Ken Henry Tax Reform

[Sean K]

I'm sorry but I really don't want to get into a slanging match with you, having been the target of your gutter language on another thread. So you may as well stop trying to stalk me.

Fine to call other people naive, but when you are labelled such it's 'gutter language'. geesh

 

[trainspotter]

What! You name one politicial leader who has fully adopted any report handed to them, let alone by a public servant. That would be a very short list if a list at all. I don't know if you have ever been in a position to delegate someone to research and report on something, but I certainly don't adopt as a matter of course everything that someone suggests in a report.

In this case Henry makes his recomendations from his economist perspective in the public service. That's not necessairly the same as what the voter wants... hence the political effect.

So what are you cranky about... do you wish Rudd had adopted all those other nasties too?

Since when has any gov had to have a report recomendation before they can do something! Besides, this one is surely not a surprise to you since it's been mentioned often enough over the years that super contrib's will have to increase to help pay for the retirement of an ageing population.

I expect you would. Quick to launch mouth into gear before engaging brain! :

I expect Henry is realistically not expecting his recomendations to be fully adopted, (that would be a hell of a precedent) is a bit more articulate and diplomatic than you and not least of all, values his job.

I don't read Huntly. He's just another Journo, analyst trying to flog a product.

Hearsay! You dissapoint me noco... such an ardent political critic like you would surely have remembered t'was part of the gov speech last Sunday. Trainspotter also referred to it a few posts earlier.

Please refrain from using my posts as your soap box. Use your own research and post the approppriate link to correspond with your allegedly factual posts in future please.

"I expect you would. Quick to launch mouth into gear before engaging brain! :" ... Have you learned nothing Whiskers? You cannot sell yourself up by putting others down. Try and stick to the subject matter at hand and leave the cheap shots in the playground thanks.

 

[drsmith]

I personally would rather a tax cut than pay more super to the "faultless" financial planning industry especially after their flawless 10/10 performances during the financial crisis. ROFL It will all be chewed up by inflation and cost of living increases anyway. That's why the Henry Tax Review effectively does nothing for Aussies on average wages. Its a furphy, plain and simple.

Superannuation requires an incentive over conventional savings/investment to encourage long term planning for retirement.

A simple model where there are no deductions for contributions and there is no tax on the earnings would achieve this. There may need to be limits on how much new capital can be put into super each year, possibly increasing with age.

With no deductions on contributions the income tax base would be strengthened. This I suspect would result in a net tax gain overall which could be used to reduce marginal rates.

With regard to performance, the range of investments should be broadened to generally include all those available for conventional saving/investment such as interest earning bank accounts, term deposits etc. The only difference would be that the principal and earnings could not be withdrawn until preservation age.

 

[noco]

I'm sorry but I really don't want to get into a slanging match with you, having been the target of your gutter language on another thread. So you may as well stop trying to stalk me.

Calliope, don't waste your time on MONOMANIACS for they will only read what they they want to read and nothing will change their minds. If one tries to reason with them you will only cop an ear full of spin, personal attacks and gutter sniping in the lowest form. Anything to discredit those who try to stand in their way.

 

[trainspotter]

To eloborate a bit, maybe the states have helped bring this 'windfall' or super' tax on, what with WA holding out on the health agreement citing their wealth of mineral revenue and unequal royalty systems across the states and corrupt or at least political donations arguably affecting competition for projects.

There is also a little matter of mining royalties that are lost to the state, ie paid to other parties due to where that land was alienated in fee simple by the Crown in the early 1900's.

I believe Qld for example looses about 5% of it's royalties to third parties. Curious to know what the number is in other states. In Qld that's abt $b11 last decade in royalties and $500m royalties lost to other parties.

A cynical or maybe pragmatic view might be an attempt by the fed gov to take the mineral industry by the proverbial b@!!s to squeeze some sort of standardised royalty system, even a national takeover there too.

Got any facts on this corruption you are alleging Whiskers? Not big on beliefs and idealogy mixed with pragmatic views. More into facts and figures. Care to share the basis of your opinions with some links to the numbers you are throwing around?

