Should the GST be increased/widened?

[sptrawler]

I agree with both of you.
But what's the solution?
Do we conclude that the Westminster System has reached a dead end? Do we have to seek a new way of electing a new breed of representatives? Can we return to the principle of effectiveseparation of powers that really works? Where it's not the politicians that determine what they're entitled to, but where the electorate sets the boundaries - maybe even in hindsight, when it is evident, how each has performed?

But never mind - it'll never happen because the current crop of lawyers and megalomaniacs have entrenched themselves to such an extent that it would take a Putsch or a Revolution to get rid of them. And I wouldn't want to wish that on Australia - not just yet...

There isn't a solution, untill we go broke.

Everyone has a ridiculous sense of what they should get, and it in no way reflects the effort they put in, to get it.

It has to end in tears.IMO

 

[MrBurns]

I agree with both of you.
But what's the solution?
Do we conclude that the Westminster System has reached a dead end? Do we have to seek a new way of electing a new breed of representatives? Can we return to the principle of effectiveseparation of powers that really works? Where it's not the politicians that determine what they're entitled to, but where the electorate sets the boundaries - maybe even in hindsight, when it is evident, how each has performed?

But never mind - it'll never happen because the current crop of lawyers and megalomaniacs have entrenched themselves to such an extent that it would take a Putsch or a Revolution to get rid of them. And I wouldn't want to wish that on Australia - not just yet...

I agree the same as they'll never get to the bottom of child exploitation rings as there are too many at the top involved. I hope you saw 60 Minutes last Sunday
It's a case of Dracula being in charge of the blood bank.

Makes me want to move out of town to somewhere less involved if there is such a place.

 

[overhang]

There you go, my apologies, I thought someone on $50k was still eligible for some low income tax offset.

You've used the sarcasm tag so I'm having a little difficulty interpreting your message. Do you believe that someone on 50k receives tax concessions or have you accepted that they will actually pay about 8.5k tax?

 

[sptrawler]

You've used the sarcasm tag so I'm having a little difficulty interpreting your message. Do you believe that someone on 50k receives tax concessions or have you accepted that they will actually pay about 8.5k tax?

You're the one who made the statement, you check you're facts.

 

[overhang]

You're the one who made the statement, you check you're facts.

I've checked my facts and the fact is as i mentioned which is a far cry from your claim that someone on 50k pays no tax. I want you to prove your claim.

 

[luutzu]

I agree with both of you.
But what's the solution?
Do we conclude that the Westminster System has reached a dead end? Do we have to seek a new way of electing a new breed of representatives? Can we return to the principle of effectiveseparation of powers that really works? Where it's not the politicians that determine what they're entitled to, but where the electorate sets the boundaries - maybe even in hindsight, when it is evident, how each has performed?

But never mind - it'll never happen because the current crop of lawyers and megalomaniacs have entrenched themselves to such an extent that it would take a Putsch or a Revolution to get rid of them. And I wouldn't want to wish that on Australia - not just yet...

The system has done a U-turn. Going back to when only landed gentry could vote and run gov't.

Now everyone votes and their votes are counted, just it doesn't count for much.


If the people know what's been going on, they'd be on the streets reclaiming Australia - and not from the immigrants and Muslims either.

----

Some points from a report on Inequality in Australia:
INCOME & WEALTH INEQUALITY IN AUSTRALIA. By DAVID RICHARDSON & RICHARD DENNISS
JULY 2014
www.tai.org.au Policy Brief. Income and wealth inequality in Australia. Policy Brief No. 64. July 2014.

-Inequality between those with the most and those with the least is rising in Australia.
Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, but there are many people in our
society who are falling behind.

- Senior executive pay is now 150 times greater than average weekly earnings. [in the US it's 360 to 1, so we're half way there?]

