increased GST to 15 or even 20 percent but only IF it was accompanied by true tax reform as so well documented in the Henry review.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="RoninWC" data-cid="578372" data-time="1462786954">
<div>
<p>I think the problem here was the way it was implemented, if you look at how it was implemented in Canada and New Zealand, at the same time as introducing a consumption tax, both jurisdictions took the additional and key steps to also undertake true tax reform across the entire tax base. The results for both countries are a simpler and fairer tax system.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>New Zealand kind of benefits from not having States in the way to pissfart around with things. In Canada I'm not sure how strong their provincial legislatures are against the federal setup.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="578367" data-time="1462785258">
<div>
<p>He's also had a makeover, new suits that actually fit, neat haircut etc.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Noticeable I must say, and its a shame that those are the things I notice because it makes me sound like a shallow twat :)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="578307" data-time="1462773432">
<p>
As to the corporate tax rate - it is worth bearing in mind how high Australia's tax rate is in comparison to our major trading partners and OECD average. The EU is about 22%, OECD is about 25% and we're 30%. If you want to address profit shifting , of course it's not a panacea but it is a good place to start. It also assist as in incentive to investment. Particularly when looking at an economy experiencing deflation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Bear in mind that Australia (and NZ) have full imputation credits, so if the profits are paid out as dividends, resident taxpayers pay tax at their marginal rate regardless of the company tax paid.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is not the case in most countries, as they often tax company profits and dividends separately. (This is a simplification because most places have lower tax rates for companies and dividends, but the total rates are often higher).</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Godder" data-cid="578380" data-time="1462789301">
<div>
<p>Bear in mind that Australia (and NZ) have full imputation credits, so if the profits are paid out as dividends, resident taxpayers pay tax at their marginal rate regardless of the company tax paid.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is not the case in most countries, as they often tax company profits and dividends separately. (This is a simplification because most places have lower tax rates for companies and dividends, but the total rates are often higher).</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="http://p.fod4.com/p/media/5c597eb60b/dVJNUJlVS6yeyEYhtJIL_Confused Mark Wahlberg.gif" alt="dVJNUJlVS6yeyEYhtJIL_Confused%20Mark%20W"></p>
<p> </p>
<p>mkay....</p> -
<p>Fine - in many countries, the headline company tax rate does not mean that shareholders only pay that much tax on earnings, as the shareholders will be taxed on dividends as well. Consequently, comparing the Australian (and NZ) company tax rate to those countries is not always accurate.</p>
-
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="578460" data-time="1462835827">
<div>
<p>I bought shares recently and received a dividend (it was fuck all compared to my losses so far )</p>
<p> </p>
<p>So if I get a dividend I'm going to pay tax on it as if it were part of my income? Just like the losses are going to reduce my income?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>If it was fully franked the tax has already been paid for you so you get a imputation credit for the tax paid by the business. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>As an example the company you have shares in gives you a fully franked dividend of $700. The dividend statement says there is a franking credit of $300. This represents the tax the company has already paid. This means the dividend, before company tax was deducted, would have been $1,000 ($700 + $300). So at tax time you have to declare $1,000 (the $700 dividend plus the $300 franking credit) in your taxable income. If your marginal tax rate was 37%, you would normally pay $370 tax on the dividend. Because the company has already paid $300 in tax, you only pay the difference; $70. The lower your marginal rate, the better.</p> -
Watching an episode of Q&A from a week ago, talking about the system we have and whether it's broken.<br><br>
Of the 226 politicians in Canberra, if you tick them as having one or more out of the following:<br><br>- More than 5 years experience in a non-paying political job<br>
- Student politician<br>
- Experience as a political advisor<br><br>
It's a number around 200 - not a bad thing, just shows that the system tends toward people who have been in the system, understanding the networks and undercurrents.<br><br>
The guy who presented that info was part of a group thinking generally about democracy, and whether it is all it can be, while understanding politics isn't easy. Some interesting ideas like citizen committees.
-
The guy with that info and other ideas was Iain Walker from New Democracy<br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.newdemocracy.com.au">http://www.newdemocracy.com.au</a>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NTA" data-cid="578633" data-time="1462879084"><p>Watching an episode of Q&A from a week ago, talking about the system we have and whether it's broken.<br><br>
Of the 226 politicians in Canberra, if you tick them as having one or more out of the following:<br><br>- More than 5 years experience in a non-paying political job<br>
- Student politician<br>
- Experience as a political advisor<br><br>
It's a number around 200 - not a bad thing, just shows that the system tends toward people who have been in the system, understanding the networks and undercurrents.<br><br>
The guy who presented that info was part of a group thinking generally about democracy, and whether it is all it can be, while understanding politics isn't easy. Some interesting ideas like citizen committees.</p></blockquote>
<br>
High number of union officials and lawyers amongst our current politicians as well.
-
Not a fan of this party (LDP) who I suspect won their senate seat because people mistook them for the Liberal party. But this is pretty funny:<br><br>
'> </a>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href=' -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="578640" data-time="1462885108">
<div>
<p>High number of union officials and lawyers amongst our current politicians as well.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Wasn't it Wooldridge (Howard govt) who was made Health Minister, and was the first GP to occupy the position for decades? :think:</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="578684" data-time="1462926745">
'> </a></p>
<div>
<p>Not a fan of this party (LDP) who I suspect won their senate seat because people mistook them for the Liberal party. But this is pretty funny:<br><br><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> :lol:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Leyonhelm is an interesting one - a lot of people on the left write him off when they see his stance on removing gun control, along with opposition to climate change and associated measures e.g. carbon tax, direct action.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, they get confused when he supports gay marriage. The enter a state of silent introspection and try to figure out where the fuck he stands. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't actually have a problem with the guy, because unlike a lot of the party hardliners he seems inclined to vote with his conscience more often than not, and doesn't have a party line to toe.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess we're not used to seeing a "Liberal" who is also a libertarian?</p> -
He's a pretty hardcore libertarian. Hence his views on guns, gay marriage and immigration.<br><br>
Doubt he'll get back in. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="578721" data-time="1462935615">
<div>
<p>He's a pretty hardcore libertarian. Hence his views on guns, gay marriage and immigration.<br><br>
Doubt he'll get back in.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You are right RS, he is very liberal (small L) libertarian in the true meaning of the word, very pro personal determination, autonomy and responsibility. He favours market forces over government intervention and control, small government, etc.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And he is a very hard one to peg down on things as his views and positions swing wildly between conventional Left, middle and right.</p>