 

[nunthewiser]

:jerry


Who was/is Ken Henry?

 

[GumbyLearner]

With regard to performance, the range of investments should be broadened to generally include all those available for conventional saving/investment such as interest earning bank accounts, term deposits etc. The only difference would be that the principal and earnings could not be withdrawn until preservation age.

Yes I agree 100%.

Assuming that the market doesn't take a massive hit once your contribution is ready to be paid out on retirement, you trust your fund manager, the fund don't charge too many fees etc.. are also factors that everyone should consider before signing up to anything.

As a young man I do my own super planning and have recently doubled some family members contributions who retired and bailed on a system that was ready to gorge on their retirement savings. No fees required of course, just honest and calculated advice.

 

[Atlas79]

I hope every clown who voted for these people loses a bundle of money.

You visit a capitalist forum then vote for socialists, this is what you get.

 

[drsmith]

Assuming that the market doesn't take a massive hit once your contribution is ready to be paid out on retirement, you trust your fund manager, the fund don't charge too many fees etc.. are also factors that everyone should consider before signing up to anything.

That's where broad access to conventional saving products would come in handy. Risk could be better managed at the individual level.

 

[Atlas79]

Apologies if this has been posted, but if you want some gallows humour listen to Krudd defining a "super profit":

http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/whats-that-superprofit-thing-again-20100503-u32m.html?autostart=1

 

[trainspotter]

:jerry


Who was/is Ken Henry?

Kenneth "Ken" Charles Henry (January 7, 1929 – March 1, 2009) was a speed skater from the United States.

Henry won the gold medal in the 500 m at the 1952 Winter Olympics held in Oslo, Norway in front of 28,000 people at Bislett Stadium in a time of 43.2 seconds. Two weeks later, he won the same title in the annual World Meet at Hamar, Norway. His 1952 Olympic Gold Medal time was one tenth of one second short of the record time set in 1948 by Finn Helgesen of Norway.

Terrible bloke ...... caused all sorts of trouble with a tax reform booklet he has released recently as well. utthedoor:

 

[noirua]

Apologies if this has been posted, but if you want some gallows humour listen to Krudd defining a "super profit":

http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/whats-that-superprofit-thing-again-20100503-u32m.html?autostart=1

I seemed to hear his brain ticking, something like, "Wayne Swann, where are you, help me out mate."

 

[GumbyLearner]

That's where broad access to conventional saving products would come in handy. Risk could be better managed at the individual level.

Spot on. Micro-management can have its pitfalls for the unread but it can save you a lot of hard-earned if you're dedicated/humble enough to understand and diversify asset classes. Control is the key, you can either relinquish power over the vesting of what you earn to 3rd party strangers or take the bull by the horns and D.I.Y. I have firmly come to the resolve of choosing the latter option.Then there is no-one to blame/praise but yourself for the outcome.

 

[nunthewiser]

Kenneth "Ken" Charles Henry (January 7, 1929 – March 1, 2009) was a speed skater from the United States.

Henry won the gold medal in the 500 m at the 1952 Winter Olympics held in Oslo, Norway in front of 28,000 people at Bislett Stadium in a time of 43.2 seconds. Two weeks later, he won the same title in the annual World Meet at Hamar, Norway. His 1952 Olympic Gold Medal time was one tenth of one second short of the record time set in 1948 by Finn Helgesen of Norway.

Terrible bloke ...... caused all sorts of trouble with a tax reform booklet he has released recently as well. utthedoor:

Thankyou Trainspotter.

Why are we following a dead Yankee speed skaters booklet ?

 

[Atlas79]

I seemed to here his brain ticking, something like, "Wayne Swann, where are you, help me out mate."

Wayne must be offshore in the country he's really treasurer of, which apparently is a land known as STRAYA.

 

[Whiskers]

That's bull. Who will pay for the enormously unnecessary bureaucracy for years to come? Those who earn between $30,000-80,000 a year. The majority of Australians that's who? .

I think you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is there is a threshold where the cost of processing and collection of tax is equal to the tax obtained, which makes the exercise questionable and when the cost exceeds the amount collected, the tax obtained it's counter productive.

