The Abbott Government

[Julia]

Julia's comment got me interested to look up the NZ tax system, as usual they appear to be advanced compared to Oz. I would love to swap leaders as their Prime Minister, John Key, appears to be very competent and has real experience working internationally. Tell you what, I will swap Tony Abbott, Brandis and Hockey and throw in a patrol boat (wish).

Yep, I'd go for that. Thanks for looking up the NZ system, Knobby. I've been away too long to remember much.
Actually had some family over last week, one of whom is a financial planner, and from what he says, all is going well with the economy. Local newspaper articles here have also commented on this and how we are going in the opposite direction.

There's an interesting article in the Weekend Australian on this which I'll try to find later today and post.
It specifically includes reference to the fact that New Zealanders are used to frugal budgets. There seems to be minimal whining, probably due to John Key & Co's capacity to get the population on side.

I also don't know enough about the NZ system to make comparisons, but I agree that it looks simpler.

Maybe their accident compensation could be compared to our NDIS in the way it works. There certainly are a lot of ads here for compensation lawyers and if NZ have a system that cuts out the legal eagles and gives a higher payout to victims, then I'm all for it.

The ACC is not at all like the proposed NDIS (which may never see the light of day imo). It's not to do with disabilities but, as it says, accidents. If you are injured you're medically assessed under the ACC, treated, referred for assessment of compensation if that's appropriate and, at least when I was still there, no cost to the individual. No lawyers busily suing people and companies. Why on earth Australia doesn't adopt something similar is beyond me. Australia is a great place to be a lawyer.

John Key is a soul mate of our PM, so watch out low income earners, the big bite may not be far away.

Perhaps you're confusing him with the Canadian PM? John Key is an entirely different type of person - great background, independently wealthy, so not doing the job for the $, and afaik not hard right or religiously driven, the characteristics that seem to so mark both Mr Abbott and Mr Harper.

The national and local morale under John Key's compassionate and practical lead, well supported by the ChCh Mayor, during the earthquakes, kept Christchurch going and still does. As Knobby suggests above, if we could persuade him over here, we'd be looking at a quite different future.

 

[Knobby22]

At present, believe it or not, John Keys is the most popular leader of the western world despite the fact he has been in a long time now. He will probably lose the next election anyway...refer attached.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9171411/key-to-defeat/

 

[wayneL]

With a top personal tax rate of just 33% on incomes over $70,000 is seems as though the rich have a very good deal at the expense of the not so rich.

John Key is a soul mate of our PM, so watch out low income earners, the big bite may not be far away.

John Key is not responsible for the structure of the tax system, he inherited it. Therefore the previous Labour Party disaster worked within the same system (dont know who implemented it in its current form).And as much as I dont feel like publicly agreeing with anything Julia says atm, she is absolutely correct, Key is nothing like Abbott at all.

So that was a very silly post Horace

 

[SirRumpole]

John Key is not responsible for the structure of the tax system, he inherited it.

He's been PM for six years and hasn't changed anything, so for better or worse he owns it.

And you don't have to be "independently wealthy" as PM to not be in it for the money. A top tax rate of 33% does very nicely for him compared to other countries.

Key is nothing like Abbott at all.

OK, I'll have to take your word for that. Are you a Kiwi yourself ?

 

[wayneL]

He's been PM for six years and hasn't changed anything, so for better or worse he owns it.

And you don't have to be "independently wealthy" as PM to not be in it for the money. A top tax rate of 33% does very nicely for him compared to other countries.



OK, I'll have to take your word for that. Are you a Kiwi yourself ?

Ok, whatever you say Horace </inmymostpatronizingtone>

....and good God no I am not a Kiwi; lived there 3 years though, been back 18 months.

 

[SirRumpole]

Ok, whatever you say Horace </inmymostpatronizingtone>

....and good God no I am not a Kiwi; lived there 3 years though, been back 18 months.

No need to patronise me Wayne, if someone has been PM for six years and hasn't changed the tax rules, then he obviously agrees with them.

And it wasn't me who said that the tax rates in NZ are burdensome for low income earners.

 

[wayneL]

It is more compkex than that. </whichiswhyyoudeservetobepatronized>

 

[SirRumpole]

It is more compkex than that. </whichiswhyyoudeservetobepatronized>

Well why don't you expand your analysis then <insteadofactinglikeaknowitall/>

 

[wayneL]

1/ There has to be an appetite for tax reform

2/ A better system has to be devised that has has cross party support

3/ The new system shouldn't put ones own constituency offside

There are many vectors and potential for unintended consequences, so it is a tall order.

 

[sptrawler]

He's been PM for six years and hasn't changed anything, so for better or worse he owns it.

