Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
sydboy007 said:
I'd argue the good policy side is the easy part, once you take the ideologically based blinders off. The hard part is packaging the proposed changes so it's easy to show they are fair. Once the public can see that, they'll still not like you for taking away some of their lollies, but they'll respect you for having the courage to do it.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. With the exception of Julie Bishop who seems not to have caught the foot-in-mouth virus, they seem to have no understanding of the need to carry the electorate with them, or even of how the electorate is perceiving them. Surely they still run focus groups and do other research for internal purposes? Maybe they ignore that also.

Agree with banco's comment about how John Howard would have done it so differently.
 
Julia said:
Yes, exactly. With the exception of Julie Bishop who seems not to have caught the foot-in-mouth virus,
Click to expand...

Julie Bishop is talking sense, albeit in a motherhood role with general bi-partisan support.

She is actually very well placed if the deck of cards is shuffled, because she may be the wild card that takes the trick having not carrying much baggage to date.

However most of us would want to see how she performs defending the budget or some of the other stuff ups before saying she has the goods to be PM, but I think she is too smart to get involved in such lowly dealings until the hand is dealt.
 
SirRumpole said:
When you say "broadly based", do you mean including the principal place of residence ?
Click to expand...

Yes. Tax all non mining and farming land.

Set up a progressive scale so the tax burden falls on those with land values above the median.

I'm sick of the government putting stuff to reviews and committees do they can avoid making difficult decisions.

If the adults are in charge then start acting like one!
 
sydboy007 said:
Yes. Tax all non mining and farming land.
Click to expand...

Why do you want to tax people for owning a home ?

Is this not a disincentive for home ownership ?

Surely we want more people to acquire an asset which can be cashed in later to provide for them in their old age, rather than have people renting and always paying "dead money" to the landlords ?
 
SirRumpole said:
Why do you want to tax people for owning a home ?

Is this not a disincentive for home ownership ?

Surely we want more people to acquire an asset which can be cashed in later to provide for them in their old age, rather than have people renting and always paying "dead money" to the landlords ?
Click to expand...

Why do you want to tax hard work and capital so highly? Why does all the public infrastructure spending that generates increases in land values get captured purely by land holders? A land tax would help to siphon off some of those gains from public spending so it makes the system fairer.

Studies are now showing that home ownership can exacerbate recessions due to the debt levels of mortgages and the anchoring of people to stay in a particular area when they'd be better off moving to an area where employment prospects are better.

If rent is dead money then so is interest. Rent provides shelter so it is not dead money. Rental yields are lower than interest costs so I'd argue renting makes economic sense in many cases. Saving outside the residential housing market is in many ways a better option. It's hard to sell 5% of your house when you need some extra cash.

We have a taxation system that is heavily biased to taxing hard work and corporate profits, while barely taxing land. Land taxes are far more efficient in collecting revenue and there' less scope to avoid paying them since it's far harder to hide a block of land that it is cash in the hand.

I'd prefer a system that taxes land, consumption, resources and reduces taxes on capital and income. I'd prefer a simple tax system with few loopholes, less compliance costs. I'd like to see within a decade the 363 tax expenditures culled to less than 90 ie a 75% reduction. I'd like to see all income treated the same rather than encouraging the shifting of income into capital gains.

The above measures would likely be regressive, but that can be fixed with increasing the low income tax offset to help the truly low income. Increasing the tax free threshold is expensive and poorly targeted help.

There's plenty of policy choices the Govt already has, but they're choosing to ignore them.
 
Why do you want to tax hard work and capital so highly?
Click to expand...

What else is a land tax on the family home other than a tax on hard work and capital ?

People work hard to produce a capital asset and you want to tax them on that.

OK to have a land tax on investment properties because it's someone elses hard work that pays for the asset, not the owner's, but I think the principal place of residence should remain exempt.

If by "363 tax expeditures" you are referring to tax deductible business expenses, then I agree that reducing these would be beneficial as it would make tax avoidance rorts more difficult.
 
SirRumpole said:
What else is a land tax on the family home other than a tax on hard work and capital ?

People work hard to produce a capital asset and you want to tax them on that.

OK to have a land tax on investment properties because it's someone elses hard work that pays for the asset, not the owner's, but I think the principal place of residence should remain exempt.

If by "363 tax expeditures" you are referring to tax deductible business expenses, then I agree that reducing these would be beneficial as it would make tax avoidance rorts more difficult.
Click to expand...

Then can you explain why you prefer to tax income and corporate profits more than all land?

I'd argue a land tax is probably easier to get accepted than say having the family home part of the pension asset test.

Land taxes are very stable sources of income. Much better than the current stamp duty which jumps and falls depending on the level of the economy ie pro cyclical which isn't good. Do you think it's fair that the roughly 5% of people purchasing a property each year pay a significant portion of state revenue? After GST it's either number 2 or 3 after pay roll tax - another bad tax on employment.

We need taxes to pay for the services and infrastructure required to run a modern economy. There's evidence to show a land tax would allow the revenue to be collected in a far more efficient and PROGRESSIVE fashion than income and corporate taxes. To me that' a win win. Less tax levels to generate the same level of revenue, with the associated lowering of compliance costs.
 
