Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,387
- Reactions
- 11,770
Fine to call other people naive, but when you are labelled such it's 'gutter language'. geesh
Fine to call other people naive, but when you are labelled such it's 'gutter language'. geeshI'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.
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.
Superannuation requires an incentive over conventional savings/investment to encourage long term planning for retirement.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.
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.
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.
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.
That's where broad access to conventional saving products would come in handy. Risk could be better managed at the individual level.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.
:jerry
Who was/is Ken Henry?
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
That's where broad access to conventional saving products would come in handy. Risk could be better managed at the individual level.
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:
I seemed to here his brain ticking, something like, "Wayne Swann, where are you, help me out mate."
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?.
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.
Thankyou Trainspotter.
Why are we following a dead Yankee speed skaters booklet ?
Wayne must be offshore in the country he's really treasurer of, which apparently is a land known as STRAYA.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?