.

Abbott was PM for six months, and you were saying he was responsible for the budget situation, left by Labor.

You really do give me a laugh, you must go into a tool box meeting with Bill Shorten, just before smoko, you're a hoot.

 

[SirRumpole]

Abbott was PM for six months, and you were saying he was responsible for the budget situation, left by Labor.

Where did I say that ?

You really do give me a laugh, you must go into a tool box meeting with Bill Shorten, just before smoko, you're a hoot.

I could think of a few words for you too, but Joe would throw me out if I used them. If you can't develop an argument based on anything but abuse then you are not worth conversing with.

 

[sptrawler]

The point is that Tony said he would fix all the alleged bad for business things bought in by Labor.

If GMH, Toyota, Email & co really believed he was going to do that, why wouldn't they hang around instead of queueing up to leave ?

Can you explain that in a sensible logical manner to me ?

Post 1834 (page 92) of this thread and three pages were spent explaining it wasn't Tony's fault.

 

[SirRumpole]

Post 1834 (page 92) of this thread and three pages were spent explaining it wasn't Tony's fault.

Post 1834 by me

The point is that Tony said he would fix all the alleged bad for business things bought in by Labor.

If GMH, Toyota, Email & co really believed he was going to do that, why wouldn't they hang around instead of queueing up to leave ?

Can you explain that in a sensible logical manner to me ?

I was pointing out a lack of confidence in the Abbott government to rectify the situation that they inherited. The car makers packed up and left, even after a return to a Liberal government after which they pronounced "Australia is open for business".

I never said the situation was "their fault" as you said I did, so kindly stop your misrepresentation.

 

[sptrawler]

Post 1834 by me



I was pointing out a lack of confidence in the Abbott government to rectify the situation that they inherited. The car makers packed up and left, even after a return to a Liberal government after which they pronounced "Australia is open for business".

I never said the situation was "their fault" as you said I did, so kindly stop your misrepresentation.

The point was, as I said, Abbott had only been in office six months and you were blaming him for not fixing a situation that had been evolving for years.
There is no misrepresentation in that.
Your obvious dislike of him and the coalition, clouds your ability to give them a fair go and as can be seen in parliament, your not alone.

 

[SirRumpole]

The point was, as I said, Abbott had only been in office six months and you were blaming him for not fixing a situation that had been evolving for years.
There is no misrepresentation in that.
Your obvious dislike of him and the coalition, clouds your ability to give them a fair go and as can be seen in parliament, your not alone.

FFS, no one expects anyone to fix a situation after 6 months, but car makers don't announce the withdrawal of billions of dollars of investment unless they believe that there is no prospect of the situation being fixed in the term of this government at least (which may be three years or more). That position is contrary to the Coalition's boast that "Australia is open for business". If you can't see that then you are more short sighted than I thought you were.

I presume you will also argue that the car makers didn't give him a fair deal either.

 

[sptrawler]

FFS, no one expects anyone to fix a situation after 6 months, but car makers don't announce the withdrawal of billions of dollars of investment unless they believe that there is no prospect of the situation being fixed in the term of this government at least (which may be three years or more). That position is contrary to the Coalition's boast that "Australia is open for business". If you can't see that then you are more short sighted than I thought you were.

I presume you will also argue that the car makers didn't give him a fair deal either.

We discussed the car manufacturers at lengh and the general concensus was, the industry was not financially viable and was only running due to taxpayer handouts.

Whether "Australia is open for business" or not has nothing to do with it. We have a budget running in deficit and a growing Federal debt.
To add to that by propping up a non viable business is dumb.
It isn't a case of the car makers giving him a fair deal, it's about the car makers investing in their business to make it viable.
GM could just as easily have invested in the Australian car plant, instead of building the new plant in Korea to manufacture the right hand drive world cars.
If you can't see that, then I feel it is you who is short sighted, but that is only my opinion against yours.

 

[SirRumpole]

To add to that by propping up a non viable business is dumb.

Every country that still produces cars subsidises it's car industry.

Some people just look at the cost but not the benefits

* Company tax paid by the manufacturers including the component manufactures

* Income tax paid by the employees of the above

* GST paid on the vehicles

Contributing to the withdrawal of the car industry is a very short sighted action

The real value of our automotive manufacturing industry

4th November, 2013

The Australian economy would be $21.5 billion smaller if automotive manufacturing leaves the country in 2018. Melbourne and Adelaide will be heavily impacted with significant job losses and a long-term fall in gross regional product (GRP).

Economic analysis by Monash University’s Centre of Policy Studies and research by the Allen Consulting Group has identified the impacts Australia will see if automotive manufacturing in Australia ceases.

