Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
McLovin said:
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.
Click to expand...

The definition of 'act' ? Open to interpretation. Might be a few trade sanctions or the sixth fleet depending on who is in office and what else they have on. Five eyes and Echelon does provide a measure of utility for the US, but smart policy wold be to ensure that they are not indispensible.
 
SirRumpole said:
The definition of 'act' ? Open to interpretation. Might be a few trade sanctions or the sixth fleet depending on who is in office and what else they have on. Five eyes and Echelon does provide a measure of utility for the US, but smart policy wold be to ensure that they are not indispensible.
Click to expand...

When read in the context of the introduction it's pretty clear that it means the defense of a party to the treaty up to the use of military force.

DESIRING to declare publicly and formally their sense of unity, so that no potential aggressor could be under the illusion that any of them stand alone in the Pacific Area
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how it could be interpreted as, if you invade we'll just slap sanctions on you.
 
McLovin said:
When read in the context of the introduction it's pretty clear that it means the defense of a party to the treaty up to the use of military force.
Click to expand...

Well, good luck with that, but the trouble it's taken to get a few marines in Darwin does not indicate to me that we are a priority compared to places like Diego Garcia or Puerto Rico.
 
SirRumpole said:
Yes, just like Hawaii, stolen from the natives. But the point is, 300 marines in Darwin to defend all those important assets ?
Click to expand...

Actually it was ceded by the Spanish, who I am sure had pretty much wiped out the natives by that time.

In any event, you don't need marines stationed in Darwin to provide a sufficient deterrent. The US navy could overwhelm any other navy many times over and everyone knows that.
 
McLovin said:
Actually it was ceded by the Spanish, who I am sure had pretty much wiped out the natives by that time.

In any event, you don't need marines stationed in Darwin to provide a sufficient deterrent. The US navy could overwhelm any other navy many times over and everyone knows that.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to sacrifice a vital body part, that the Yanks some weapons here (ie, nukes) on one of their bases here...
 
sydboy007 said:
If you increase supply of workers, what happens to wages? What are the pay rates the Hotel / Casino in Townsville offering? High enough for someone to have a liveable income?? Do they employ the people directly, or hide behind a labour hire company and pay on a per room basis?

As for you second cousin paying the Filipino maids the same rate as Australians, if they are not being paid penalty rates on weekends then I think Fair Work Australia needs to investigate. 6AM starts are nothing unusual. In Sydney the train is half full of people getting in to work around that time.

If house keeping staff are treated in a similar way to how one of my house mates, I can understand why it's hard to find people willing to stick with it. Using labour hire firms to get around paying a wage so the hotel can pay you based on each room cleaned, with no regard to when say a customer has decided to defalcate somewhere other than the toilet, or has hosted a large party in the room and there's extra work involved in cleaning and deodorising. To say I was shocked at what some people get up to in high end hotel rooms is an understatement.

So rather than pointing the finger at the lazy Aussie, maybe you need to dig a bit deeper and see if there's any other reason behind the difficulty to hire staff by certain companies. I know of a company in Sydney that has a number of venues used for Weddings / Functions and the way they treated their staff left them in a very difficult situation due to their bad reputation, especially for their dodgy practices on how they paid staff on a public holiday. They have such high staff turnover I'm surprised they still have a business. People I knew would only accept work from them as a last resort.

I have no problem with using 457 visas to fill jobs that a local person can't, but why water down the rules to allow companies to far more easily use them. Surely it's not too onerous to show you've advertised the position for a couple of weeks, and that the company will only higher the number of people it says it will. Surely it's reasonable to show you've interviewed locals for the position and can show why none of them were suitable for the role. Some companies have hired 8 times as many many works on 457 visas as they applied for. Abbott says they shouldn't suffer any financial penalty for this. I think they should as it's a breach of faith with the Australian public to only use a 457 visa worker as a last resort.
Click to expand...

The Hotel Casino Townsville pay an hourly rate slightly above award rates negotiated by a work place agreement.......The are engaged directly by the Hotel/Casino who do have a good reputation.......Permanent staff work a 38 hour week and do not have a high turn over.

I trust that settles your argument.
 
Quote Originally Posted by McLovin View Post
In any event, you don't need marines stationed in Darwin to provide a sufficient deterrent. The US navy could overwhelm any other navy many times over and everyone knows that.
Click to expand...

At this point in time, probably yes, but with the US deeply in debt, China making advances and modernising its military and Russia looking at becoming a superpower again, The US could be stretched on multiple fronts in ten years or so. It's already winding back some of its military, and has said that the JSF is 'un affordable' which is language rarely heard in the US when it comes to defence where business as usual is 'damn the cost as long as we have the most'.

People who ignore these changes and complacently believe that everything will stay as it always has may be in for a shock.
 