- While income distribution is unequal, the distribution of wealth is even more so. The top 20
per cent of people have five times more income than the bottom 20 per cent, and hold 71
times more wealth. Perhaps the gap between those with the most and those with the least is
most starkly highlighted by the fact that the richest seven individuals in Australia hold more
wealth than 1.73 million households in the bottom 20 per cent. [from David Cay Johnson, top 16 American families own the same wealth as 160 million poorest Americans]

- Despite consistent public support for reducing inequality, the government is currently seeking
to reduce income support. In fact, in recent months the Abbott government has begun to
argue that inequality is not just unavoidable, but also beneficial. Rather than use the welfare
system to redistribute income, the government is seeking to ensure that welfare payments
grow at a significantly slower rate than wages. The result will inevitably be an even bigger
gap between those with the most and those with the least.

- in the last eight years, the cost of tax cuts
introduced by successive governments has amounted to around $170 billion and that the top
ten per cent of income earners received more benefit from those tax cuts than the bottom 80
per cent of taxpayers combined.

 

[luutzu]

I've checked my facts and the fact is as i mentioned which is a far cry from your claim that someone on 50k pays no tax. I want you to prove your claim.

I think he was referring to family income. Assuming that individual earning under $28K pays no income tax, so $50K is under $56k?

But sptrawler, my point is still valid though, obviously

 

[overhang]

I think he was referring to family income. Assuming that individual earning under $28K pays no income tax, so $50K is under $56k?

But sptrawler, my point is still valid though, obviously

Well that would be quite ignorant of him when I said I was referring to individuals and you also seemed to be referring to an individual rather than a family.

 

[sptrawler]

I think he was referring to family income. Assuming that individual earning under $28K pays no income tax, so $50K is under $56k?

But sptrawler, my point is still valid though, obviously

Your point is valid, but as I was, you were using journalistic license to embellish your point.

But as for concessions, I think the lito doesn't cut out till about $60k

 

[Tink]

I agree the same as they'll never get to the bottom of child exploitation rings as there are too many at the top involved. I hope you saw 60 Minutes last Sunday
It's a case of Dracula being in charge of the blood bank.

Makes me want to move out of town to somewhere less involved if there is such a place.

I didn't watch it, Mr Burns, but I saw the article.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainmen...edophile-network/story-e6frfmyi-1227447820543

Children - The Big Losers
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17282

Off Topic

 

[sptrawler]

You've used the sarcasm tag so I'm having a little difficulty interpreting your message. Do you believe that someone on 50k receives tax concessions

My answer is "Yes".


Do you agree with Iuutzu, with his inference that someone on $200,000 pays no tax, in post #156?

Let say I'm rich (nice to imagine that way sometime) and say you're the average Aussie battler earning $50K a year against my $200k.

The rent, power, phone, food and other bare necessity of life costs your family $40k, leaving you $10 in savings.

My imaginary self have more so my necessities costs $80k, leaving me $120k.

My bolds.

Where's the tax component in that statement?

Which is what the banter, between myself and Iuutzu started from.

 

[overhang]

My answer is "Yes".


Do you agree with Iuutzu, with his inference that someone on $200,000 pays no tax, in post #156?

Let say I'm rich (nice to imagine that way sometime) and say you're the average Aussie battler earning $50K a year against my $200k.

The rent, power, phone, food and other bare necessity of life costs your family $40k, leaving you $10 in savings.

My imaginary self have more so my necessities costs $80k, leaving me $120k.

My bolds.

Where's the tax component in that statement?

Which is what the banter, between myself and Iuutzu started from.

That is all reasonable but what I drew exception to was when you stated the tax the individual on 200k would pay but then claimed that the individual on 50k would pay no tax which simply isn't the case and I felt that if you believed someone on 50k pays no tax then it would be reasonable to think that lower income earners are receiving enough handouts that an increase in the GST wouldn't be unreasonable to them.

 

[luutzu]

My answer is "Yes".


Do you agree with Iuutzu, with his inference that someone on $200,000 pays no tax, in post #156?

Let say I'm rich (nice to imagine that way sometime) and say you're the average Aussie battler earning $50K a year against my $200k.

The rent, power, phone, food and other bare necessity of life costs your family $40k, leaving you $10 in savings.

My imaginary self have more so my necessities costs $80k, leaving me $120k.

My bolds.

Where's the tax component in that statement?

Which is what the banter, between myself and Iuutzu started from.

That's one way to infer; the other is I'm talking about after-tax income or just pick figures to show how the rich will always benefit more from a consumption tax than the average/poor person/family.

