The next Federal Election - 2013 or 2012?

[sails]

Here's a video of Bill Shorten who says he supports the PM's comments on Peter Slipper, but doesn't know what they are:

http://video.news.com.au/2227300814/Shorten-supports-PM-on-Slipper?area=videoindex1

 

[drsmith]

$18,000 earnings
Before: $300
After: $0

$37,000 earnings
Before: $4,330
After: $3,127

$50,000 earnings
Before: $7,850
After: $7,547

CARBON TAX ??

 

[Julia]

Over 90%, apparently.

Reference link to support this, please.

What cost of living increase is that? I'd say the only cost of living comes from taxes that people have to pay directly.

You are demonstrating your naivete and inexperience of the real world.
Businesses having to pay the carbon tax will pass this on to the consumer.
It will permeate absolutely everything.
Additionally there will be price gouging by many businesses. What consumer is going to challenge the claim that "oh, it's gone up so much because of the carbon tax."

The new threshold effects everyone - not just low income earners. Because of it, you and I will pay no tax for the first $18,000 we make.

The relevance is of far greater importance to people on low incomes. The Seniors Tax Offset is also removed.
And SCM, what do you mean with your reference to the tax 'you and I " pay?
Given you don't appear to have a job, how are you required to pay tax?
We don't tax uni students yet do we?

Incorrect. In fact your counter-claim that low income earners will not be taxed less is ludicrous, as if it were true the media would call the government out on their claim without delay.

How come this sudden faith in the competence of the media?
Indeed, a few of the more able media representatives have made this point, but certainly not enough.

If there were any honesty and transparency the government would announce the policy thus:

The tax free threshold will be increased from $6000 to $18.000, but consumers should be aware that at the same time various tax offsets will be abolished, viz in particular the Low Income Tax Offset and the Seniors Tax Offset

.
Conveniently, they avoid mentioning the last part. This is my point.

 

[Ves]

And SCM, what do you mean with your reference to the tax 'you and I " pay?
Given you don't appear to have a job, how are you required to pay tax?
We don't tax uni students yet do we?

Don't you have an SMSF fund in pension mode? Drawing a tax free pension?

 

[Julia]

Don't you have an SMSF fund in pension mode? Drawing a tax free pension?

If you read what I actually posted, I referred only to SCM's tax status, not mine.

If I'm commenting on any government policy it's not necessarily through the narrow aperture of whether it affects me.
I feel even more strongly about the inadequacy of the Newstart allowance, though there's not the remotest chance of it ever affecting me personally.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

SCM - you are a bit out of date with your chart ending in January this year - labor have lost more ground since then.

It is highly probable (and unfortunate) that we will see some rate cuts over Q2, so this theory will be tested and proved for certain around Q3.

I am willing to bet a lot that as interest rates go to 3%, ALP popularity will recover - barring any other nonsense.

CARBON TAX ??

How does that relate to the calculations I provided?

Reference link to support this, please.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/383764/test_customers_go_live_armidale_nbn/

Armidale received the highest take-up of all five mainland sites of over 90 per cent of those premises included in the build.

You are demonstrating your naivete and inexperience of the real world.

You are demonstrating a lack of argument, and personal attacks.

Businesses having to pay the carbon tax will pass this on to the consumer.

And that is nothing relative to for instance the cost of buying a house - which are 250% higher priced than they should be. Why is there no national uproar over this?

Additionally there will be price gouging by many businesses.

That's not how the free market works. Allow me to teach you; If we have five business and four decide to price gauge - they will lose market share to the fifth which does not, and will grow their market share significantly - which will ironically probably allow them to offer their products and services ever cheaper.

If all five price gauge (highly unlikely), then someone like me will come along and say, "haha suckers", and steal all of their market share. That is how the free market works damnit!

The relevance is of far greater importance to people on low incomes.

Relevance? You just said it's not true, and now you're changing your tune? What happened to "Why are you continuing to spread this misinformation?" ? How about getting your facts straight next time.

The Seniors Tax Offset is also removed.

Thank god, old people get more than enough of my tax dollars.

And SCM, what do you mean with your reference to the tax 'you and I " pay?
Given you don't appear to have a job, how are you required to pay tax?
We don't tax uni students yet do we?

I've been working and out of uni for over a year. I'm sure this isn't the first time I've said this; but nor is it relevant to the discussion. Are you so desperately out of arguments that you must again resort to taking personal issues with me?

How come this sudden faith in the competence of the media?
Indeed, a few of the more able media representatives have made this point, but certainly not enough.

If there were any honesty and transparency the government would announce the policy thus:
.
Conveniently, they avoid mentioning the last part. This is my point.

The low income tax offset is not being abolished, and you did not respond to my point. You said I was incorrect to say low incomers will pay less tax - in fact you said "More rubbish". I have now provided you with the amounts three people of low income at specific border points would pay, and in each case it is less under the new scheme. Are you not woman enough to admit you were wrong?

