# Taxation Review



## Julia (18 March 2006)

The Treasurer has another review of the tax system under way at present.

How do you think the surplus should be used?

Should we all receive another piddling little tax cut which is fairly meaningless on our individual bases?

Or should that total amount be used to much greater effect to  improve some of the problems  in health, aged care, education?

Not too many brownie points for guessing where my vote would go!

I'm also not keen to see more tax payer funds going into child care (though I expect that will in fact happen), or IVF.  Imo these areas should be the responsibility of the people concerned.

Would be really interested to know what you would do if Mr Costello handed you the job.

Julia


----------



## Prospector (18 March 2006)

I would allow partners to income split when they have a child, up to the age of 5.  That would reduce pressure on small businesses to pay paid maternity leave, ease the pressure on child care facilities (and probably the cost too as demand would lessen) and many new mums (or dads) would far prefer to stay at home with their children that return to work simply because of the money!


----------



## crackaton (18 March 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> The Treasurer has another review of the tax system under way at present.
> 
> How do you think the surplus should be used?
> 
> ...





Why are we still paying such high personal tax?

If you are single, and unable to rort the system through income splitting family trusts etc, then you are being shafted big time. Such is my case. I pay huge income tax GST etc and for what? To support single bloody mums illegal immigrants and the rest of dregs in our society. Quite frankly I'm farking jack of all the bloody good doing talk. For every dollar I earn, nearly half it goes to supporting undesirables in this country.


----------



## laurie (18 March 2006)

yep crackaton and when you retire you cannot get the pension because you like me work too hard and saved your money and did not pi$$ it up the wall pay full price for medication and those that abuse the system gets looked after by the Goverment! yep see it every day on tv ACA/TTD....  

cheers laurie


----------



## crackaton (18 March 2006)

laurie said:
			
		

> yep crackaton and when you retire you cannot get the pension because you like me work too hard and saved your money and did not pi$$ it up the wall pay full price for medication and those that abuse the system gets looked after by the Goverment! yep see it every day on tv ACA/TTD....
> 
> cheers laurie




You either need to be super rich or super poor to get anywhere in this country nowdays. The rich dictate what happens , the poor shaft the system and complain, the decent in between don't get a show.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 March 2006)

:angry: ...and then there`s the Coca Cola guy who gets his payout turned over and has to pay it back, while undesirables are getting hundreds of thousands because they have a hard time mentally... Go figure


----------



## Julia (19 March 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> :angry: ...and then there`s the Coca Cola guy who gets his payout turned over and has to pay it back, while undesirables are getting hundreds of thousands because they have a hard time mentally... Go figure




What happened with he Coca Cola guy?

Julia


----------



## son of baglimit (19 March 2006)

good 2 c ya thread staying on the subject julia......

theres been lots of suggestions put forward by lobby groups etc re:what to do with surpluses - one thing has to be kept in mind.

this govt has a political end to keep the mortgage belt happy, and therefore while some of those services you mentioned julia may get a bit of a look in, the majority of funds WILL go to families, child support type issues etc - that wont change.

the one i personally agreed with, with respect to above comments, was for the child care rebate to be scrapped entirely, then simply Family tax payments boosted to compensate, then those who wish to use child care can, those who use nannies can, those that choose to stay home full time with the kids can etc etc etc.

i fully understand the gripes those singles have on this whole matter (being single once myself), but this present govt will not change its stance on rewarding financially those that populate this country, whatever the family make-up, and therefore win their votes - it'd be political suicide not to.

here endith the lesson.


----------



## crackaton (19 March 2006)

son of baglimit said:
			
		

> good 2 c ya thread staying on the subject julia......
> 
> theres been lots of suggestions put forward by lobby groups etc re:what to do with surpluses - one thing has to be kept in mind.
> 
> ...





Populating with what though has to be the question. I can see lots of ghetto style communities emrging in future years with vasts groups of non-australian people emerging. Hello USA II.


----------



## Julia (19 March 2006)

crackaton said:
			
		

> Populating with what though has to be the question. I can see lots of ghetto style communities emrging in future years with vasts groups of non-australian people emerging. Hello USA II.




At the risk of another serve from Son of Baglimit for being off-topic (!)
I'd add to the above comment the tendency for the most breeding amongst even non-immigrants being done by those least likely to make a meaningful contribution to either the culture or economy of the country.

I don't see how multiple generations of people on the dole and then parenting payment are making a useful contribution.