But main point was it disproportionately disadvantage the poor; it's also bad economic policy as it literally tax demand for goods and services - something you'd want to stimulate to create jobs and give that multiplier effect that would be good for the ATO.

As others have said, it's fairer and would make better sense if, say, they close the tax loopholes that permit multi-nationals to claim expense or report lower profit by shifting assets between different subsidiaries.

There's a bunch of things they could do to just bring fairness back in the equation, but of course that's not going to happen.

 

[sptrawler]

That's one way to infer; the other is I'm talking about after-tax income or just pick figures to show how the rich will always benefit more from a consumption tax than the average/poor person/family.

But main point was it disproportionately disadvantage the poor; it's also bad economic policy as it literally tax demand for goods and services - something you'd want to stimulate to create jobs and give that multiplier effect that would be good for the ATO.

As others have said, it's fairer and would make better sense if, say, they close the tax loopholes that permit multi-nationals to claim expense or report lower profit by shifting assets between different subsidiaries.

There's a bunch of things they could do to just bring fairness back in the equation, but of course that's not going to happen.

I agree whole heartedly, NG, super, multinational tax avoidance, all should be addressed.

The point I made, was from a government point of view, what is the easiest one to implement?

IMO, the increase in the GST is the easiest for them and we all know that governments like the easy path.

 

[sptrawler]

That is all reasonable but what I drew exception to was when you stated the tax the individual on 200k would pay but then claimed that the individual on 50k would pay no tax which simply isn't the case and I felt that if you believed someone on 50k pays no tax then it would be reasonable to think that lower income earners are receiving enough handouts that an increase in the GST wouldn't be unreasonable to them.

Like I said, it was a bit of tonque in cheek banter.

I never said that an increase in gst wouldn't be unreasonable to them, there you go again, off on a tangent.

 

[overhang]

Like I said, it was a bit of tonque in cheek banter.

I never said that an increase in gst wouldn't be unreasonable to them, there you go again, off on a tangent.

I probably should have known you would not have been naive enough to believe that they wouldn't pay tax so I misjudged the tongue in cheek, can never be too sure though when we have a treasurer that believes poor people don't drive lol

I agree though with you both that all though there are more suitable options to raise revenue the government will probably take the easy route and increase the GST and why not, they we have an opposition with no back bone and offering little alternative. I think they would win if they took it to an election.

 

[sptrawler]

I agree though with you both that all though there are more suitable options to raise revenue the government will probably take the easy route and increase the GST and why not, they we have an opposition with no back bone and offering little alternative. I think they would win if they took it to an election.

I personally think, Australian politicians really needs to take a good look at themselves, and the image they are projecting to the electorate.

Australians aren't stupid and can see the fiscal situation is dire, they also see the excesses that that politicians bestow on themselves, at our expense.

Australians IMO, also find it a bit rich when politicians try to tell them that the welfare system is unaffordable, when the politicians welfare system is the most ridiculously unaffordable of all.

Australians, again IMO, find it very difficult to summon up respect, for people who by their actions and behaviour don't deserve it.

It really is about time that all aspects of tax and welfare were assessed as to there merit, including the governments.

Maybe starting the transformation, from the age of entitlement, needs to start from the top down,
rather than from the bottom up.

There is nothing that encourages change more, than leaders, leading by example.

As if that's going to happen, there's that flock of pigs flying over again.lol

 

[drsmith]

Scott Morrison,



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWAXG-PFIv0

More broadly on the welfare front,

Scott Morrison has laid out a welfare reform blueprint that tries to address the failure of federation to solve housing problems, seeks to tap into private investment to create social bonds for welfare and looks at limiting total family welfare income to end intergenerational welfare dependency.

The Social Services Minister has declared that “compassionate conservatism” around the world is cutting welfare dependency, costs to taxpayers and reducing long-term welfare dependency.

As Tony Abbott and State and Territory leaders meet in a retreat in Sydney Mr Morrison said housing is one of the most important issues to be discussed and “it is an area where our federation is failing us”.

“We must address this in an holistic way, not by portioning out the social housing and private market factors separately,” he said in a speech prepared for the Institute of Public Affairs.