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...orts/Trends_in_Australian_Government_receipts

Interesting Government produced information that shows the budget deficit is not so much a spending issue, but a significant decline in revenue post GFC.

It noted that average revenue since 1982-83 has been 24.1% of GDP, but that since 2007-08 it has been significantly below that level, and is only expected to return to average levels in 2017-18

Raising taxes isn't the only way to overcome the revenue shortfall. Probably a fairer way is to start cutting away the massive amount of tax expenditures that are like a bleeding artery to the budget. Tax expenditures are north of 8 % of GDP - govt revenue is currently only around 23% of GDP, so we're talking about the equivalent of spending roughly equal to a third of current Govt revenue - something like all aged care expenditure, other welfare, federal health care spending and military spending. Not small change in anyone's book and is roughly worth $128B out of a $1.6T economy.

Considering corporate and payroll taxes have a 40% consumer welfare loss for each dollar of revenue they raise, yet municipal rates just 2%, and GST only 8%, with income taxes at 24%, surly the economic narrative for making substantial tax reform is not too hard to articulate?

Are Joe and Abbott capable of making these changes? From the pre election opposition to Labors attempts at reducing some tax expenditures and their continued promise to get rid of the MRRT I don't think so.

Surely showing that replacing payroll, corporate, and income taxes with higher GST and some form of progressive land tax with targeted welfare increase for those impacted is something relatively easy to show?

IF you can convince people that say $1B of income and payroll tax could be replaced by roughly just $859M, or that $1B in corporate tax revenue could be replaced via a land tax (which would be somewhere between GST and municipal rates in consumer welfare loss so say 5%) of just $632M, the changes should then be easy to get through. The efficiency dividends of a change in the tax system away from corporate and income taxes is just so huge, yet Abbott has pretty much locked himself into not being able to make any fundamental reforms.

Factor in a month before the budget is released and the executive director of the Federal Treasury’s Revenue Group has said he's not aware of anyone in treasury having seen the commission of audit as yet, so how is the COA going to help set the direction of the budget?
 

Attachments

  • aust gov rev.PNG
    aust gov rev.PNG
    15.6 KB · Views: 62
  • marginal excess burden.PNG
    marginal excess burden.PNG
    14.5 KB · Views: 63
sydboy007 said:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...orts/Trends_in_Australian_Government_receipts

Interesting Government produced information that shows the budget deficit is not so much a spending issue, but a significant decline in revenue post GFC.

It noted that average revenue since 1982-83 has been 24.1% of GDP, but that since 2007-08 it has been significantly below that level, and is only expected to return to average levels in 2017-18

Raising taxes isn't the only way to overcome the revenue shortfall. Probably a fairer way is to start cutting away the massive amount of tax expenditures that are like a bleeding artery to the budget. Tax expenditures are north of 8 % of GDP - govt revenue is currently only around 23% of GDP, so we're talking about the equivalent of spending roughly equal to a third of current Govt revenue - something like all aged care expenditure, other welfare, federal health care spending and military spending. Not small change in anyone's book and is roughly worth $128B out of a $1.6T economy.

Considering corporate and payroll taxes have a 40% consumer welfare loss for each dollar of revenue they raise, yet municipal rates just 2%, and GST only 8%, with income taxes at 24%, surly the economic narrative for making substantial tax reform is not too hard to articulate?

Are Joe and Abbott capable of making these changes? From the pre election opposition to Labors attempts at reducing some tax expenditures and their continued promise to get rid of the MRRT I don't think so.

Surely showing that replacing payroll, corporate, and income taxes with higher GST and some form of progressive land tax with targeted welfare increase for those impacted is something relatively easy to show?

IF you can convince people that say $1B of income and payroll tax could be replaced by roughly just $859M, or that $1B in corporate tax revenue could be replaced via a land tax (which would be somewhere between GST and municipal rates in consumer welfare loss so say 5%) of just $632M, the changes should then be easy to get through. The efficiency dividends of a change in the tax system away from corporate and income taxes is just so huge, yet Abbott has pretty much locked himself into not being able to make any fundamental reforms.

Factor in a month before the budget is released and the executive director of the Federal Treasury’s Revenue Group has said he's not aware of anyone in treasury having seen the commission of audit as yet, so how is the COA going to help set the direction of the budget?
Click to expand...

Figures can prove anything I suppose.

One thing I'm sure of is that corporate tax must be a nightmare to administer, given that the tax act has bloated out from one book when I went to college to a whole bookshelf now.

What about progressively reducing deductions that corporations are currently allowed, which can cover a multitude of sins, and at the same time reducing the company tax rate ?

That will ease the burden on the tax department allowing staff reductions, and reduce the business expense of justifying deductions, therefore making company tax more efficient.
 
Top