Julia


----------



## crackaton (19 March 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> At the risk of another serve from Son of Baglimit for being off-topic (!)
> I'd add to the above comment the tendency for the most breeding amongst even non-immigrants being done by those least likely to make a meaningful contribution to either the culture or economy of the country.
> 
> I don't see how multiple generations of people on the dole and then parenting payment are making a useful contribution.
> ...





Absolutely agree. The things is it is so much easier nowdays. Just take a trip down to your local centrelink, and you will see truck loads of immigrants getting welfare and when quized about their financial status or other important question maintain they do not understand.


----------



## crackaton (19 March 2006)

Might I also add the number of dysfunctional families in this society has risen dramatacially in recent years. These are families where mum has kids to two or even three dads. So really the argument about "family" is a farce and probably has been for years.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 March 2006)

If it were me...

Scrapping the First Home Owners Grant (FHOG) would be the very first thing I would do. There is overwhelming evidence that is has not helped first home buyers but rather, last home sellers and the real estate industry. The FHOG has simply added fuel to the bubble IMO. 

Next thing I would do is invest heavily in infrastructure that we are going to need in the years ahead. Rail transport, water, electricity and automotive fuels come immediately to mind as areas where serious crises loom and the private sector is failing to respond before it's too late (just as has occurred elsewhere with a similar economic model eg UK and New Zealand with gas).

Rail, electricity and automotive fuels could possibly be fixed via regulation but realistically water requires direct government investment on a large scale.

Also we desperately need to move agriculture to a more sustainable basis and shift the country's economic base away from raw materials.

Tax cuts? Now is absolutely the wrong time IMO to be even thinking about tax cuts on personal income. From a broader economic management perspective the time for tax cuts is during a genuine downturn rather than a boom as at present. Cutting taxes now is comparable to pouring petrol on a raging fire and then having none left when you desperately need to get the wet wood burning at some point in the future. 

Better to invest our taxes in the future via infrastructure instead of throwing it away fuelling asset price bubbles and pointless consumption which are clearly not needed at the moment.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (19 March 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> What happened with he Coca Cola guy?
> 
> Julia




Julia, 
The man was responsible for vending machines and was shot or something at one of the machines. His life is totally destroyed and there is nothing for him. This happened in Sydney. 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548884268.html

The latest: 
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,18499343-5003402,00.html


----------



## Julia (19 March 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Julia,
> The man was responsible for vending machines and was shot or something at one of the machines. His life is totally destroyed and there is nothing for him. This happened in Sydney.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548884268.html
> ...




Thanks, Snake.  That's a horrible story, but at least the company (CCL) and QBE as the insurer appear to be taking a fairly reasonable attitude towards the poor bloke.

This brings up something which I simply cannot understand the Australian government not adopting which has been working very successfully in New Zealand for many years, viz. the Accident Compensation Commission.
Everyone pays a levy similar to our Medicare levy here.  This, subsidised by government I think, removes any costs of individuals or organisations involved in an accident.  Similarly no one sues anyone.
 Example:  Bob Smith has an accident at work.  His medical expenses and compensation, if deemed applicable, are paid by the ACC, such amounts being decided by a suitably qualified panel of  judges experienced in the appropriate medical/social/industrial fields.  No one gets sued.  No lawyers make a motza.
Jane Brown trips over an uneven part of footpath.  Her medical expenses are paid.  She receives compensation for the injury and/or time off work etc.
No council gets sued.  No lawyer gets rich.

This system has worked extremely well for I think over 20 years from memory and I cannot understand why Oz cannot adopt it, thus saving much personal , legal, and medical anguish.  It also ensures that common parameters for assessing injury/damages are applied to everyone.

Julia


----------



## son of baglimit (19 March 2006)

the reasons it aint adopted julia is easy - lobby groups. as long as those with vested interests make decisions there is SFA we can do about it.

smurf - there was a thread last year re:the wa govt idea of bringing water from up north, similar to gough's dream in the 70's....try and locate it.

julia, as far as off topic, its your thread so not fussed. my only comment on that whole subject, taken from the movie caddyshack - "well the world needs ditch diggers too" - i think seems appropriate....think about it.


----------



## RodC (20 March 2006)

son of baglimit said:
			
		

> smurf - there was a thread last year re:the wa govt idea of bringing water from up north, similar to gough's dream in the 70's....try and locate it.