“We cannot continue the current failed one way track of shovelling money to the states for social housing, with no aco****aibility for outcomes or integration with broader policy measures that impact the entire housing market,” Mr Morrison said.

“The full list of interconnected issues need to be on the table. This means land release and planning, regulation reform, infrastructure provision, seniors downsizing, transaction taxes, management and financing of social housing stock, just to name a few,” he said.

Mr Morrison said private involvement in providing social housing had to be investigated and said trials of social impact bonds — where community engagement is encoaurged with private investment in government bonds — in NSW, New Zealand and Canada were successful and needed to be considered.

After looking at “compassionate conservatism” in New Zealand and Great Britain Mr Morrison said social bonds extended the financial risk of funding social services to include the private sector.

He said the Australian system of welfare payments — with 20 separate payments and more than 50 supplements — needed to be streamlined and the UK system of capping welfare payments to families, instead of supplying individual benefits to family members, ensured a family on welfare did not get more than a working family.

The British system is “designed to ensure that people will be consistently and unambitiously better off for each hour they work and every pound they earn” Mr Morrison said.

The Minister also said that the lesson of Greece’s implosion because of welfare and pension payments had to be heeded because social services expenditure in Australia was projected to rise by 21 per cent to $187 billion in the next four years

and will balloon further when the National Disability Insurance Scheme is in full swing.

He said by 2018-19 the cost of the NDIS will be $20 billion a year with $5.2 billion unfunded by the special NDIS levy.

“The bottom line is we have to spend our social services budget more effectively to reduce the long term pressures on the budget, to free up resources to target support to those who need it most and to ensure that our safety net is sustainable,’ he said.

“We need a safety net that has a trampoline effect and is not a snare,” Mr Morrison said.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...reform-blueprint/story-fn59niix-1227452385904

 

[luutzu]

I personally think, Australian politicians really needs to take a good look at themselves, and the image they are projecting to the electorate.

Australians aren't stupid and can see the fiscal situation is dire, they also see the excesses that that politicians bestow on themselves, at our expense.

Australians IMO, also find it a bit rich when politicians try to tell them that the welfare system is unaffordable, when the politicians welfare system is the most ridiculously unaffordable of all.

Australians, again IMO, find it very difficult to summon up respect, for people who by their actions and behaviour don't deserve it.

It really is about time that all aspects of tax and welfare were assessed as to there merit, including the governments.

Maybe starting the transformation, from the age of entitlement, needs to start from the top down,
rather than from the bottom up.

There is nothing that encourages change more, than leaders, leading by example.

As if that's going to happen, there's that flock of pigs flying over again.lol

I think that young idealistic youth is still inside you somewhere sptrawler

True though... I don't really know why politicians don't do what is popular, and right, by the population. They say and all their messages are "for the people", "for the country" - so they know they'll get support from the people if they do things right by the people... yet for some reason they tend not to.

Maybe they're just out of touch and really have no respect for the masses at all; or they actually believe that what's good for the rich is also good for the poor - eventually, somehow.

But then again, if you're not a team player you'd not be a team member at all. So let's be in the team and try to affect change from within, until the means and the end just got mixed up. But it pays the bills though.

 

[sptrawler]

I think that young idealistic youth is still inside you somewhere sptrawler

True though... I don't really know why politicians don't do what is popular, and right, by the population. They say and all their messages are "for the people", "for the country" - so they know they'll get support from the people if they do things right by the people... yet for some reason they tend not to.

Maybe they're just out of touch and really have no respect for the masses at all; or they actually believe that what's good for the rich is also good for the poor - eventually, somehow.

But then again, if you're not a team player you'd not be a team member at all. So let's be in the team and try to affect change from within, until the means and the end just got mixed up. But it pays the bills though.

Yes Iuutzu, and as drsmith and I said in the 'who will replace Tony Abbott' thread, Scott Morrison appears to be the only politician who can see the wood despite the trees.

To me, he seems to be the only one of either side, that has the courage of his convictions.

However having said that, I've been conned before.

I still have a slight bit of smoke left over from my youth, whether it would be classified as fire, is questionable.