I'd argue a land tax is probably easier to get accepted than say having the family home part of the pension asset test.
Click to expand...

OK, find a political party to put that up as a policy and see how you go.
 
SirRumpole said:
OK, find a political party to put that up as a policy and see how you go.
Click to expand...

And it's that attitude that has got us to where we are. A narrowly based tax system unable to generate the revenue required to provide the sub standard level of services and infrastructure we have.

Do you have any suggestions for meaningful reform?
 
It would require a momentous change in paradigm, subject to the scare tactics of vested interests. How can you transition from the current system to a land tax system without victimizing those who have planned around the current system? The changes in economic dynamics are quantum.
 
sydboy007 said:
Do you have any suggestions for meaningful reform?
Click to expand...

Eliminate the Federal tax deduction for State mining royalties paid by mining companies, phase out negative gearing, eliminate diesel fuel rebate, crack down on multi national companies avoiding tax, recover HECS loans due from people working overseas, phase out Family tax benefits and put some of the savings into child care...
 
wayneL said:
It would require a momentous change in paradigm, subject to the scare tactics of vested interests. How can you transition from the current system to a land tax system without victimizing those who have planned around the current system? The changes in economic dynamics are quantum.
Click to expand...

They are doing it in the ACT but phased in over 30 years.
 
wayneL said:
It would require a momentous change in paradigm, subject to the scare tactics of vested interests. How can you transition from the current system to a land tax system without victimizing those who have planned around the current system? The changes in economic dynamics are quantum.
Click to expand...

Follow the ACT Govt and bring it in over a 20 year period, though I'd prefer to bring it in faster than that.
 
SirRumpole said:
Eliminate the Federal tax deduction for State mining royalties paid by mining companies, phase out negative gearing, eliminate diesel fuel rebate, crack down on multi national companies avoiding tax, recover HECS loans due from people working overseas, phase out Family tax benefits and put some of the savings into child care...
Click to expand...

Considering Abbott has been going into bat for the mining companies for years now you're dreaming they'd make nay tax changes that don't increase their profits at locals expense. Diesel fuel rebate wont happen either - nationals would oppose it as much as the liberals.

Unless the G20 comes up with some way to reign in the global companies getting them to pay more tax is nigh on impossible. We might have to look at revoking some of our tax treaties since they're being abused ie with Ireland.

HECS loans from those overseas would also be tricky - how do you track them down? Good idea but in practice I think the costs of debt recovery would eat up most of the revenue collected. Could maybe put a freeze on passport renewals for anyone with an outstanding HECS debt where regular payments haven't been received.

Phasing out family benefits would be hard, but maybe propose a policy that from a year away there will be no family benefits available to any new recipients.

How do you propose to get the aged pension and super system under control? They are the 2 biggest spending / revenue loss areas in the budget.
 
sydboy007 said:
Considering Abbott has been going into bat for the mining companies for years now you're dreaming they'd make nay tax changes that don't increase their profits at locals expense. Diesel fuel rebate wont happen either - nationals would oppose it as much as the liberals.
Click to expand...

I don't expect the LNP to do any of what I suggested, it will all have to wait for a change of government.

Unless the G20 comes up with some way to reign in the global companies getting them to pay more tax is nigh on impossible. We might have to look at revoking some of our tax treaties since they're being abused ie with Ireland.
Click to expand...

A courageous government would put this on the G20 agenda.

HECS loans from those overseas would also be tricky - how do you track them down? Good idea but in practice I think the costs of debt recovery would eat up most of the revenue collected. Could maybe put a freeze on passport renewals for anyone with an outstanding HECS debt where regular payments haven't been received.
Click to expand...

Passport freeze would be my suggestion

Phasing out family benefits would be hard, but maybe propose a policy that from a year away there will be no family benefits available to any new recipients.
Click to expand...

Yes, your suggestion is the way I would do it.

How do you propose to get the aged pension and super system under control? They are the 2 biggest spending / revenue loss areas in the budget.
Click to expand...

Make the super system fairer by taxing contributions at the marginal rate, or a proportion thereof.
 
IFocus said:
Well Joe has had his legs cut off so now he is sorry...................for himself I would think



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-car-crash-20140815-3dsc7.html#ixzz3AWtHEp00
Click to expand...

Yes you're right IFocus, the budget needs the boot, according to Labor.

What a hoot, the goon show that got us in the fiscal mess, now giving advice. Absolute dicks.:D

Can't wait to read Wayne Swans book, apparently he supports our assesment of Rudd.

The only idiots who take Labor seriously are Fairfax and the Greens.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/24733508/labor-says-budget-needs-boot-not-reboot/

All we need now is another Labor/Green Government, to sort out the spending.lol
 
ANDREW BOLT.....not the most favorite boy amongst the Fabians, nevertheless he does make a lot of sense as to what is going on in the Liberal Party.

No fear....no favor.

Maybe it is time for the Liberals to look in the mirror and change direction or else they will finish on the scrape heap with the Labor Party.

Arise the Democratic Liberals.... Senator David Leyonhjelm may have the answers to a new political party to suit the center.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...urch-to-the-left/story-fni0ffxg-1227019659286
 
Top