I've seen the conundrum expressed ocassionally over the years to rationalise the restructuring of goods and services and taxes. If I recall correctly it was part of the change to the GST, to simplify the tax system ie to make it more efficient and effective in terms of the processing and collection cost of the tax obtained.

A good part of the reason why the system moved to more self assessement was to save heaps of tax office staff doing the maths and processing so the gov reduced their collection expenses, thereby making more net profit (tax) out of the exercise.

But yes it may mean that lower income earners may pay no tax and the average earner pay relatively more... but if it's implimented correctly the overall cost of tax foregone will be less than the savings made in the bureaucracy.

The Government has run a mile from changes that would make the tax system both fairer and more efficient - ensuring all Australians are taxed on the basis of what they earn and the tax rorts and tax havens for the well-to-do are shut down.

There's been talk of closing these tax loop holes and tax havens, but yes, I'm hopeful there will be something on this in the near future.

 

[trainspotter]

Thankyou Trainspotter.

Why are we following a dead Yankee speed skaters booklet ?

Apparently it has something to do with putting economic policy before fiscal responsibility and that is like putting the cart before the horse.

I think I would prefer to read a dead Yankee speed skaters booklet then plough through the Ken Henry Tax Reform or more importantly the bast@rdised version trotted out by Wayne Swann and Bung Tao Kluddy.

 

[noirua]

Wayne must be offshore in the country he's really treasurer of, which apparently is a land known as STRAYA.

Reminds me of the Strayan Unite Group that wants to unite Australia and New Zealand. It appears 37% of Aussies are in favour and 24% of Kiwis in March 2010. 7th State problem seems to get in the way.

Anyway, companies like BHP Billiton are moving in hope of striking vast oil reserves around the Falkland Islands. They and RIO may evolve plans to move gradually elsewhere to lower tax environments. Rudd and Co now being branded 'anti mining and oil'.

 

[GumbyLearner]

I think you misunderstand my point. What I'm saying is there is a threshold where the cost of processing and collection of tax is equal to the tax obtained, which makes the exercise questionable and when the cost exceeds the amount collected, the tax obtained it's counter productive.

I've seen the conundrum expressed ocassionally over the years to rationalise the restructuring of goods and services and taxes. If I recall correctly it was part of the change to the GST, to simplify the tax system ie to make it more efficient and effective in terms of the processing and collection cost of the tax obtained.

A good part of the reason why the system moved to more self assessement was to save heaps of tax office staff doing the maths and processing so the gov reduced their collection expenses, thereby making more net profit (tax) out of the exercise.

But yes it may mean that lower income earners may pay no tax and the average earner pay relatively more... but if it's implimented correctly the overall cost of tax foregone will be less than the savings made in the bureaucracy.




There's been talk of closing these tax loop holes and tax havens, but yes, I'm hopeful there will be something on this in the near future.

Now I finally get it Whiskers. Just like Kev "gets it" with the failed insulation scheme. The majority of the Aussie population are rich. Let's raise the tax free threshold to $25,000, it couldn't make much of a difference as it will be a drop in the trickle down bucket for the majority of working families. (sarcasm completely intended)

Remember Hawkey and his bottom of the harbour mates. Keep hoping buddy.

 

[Whiskers]

Got any facts on this corruption you are alleging Whiskers? Not big on beliefs and idealogy mixed with pragmatic views. More into facts and figures. Care to share the basis of your opinions with some links to the numbers you are throwing around?

A recent story re Qld royalties. One could check with the Department of mines and energy for exact figures.http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1037110/no-mining-royalties-for-qld-opponents

The corruption political favors issue has surfaced here in the press and parliament question time ocasionally over recent years and more so in WA over many previous years.

There was a couple of court cases in particular in WA involving companies that had prospects taken off them and handed to another company on ministerial descretion and some getting faster passage or priority through all the approval processes etc.

Other issues include emerging producers having to challenge BHP and RIO in court to gain access to their rail network. An example of the conglomerate's trying to corner the market and squeeze out competition.