Releasing a Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries commissioned report with this analysis and research, Chief Executive Tony Weber said without Government support for automotive manufacturing, high-tech jobs and skills will be lost. He also said significant foreign direct investment would cease, as overseas headquarters redirect investments to other automotive manufacturing countries, not to other industries in Australia.

“This report shows the value of automotive manufacturing to Australia. It details the benefits to Australia as a whole””to the economy, communities, the supply chain and other industries. The FCAI will be using this report as a basis for our submission to the Productivity Commission’s review of the automotive sector. I want to be clear: financial support for the industry is an investment in Australia and this investment needs to be long-term,” Mr Weber said.

“For that investment, Australians receive significant returns through direct foreign investment, employment, skills, training, technology transfer and research. And the investment also generates spill-overs that flow into other industries and areas of the economy. Without that investment, we lose these long-lasting benefits.”

Key points from the report

Automotive manufacturing in Australia receives around $500 million in Government funding each year. For this investment, the Australian economy is $21.5 billion larger (based on an economic welfare net present value calculation).
The modelling worked on a scenario where Australian automotive manufacturing shuts down over a two-year period from 2017 to 2018.
On a per person basis, Government assistance to automotive manufacturing is around $18 per person””a very low figure by international standards. The $21.5 billion return equates to $934 per person in benefit.
Australia would be a very different place without automotive manufacturing. If we lost this important capability:
Australia’s GDP would be $7.3 billion smaller (in today’s dollars) by 2018.
Billions in foreign direct investment would cease, as head offices direct investment to other automotive manufacturing countries, not to other industries in Australia.
Employment losses in Melbourne would equate to some 33,000 jobs in 2018, and around 6,600 in Adelaide. These jobs would eventually return in both cities, but with lower real wages. And employment levels would not return until around 2027 for Melbourne and 2025 for Adelaide.
The economies of Adelaide and Melbourne would be heavily impacted with gross regional product (GRP) contracted by up to 1.4 per cent and it is likely GRP will be lower than pre-closure levels until the end of 2031, while employment could fall by around 1.5 per cent.
These impacts do not include the spill-over effects, including to advanced manufacturing and research and development (R&D), which cannot be modelled, but are recognised by chief executives of companies like Boeing, Rio Tinto and Coca-Cola Amatil. These include:
technology transfers through R&D and innovation;
lean management techniques and applications; and
advanced labour skills and manufacturing techniques.
The report found that if barriers to export were removed and the Australian industry could return to 2008 levels of exports (when 160,000 vehicles were exported), Australia’s consumer welfare would increase by $7.1 billion over time.

http://www.fcai.com.au/news/news/all/all/341/the-real-value-of-our-automotive-manufacturing-industry

 

[sptrawler]

Every country that still produces cars subsidises it's car industry.

Some people just look at the cost but not the benefits

* Company tax paid by the manufacturers including the component manufactures

* Income tax paid by the employees of the above

* GST paid on the vehicles

Contributing to the withdrawal of the car industry is a very short sighted action

What you are saying is correct, however unless the parent company wishes to invest in the company there is no long term future for it.
As I said why didn't GM or Ford base the manufacturing of their right hand drive world cars here. I think we all know the reason, just no one wants to admit it, it's expensive to do business here.

The subsidies would just increase, untill you reach a point that the taxpayer is paying GM and Ford, for cars they can't sell.
What do you do then crush them, just to keep the plant open?

 

[sydboy007]

Why is Abbott so wedded to his Chaplaincy program? Surely in a secular country forcing schools to only higher a religious chaplain is not sound policy. Why force schools to sack qualified counsellors?

2 High Court judgements against the program yet Abbott is still determined to have his way. Seems his pig headedness is at PPL levels.

How do you argue that the budget is at emergency levels yet you can throw $250M for school chaplains who are unlikely to have the same level of qualifications as the many counsellors they'll be supplanting?

A PM basing policy on political ideology is one thing, but religious ideology shouldn't have any place when determining how tax payer funds are spent!

 

[sptrawler]

Why is Abbott so wedded to his Chaplaincy program? Surely in a secular country forcing schools to only higher a religious chaplain is not sound policy. Why force schools to sack qualified counsellors?

2 High Court judgements against the program yet Abbott is still determined to have his way. Seems his pig headedness is at PPL levels.

How do you argue that the budget is at emergency levels yet you can throw $250M for school chaplains who are unlikely to have the same level of qualifications as the many counsellors they'll be supplanting?

A PM basing policy on political ideology is one thing, but religious ideology shouldn't have any place when determining how tax payer funds are spent!

I have to agree with you, religion isn't something tax payers should be funding. IMO