Wasn't that just an off the cuff idea in the middle of an election campaign.

didn't take into account evaporation issues etc.

Rod.


----------



## RodC (20 March 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> If it were me...
> 
> Scrapping the First Home Owners Grant (FHOG) would be the very first thing I would do. There is overwhelming evidence that is has not helped first home buyers but rather, last home sellers and the real estate industry. The FHOG has simply added fuel to the bubble IMO.
> 
> ...




I agree smurf but unfortunately in this current era of political expediency its hard to see governments making long term decisions.

Rod.


----------



## Julia (20 March 2006)

son of baglimit said:
			
		

> the reasons it aint adopted julia is easy - lobby groups. as long as those with vested interests make decisions there is SFA we can do about it.
> 
> smurf - there was a thread last year re:the wa govt idea of bringing water from up north, similar to gough's dream in the 70's....try and locate it.
> 
> julia, as far as off topic, its your thread so not fussed. my only comment on that whole subject, taken from the movie caddyshack - "well the world needs ditch diggers too" - i think seems appropriate....think about it.




Hello Son of Baglimit

Yes, agree absolutely that the world needs ditch diggers too.  Part of the reason I resent the freeloaders so much is just on behalf of people like the said ditch diggers who are working damned hard for probably the minimum wage and paying tax while trying to support their own families in an honest and decent fashion, only to know that those taxes are going at least in part to maintain a comfortable life style for those who simply do not want to work.

The people I'm talking about wouldn't be prepared to dig ditches for one day.  They just have no intention of getting a job at all.  Many of those I talk to about such a possibility are quite open about it, to the point of describing how they deliberately perform badly on work for the dole exercises etc so they will be considered unemployable.

Or the situation which I may have mentioned before, where in a family or six or seven children, when the oldest turned 16, mum said she would have to get pregnant again so that the family's income didn't take a downturn.  And then there was the baby bonus.....

Julia


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 July 2011)

Julia said:


> The Treasurer has another review of the tax system under way at present.



*Could tax collection and spending be more localised?* So each shire would be responsible for the distribution of funds to the respective areas of need. The benefits :

a) funds would remain in the area that generated them
b) local government would be held directly responsible and thus limited in their absolute power to waste funds
c) increase in self worth and community pride
d) needs such as education, medical, infrastructure, essential services would be first priority


----------



## medicowallet (6 July 2011)

Julia said:


> The Treasurer has another review of the tax system under way at present.
> 
> How do you think the surplus should be used?
> 
> ...




I am with you all the way Julia (finally a Julia with a clue)

It also helps stop feeding the inflation troll with tax cuts and prepares us for the future.

Heck, it may also help save us from the crazy save the world tax we will soon be paying.

In fact, the older I get, the more I feel that it is an absolute disgrace that we have sold a lot of government owned assets, and we allow too high foreign ownership of STRATEGIC assets (farming, mining, realestate), and quite frankly,

I would actually pay MORE tax to rectify this problem, the problem is that our current govt is so clueless, I have a Kerry Packer attitude atm.




laurie said:


> pay full price for medication and those that abuse the system gets looked after by the Goverment! yep see it every day on tv ACA/TTD....
> cheers laurie




You pay full price on SOME medications. A lot are subsidised for all medicare card holders...... but in principle, I agree, somewhat.


----------



## sails (6 July 2011)

What a nice reminder that we actually had a surplus under Costello's watchful eye.  He might not have done everything perfectly, but what a huge contrast he is to Swan.


----------



## pixel (9 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> *Could tax collection and spending be more localised?* So each shire would be responsible for the distribution of funds to the respective areas of need. The benefits :
> 
> a) funds would remain in the area that generated them
> b) local government would be held directly responsible and thus limited in their absolute power to waste funds
> ...



 That would indeed be a magnificent solution. It might actually ensure funds are distributed as needed. Provided of course there wasn't an entire new layer of bureaucracy duplicated at the low end shire level. Just imagine all those meetings and policy justifications were duplicated thousandfold across Australia.
As an example, read the "Consultative Forums calendar of meetings" released by the Tax Office:
http://www.ato.gov.au/download.asp?file=/content/downloads/cor00221898.pdf

Wasn't it time we demanded our public servants to be hired on the basis of what they *know about the subject matter*, rather than paying lipopygian chairwarmers huge salaries and Super entitlements for asking lobby groups how THEY would WISH things to operate and money to be spent?


----------

