The Abbott Government

Junior · 28 May 2014

SirRumpole said:
If your parents worked hard and paid their taxes then I believe they have more grounds to complain when something they have is taken away than do young people who want everything without working for it.

That's why I think that raising marginal tax rates is a better way of ensuring sustainability of services in the long term.

Young people will get the advantages of a good health system later in life, and old people will get the services now when they need them, and not in 20 years when they are dead and the Medical Research Fund may or may not have found a cure for their ailments.

It's about basic fairness, and this budget fails that test.

I agree wrt grounds to complain, but I don't agree about marginal tax rates. They are high enough already, when you consider most younger ppl have HECS payments at 5-8% of gross income being deducted. Medicare Levy has been raised. High income earners are around 50% MTR, it's high enough.

As has been discussed to death; negative gearing, super tax concessions and GST are areas to consider. Address these and we shouldn't need to increase income tax rates.

sydboy007 · 28 May 2014

chiff said:
Do the Liberals still take donations from the tobacco industry,or have they recently ceased?
Having a medical research fund and taking donations from the tobacco industry is incompatible and insincere.

My understanding is the Liberals don't but the Nationals do.

explod · 28 May 2014

Rumour has it that Abbott will be tipped out in nine days,

Successors tipped are Hunt, Turnbull and my wife forgets the name of the other one.

On Facebook this afternoon.

dutchie · 28 May 2014

explod said:
Rumour has it that Abbott will be tipped out in nine days,

Successors tipped are Hunt, Turnbull and my wife forgets the name of the other one.

On Facebook this afternoon.

From the Castle: "Tell him he's dreaming"

Abbott demolished Labor during Question Time.

noco · 28 May 2014

dutchie said:
From the Castle: "Tell him he's dreaming"

Abbott demolished Labor during Question Time.

dutchie, don't take too much notice of Plod......he likes to use 'SUCKER BAIT'.

explod · 28 May 2014

noco said:
dutchie, don't take too much notice of Plod......he likes to use 'SUCKER BAIT'.

Jeez, thought you would be the last person to admit that noco.

SirRumpole · 29 May 2014

What a hoot, Joe Hockey protests against a $250 administration fee for Uni students and declares his support for free education

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...g-against-university-fees-20140528-394jn.html

SirRumpole · 29 May 2014

Everyone has to do their bit to fix the Budget, except the corporate sector.

Westfield paid 8% tax over the last 9 years, and the corporate average is 22%, when the company tax rate is 30%.

But the budget was fair according to the head of BHP.

What a wonker.

abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/westfield-pays-8-per-cent-tax-according-to-union-report/5485928

abc.net.au/news/2014-05-28/budget-pain-is-evenly-shared-bhp-chief-says/5485306

sydboy007 · 29 May 2014

SirRumpole said:
Everyone has to do their bit to fix the Budget, except the corporate sector.

Westfield paid 8% tax over the last 9 years, and the corporate average is 22%, when the company tax rate is 30%.

But the budget was fair according to the head of BHP.

What a wonker.

abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/westfield-pays-8-per-cent-tax-according-to-union-report/5485928

abc.net.au/news/2014-05-28/budget-pain-is-evenly-shared-bhp-chief-says/5485306

It's very fair for the rentier classes.

Get with the program. In our plutocracy the rich powerful design the laws for the betterment of themselves. How else can a $20M advertising campaign by the resource industry remove a PM and see a resource based tax knee capped in the way it was? An industry that sends something like 70C in the $ of profits overseas was able to convince locals that they were here to save us. Go figure.

Now we have a Government that believes in magic puddings and thinks it's a smart move to cut back welfare to the poorest sectors in society so they can fund removing the resource tax. The same Government that is OK with losing over $6B a year in CPRS income - hey if Abbott can say a levy is not a tax then I'll go with the flow - once again funded by targeting mainly the poor.

It's funny how the rich have been able to get themselves so many tax expenditures which sit nicely hidden away. I'm sure the tax review will highlight many of them, but I'm expecting Abbott and Joe will have aas much ticker as Labor did with implementing the Henry tax review.

For those that say we need to wait for the tax review, why not have brought some measures into the current budget that were recommended in the previous Hnry Tax Review? Surely if they were a good idea back in 2010 they're still a good idea now?

orr · 31 May 2014

the Abbott Government(2.0)

We can't stop it now it's just getting interesting, in that car crash kinda way.

orr · 31 May 2014

Re: the Abbott Government(2.0)

Frances Abbott's Scholarship:the full extent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD-rKrcfGFE

good on 'Studio-10' for running the story

Julia · 31 May 2014

No wonder there is so much irritation with the media. So Frances was awarded a scholarship from a private institution. What business is that of anyone else?

This ongoing scavenging for anything at all that the people who detest the government can whip up and distort for their own political ends is become nauseating.

Presumably it's to cover up the reality that these media 'celebrities' lack the capacity for any genuine analysis of the country's economic realities.

There's plenty of scope for criticism in, for example, the way the government have failed to properly communicate the need for fiscal change without resorting to this sort of utterly pathetic smearing of a young woman.

SirRumpole · 31 May 2014

Julia said:
No wonder there is so much irritation with the media. So Frances was awarded a scholarship from a private institution. What business is that of anyone else?

It's not that concerning if that is all there was to it, but if the organisation receives taxpayer funding or grants then there is a possible conflict of interest.

Apparently there are only two people who have ever received that scholarship. One was the daughter of the college's owner, and the other...