I feel even more strongly about the inadequacy of the Newstart allowance, though there's not the remotest chance of it ever affecting me personally.

It's only inadequacy is that it exists.

 

[drsmith]

How does that relate to the calculations I provided?

That's obvious.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

That's obvious.

Because of a carbon tax people pay less tax than otherwise?

 

[dutchie]

The LNP will need a lot of money for their advertising campaign for the election.

They may even need to start a new TV channel. This channel will need to be on 24 hours a day and will show all the Labor stuff ups.

The problem for Labor is that there are so many stuff ups that they will only have time to run the reel once over the campaign period.

 

[sails]

Because of a carbon tax people pay less tax than otherwise?

Haha - you are conveniently forgetting that the cost of living is going to rise significantly (imo) under a carbon tax.

It is far more likely that people will be more out of pocket than the compensation they receive.

IOW - that means carbon tax is costing them MORE than the tax they already pay. Or is that too hard to understand????

 

[StumpyPhantom]

Haha - you are conveniently forgetting that the cost of living is going to rise significantly (imo) under a carbon tax.

It is far more likely that people will be more out of pocket than the compensation they receive.

IOW - that means carbon tax is costing them MORE than the tax they already pay. Or is that too hard to understand????

What's behind the Gillard subterfuge about not naming the 500 companies she's going to impose the carbon tax on?

 

[sails]

What's behind the Gillard subterfuge about not naming the 500 companies she's going to impose the carbon tax on?

Yeah - much like not wanting to make anything public like FWA report on Thompson and NBN costings.

This government seems to go to great lengths to avoid any transparency.

Too many smoke and mirrors for my liking.

 

[Ves]

If you read what I actually posted, I referred only to SCM's tax status, not mine.

No offense intended, but you did say "the tax that you and I pay" or something similar. Was a tad misleading, but I will take your point as explained in your latest post.

 

[joea]

What's behind the Gillard subterfuge about not naming the 500 companies she's going to impose the carbon tax on?

Perhaps it maybe linked to some legislation relating to share price etc.(price sensitive)
I would assume some people would sell, if they knew the company they had invested with was going to be "clouted" by a carbon tax.

joea

 

[StumpyPhantom]

Perhaps it maybe linked to some legislation relating to share price etc.(price sensitive)
I would assume some people would sell, if they knew the company they had invested with was going to be "clouted" by a carbon tax.

joea

But those companies (presumably listed on the ASX) would themselves have to report this impost on their balance sheet, so it can't be their long term rationale?

I'm thinking the Gillard government is setting up something of a 'straw man' be demonising these companies as baddies, with her heroic government doing something to stop them and compensate the rest of us.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

IOW - that means carbon tax is costing them MORE than the tax they already pay. Or is that too hard to understand????

Any action on global warming is going to cost money. At the time of the last election, the majority wanted action. It's that simple.

 

[young-gun]

Hah. No intelligent voters would allow Australia to be in the position it is in now. The fact is, the majority of electorate severely misunderstand everything from economics, to immigration.

any intelligent voters would most likely not bother voting, as voting for anybody is a pointless exercise.

 

[StumpyPhantom]

Any action on global warming is going to cost money. At the time of the last election, the majority wanted action. It's that simple.

That's the problem with slogans, really. They're simple.

So it doesn't matter if that 'action on climate change' decimates the steel industry just in time for us to import it from the a third world country that makes the same product with three times the carbon footprint.

The overwhelming majority at the last election also wanted 'action on boatpeople'. Well we sure got lots of action. Just none of it did any good, when all the inaction that was needed was for Rudd/Gillard/Evans to do NOTHING when they took over.

But action on boatpeople took the form of 'dismantling the Pacific Solution'. How much human suffering and death has resulted from that one decision.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!!

 

[young-gun]

Yeah - Starcraftmazter is clearly playing to (and assuming) the lowest common denominator here.

But even with no brains, the "no brainer" question to ask surely has to be "What's in it for me?"

That carbon tax is going to permeate everything when it comes in. Gillard will just have to go when that happens...at the hands of her own caucus

nothings in it for us, everything is for the power tripping clowns in the top ranks, no one is looking out for the future, just to the next election so they can waste my tax dollars for another few years. the difference between one party and the other is maybe a few dollars a week in or out of your hand, thats about the extent of it.

everyone will still go to work(or maybe a few less people than current) and the economy will inevitably carry on doing what it wants to with or without them.

 

[wayneL]

Any action on global warming is going to cost money. At the time of the last election, the majority wanted action. It's that simple.

Supposing the majority did want "action" (...which I don't believe for a moment. Even the most faithful adherents of the AGW hypothesis aren't actually doing anything), such action, if costly should be effective at reducing co2 emissions should it not?

I think we have all agreed that the carbon tax does nothing at best and will most likely increase co2 emissions once production is shifted offshore.