Seems like an old mate's arrangement, but no doubt we could find other examples from the other sides of politics.

sydboy007 · 31 May 2014

SirRumpole said:
It's not that concerning if that is all there was to it, but if the organisation receives taxpayer funding or grants then there is a possible conflict of interest.

Apparently there are only two people who have ever received that scholarship. One was the daughter of the college's owner, and the other...

Seems like an old mate's arrangement, but no doubt we could find other examples from the other sides of politics.

She supposedly got it due to ability, and she did score at a D level which is pretty commendable.

But was she the best candidate? If no one else knew of the scholarship, and no one else was able to submit to the screening process to see if they were worthy, then it does make it hard to prove one way or the other if she was the most deserving student.

I feel sorry for the girl. She's collateral damage, in the same way Gillard's partner was at times collateral damage.

DB008 · 1 June 2014

sydboy007 said:
It's very fair for the rentier classes.

Get with the program. In our plutocracy the rich powerful design the laws for the betterment of themselves. How else can a $20M advertising campaign by the resource industry remove a PM and see a resource based tax knee capped in the way it was? An industry that sends something like 70C in the $ of profits overseas was able to convince locals that they were here to save us. Go figure.

Now we have a Government that believes in magic puddings and thinks it's a smart move to cut back welfare to the poorest sectors in society so they can fund removing the resource tax. The same Government that is OK with losing over $6B a year in CPRS income - hey if Abbott can say a levy is not a tax then I'll go with the flow - once again funded by targeting mainly the poor.

It's funny how the rich have been able to get themselves so many tax expenditures which sit nicely hidden away. I'm sure the tax review will highlight many of them, but I'm expecting Abbott and Joe will have aas much ticker as Labor did with implementing the Henry tax review.

For those that say we need to wait for the tax review, why not have brought some measures into the current budget that were recommended in the previous Hnry Tax Review? Surely if they were a good idea back in 2010 they're still a good idea now?

But let's just encourage a lazy class of people instead?

This is crazy...

The single mum on $55,000 in pensions, benefits, study aid

The warnings are based on government analysis that reveals some single parents are receiving $55,000 a year in tax-free benefits, including a pension, family tax benefits and study assistance. The calculations show that three workers on average salaries would pay about $17,000 in tax each to cover the sole parent’s benefits. Hitting back at claims his budget was unfair, the Treasurer countered the idea that taxes should be raised to match more than $7bn in welfare cuts so that every group carried the same share of the budget burden.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/the-single-mum-on-55000-in-pensions-benefits-study-aid/story-fn59nsif-1226936519119#

SirRumpole · 1 June 2014

DB008 said:
But let's just encourage a lazy class of people instead?

This is crazy...

The single mum on $55,000 in pensions, benefits, study aid

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/the-single-mum-on-55000-in-pensions-benefits-study-aid/story-fn59nsif-1226936519119#

Those payment certainly seem excessive.

Let's remember that family tax benefits arose under Howard/Costello.

I wonder how much these and the Costello baby bonus contributed to the idea of having children for the money ?

sydboy007 · 1 June 2014

DB008 said:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/the-single-mum-on-55000-in-pensions-benefits-study-aid/story-fn59nsif-1226936519119#

In the fine print the assumptions is a single mother with 2 children under 6 both of whom are in child care for 40 hours per week. Basically designed to maximise the support being received.

It also seems to be a bit harsh to single out this one very benefits maximising scenario. How many single mothers would actually be able to get this, and is it sensible to stigmatise them when they're in training and hopefully skilling themselves for future employment?

I'd also love to see the same kind of angst direct tot he likes of Google / Apple / eBay that rake in billions yet pay practically no tax here because they've siphoned it off for the double irish dutch sandwich to avoid paying much in the way of tax.

SirRumpole · 1 June 2014

sydboy007 said:
I'd also love to see the same kind of angst direct tot he likes of Google / Apple / eBay that rake in billions yet pay practically no tax here because they've siphoned it off for the double irish dutch sandwich to avoid paying much in the way of tax.

I doubt if you will see much of that angst here

DB008 · 1 June 2014

sydboy007 said:
In the fine print the assumptions is a single mother with 2 children under 6 both of whom are in child care for 40 hours per week. Basically designed to maximise the support being received.

It also seems to be a bit harsh to single out this one very benefits maximising scenario. How many single mothers would actually be able to get this, and is it sensible to stigmatise them when they're in training and hopefully skilling themselves for future employment?

I'd also love to see the same kind of angst direct tot he likes of Google / Apple / eBay that rake in billions yet pay practically no tax here because they've siphoned it off for the double irish dutch sandwich to avoid paying much in the way of tax.

SirRumpole said:
I doubt if you will see much of that angst here

There are 2 parts to this.

1) A publicly listed company has to generate profits for it's shareholders. If there was a way of generating profits, and it didn't (like the double dutch/irish sandwich), there would be grounds to clean out the board

2) What those big companies are doing (tax loophole/by-pass), isn't illegal.

Personally, I think the laws should be changed. Australia isn't alone on this issue.

SirRumpole · 1 June 2014

DB008 said:
There are 2 parts to this.

2) What those big companies are doing (tax loophole/by-pass), isn't illegal.

Neither is a single mother claiming benefits created by elected governments of either persuasion.

The Abbott Government

Junior

sydboy007

explod

explod

dutchie

noco

explod

explod

SirRumpole

SirRumpole

sydboy007

orr

orr

Julia

In Memoriam

SirRumpole

sydboy007

DB008

SirRumpole

sydboy007

SirRumpole

DB008

SirRumpole

Similar threads

The Abbott Government

explod

explod

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency