The Abbott Government

[luutzu]

Not surprised by everyone jumping on the nationalistic bandwagon against the baddies (interpretation, suckered by a politician elected on three worded slogans) but I am surprised at how everyone glosses over the loss of freedoms of the press that are very 1984.

What happens when the lunatic communist left wing Fabian unions get back in and start running the country using the same laws......

It would take a very brave politician to debate or question the new anti-terror laws now.

But as the Captain said, the delicate balance between freedom and security will have to shift... for some times to come.

 

[overhang]

Heard Abbott in his press conference this morning in New York for the UN security council meeting saying that he is there because Australia is a good global contributor that does the right thing. Well Tony if that were the case then you would have also attended the UN climate summit held yesterday in New York that featured most world leaders. It really isn't a good look and certainly doesn't encourage international investment into renewable energy when our PM can't take the matter seriously enough to attend a world summit when he is in the same city the following day. It's a bit like if I travel to Brisbane I have to see the in-laws, I don't want to but need to do the right thing to keep up appearances.

 

[Tisme]

I have to hand it to him, that was the best speech in the interests of Australia and the World I have heard for a long time. No polywaffle, it was succinct, it was intelligent , it was what we have come to expect from erudite and educated men...hands down David Cameron's words were inspirational. Shame our national leader didn't have the same delivery, but David made Obama look like an apprentice too.

 

[SirRumpole]

I have to hand it to him, that was the best speech in the interests of Australia and the World I have heard for a long time. No polywaffle, it was succinct, it was intelligent , it was what we have come to expect from erudite and educated men...hands down David Cameron's words were inspirational. Shame our national leader didn't have the same delivery, but David made Obama look like an apprentice too.

Tony Abbott's speech was just a rehash of things he has already said. I wasn't particularly inspired by it.

No one has the guts to mention the elephant in the room, which is that ISIL can't conquer anyone without arms and ammunition and from where and how are they getting these ?

If countries are required to put restraints and inconveniences on their citizens, they should be required to put restraints on their manufacturers of arms and ammunition and dry up the supplies of these to people who shouldn't have them.

If ISIL can't kill people, there is no fun in it for them anymore and they will dry up as a force.

 

[Tisme]

Tony Abbott's speech was just a rehash of things he has already said. I wasn't particularly inspired by it.

No one has the guts to mention the elephant in the room, which is that ISIL can't conquer anyone without arms and ammunition and from where and how are they getting these ?

If countries are required to put restraints and inconveniences on their citizens, they should be required to put restraints on their manufacturers of arms and ammunition and dry up the supplies of these to people who shouldn't have them.

If ISIL can't kill people, there is no fun in it for them anymore and they will dry up as a force.

You need to listen to David's speech, it included a major swipe at the Islamic community leaders in his own country and the hate they ferment.

I think the unanimous resolution last night in the UN was to ban sales of arms to IS and affiliates.

 

[noco]

Tony Abbott's speech was just a rehash of things he has already said. I wasn't particularly inspired by it.

No one has the guts to mention the elephant in the room, which is that ISIL can't conquer anyone without arms and ammunition and from where and how are they getting these ?

If countries are required to put restraints and inconveniences on their citizens, they should be required to put restraints on their manufacturers of arms and ammunition and dry up the supplies of these to people who shouldn't have them.

If ISIL can't kill people, there is no fun in it for them anymore and they will dry up as a force.

Try telling all that waffle to North Korea, Iran, Russia and China.

 

[SirRumpole]

You need to listen to David's speech, it included a major swipe at the Islamic community leaders in his own country and the hate they ferment.

I did hear parts of Cameron's speech and it was very good. I think he is a strong and articulate leader who has a presence on the world stage.

I think the unanimous resolution last night in the UN was to ban sales of arms to IS and affiliates.

About time. If they hadn't sold arms to Saddam Hussein years ago those arms could not have been captured by ISIS.

The point is of course that these countries could sell to a middleman who then sells to ISIS. This area has always been very porous and un-regulated and needs a special overseeing body to monitor it.

 

[noco]

Heard Abbott in his press conference this morning in New York for the UN security council meeting saying that he is there because Australia is a good global contributor that does the right thing. Well Tony if that were the case then you would have also attended the UN climate summit held yesterday in New York that featured most world leaders. It really isn't a good look and certainly doesn't encourage international investment into renewable energy when our PM can't take the matter seriously enough to attend a world summit when he is in the same city the following day. It's a bit like if I travel to Brisbane I have to see the in-laws, I don't want to but need to do the right thing to keep up appearances.

If you consider Global warming (oops sorry Climate Change) is crap why would anyone want to go to the UN Climate Summit.

Why would you want to mix with the likes of Ban-ki Moon, Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio who are all GREENIES......Di Caprio is a good mate of Al Gore......Ban-ki-Moon walks hand in hand at a rally with Al Gore who all have a mind set that the Climate change is man made when we all know man made CO2 only contributes 3% of carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere......."GET UP" tries to make us believe that man made CO2 is 28 % and guess who is a foundation member of "GET UP" ....the one and only Bill Shorten........It has been confirmed by the ICC there has been no increase in Global temperatures in the past 17 years.....So why would anyone want to go to the UN Climate Summit to listen to incorrect information and lies.

The UN Secretary General should be above politics and not be biased towards one group or the other.

IMHO the UN are a useless bunch of cronies who are only interested in lining their own pockets....particularly Al Gore who is all set up to be an CO2 emissions trader.

Combet gave the UN $599,000 of tax payers money at the Can Cun Mexico Climate Change conference plus 10 % of the the Australia carbon dioxide tax which has just been scrapped.

So as far as I am concerned Abbott has far more important items on his agenda.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06...y-man-made-co2-does-not-drive-climate-change/

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth10.htm

 

[overhang]

If you consider Global warming (oops sorry Climate Change) is crap why would anyone want to go to the UN Climate Summit.

Why would you want to mix with the likes of Ban-ki Moon, Al Gore and Leonardo Di Caprio who are all GREENIES......Di Caprio is a good mate of Al Gore......Ban-ki-Moon walks hand in hand at a rally with Al Gore who all have a mind set that the Climate change is man made when we all know man made CO2 only contributes 3% of carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere......."GET UP" tries to make us believe that man made CO2 is 28 % and guess who is a foundation member of "GET UP" ....the one and only Bill Shorten........It has been confirmed by the ICC there has been no increase in Global temperatures in the past 17 years.....So why would anyone want to go to the UN Climate Summit to listen to incorrect information and lies.

The UN Secretary General should be above politics and not be biased towards one group or the other.

IMHO the UN are a useless bunch of cronies who are only interested in lining their own pockets....particularly Al Gore who is all set up to be an CO2 emissions trader.

Combet gave the UN $599,000 of tax payers money at the Can Cun Mexico Climate Change conference plus 10 % of the the Australia carbon dioxide tax which has just been scrapped.

So as far as I am concerned Abbott has far more important items on his agenda.

Our PM shouldn't be as close minded as climate deniers nor should they be an alarmist but some middle ground is what is need from a leader. Obama and David Cameron have got there but Abbott seems a long way off. By attending but not making bold statements might give the renewable energy sector some confidence that we are open for business.

I absolutely will concede though that I don't like the look of having celebrates at an event that I believe should be between world leaders and scientists, climate change shouldn't be about product placement and wins it no creditability from non alarmists.

It's not the right thread for this so I don't want to go into it but all your points have scientific rebuttals, these are not my rebuttals but rather from experts who actually study the climate for a living. I honestly don't think you will take the rebuttals into account though, I don't think you're prepared for even the remote possibility that you may be wrong on this. Personally I'm happy to be wrong, I just require most the experts to come out and agree with a peer reviewed paper that concedes the planet isn't warming or that humans have no control over the warming.

Could you please provide some legitimate sources to your claim that 10% of the carbon tax went to the UN, I think in early days this was discussed but was never legislated. I haven't found anything to indicate either way, a few right wing bloggers have early blogs stating the 10% but nothing recent. This is a recent article by the SBS that doesn't mention money going to the UN at all

How will the government use the money raised from the carbon tax?

The government says it will use $15.3 billion to assist households affected by the tax through tax cuts and payments. It will also assist industries which may be particularly impacted, as well as invest in research and development of cleaner and more efficient technologies.

But if you can prove otherwise I would love to know.

 

[noco]

Our PM shouldn't be as close minded as climate deniers nor should they be an alarmist but some middle ground is what is need from a leader. Obama and David Cameron have got there but Abbott seems a long way off. By attending but not making bold statements might give the renewable energy sector some confidence that we are open for business.

I absolutely will concede though that I don't like the look of having celebrates at an event that I believe should be between world leaders and scientists, climate change shouldn't be about product placement and wins it no creditability from non alarmists.

It's not the right thread for this so I don't want to go into it but all your points have scientific rebuttals, these are not my rebuttals but rather from experts who actually study the climate for a living. I honestly don't think you will take the rebuttals into account though, I don't think you're prepared for even the remote possibility that you may be wrong on this. Personally I'm happy to be wrong, I just require most the experts to come out and agree with a peer reviewed paper that concedes the planet isn't warming or that humans have no control over the warming.

Could you please provide some legitimate sources to your claim that 10% of the carbon tax went to the UN, I think in early days this was discussed but was never legislated. I haven't found anything to indicate either way, a few right wing bloggers have early blogs stating the 10% but nothing recent. This is a recent article by the SBS that doesn't mention money going to the UN at all
But if you can prove otherwise I would love to know.

I must concede Combet made a pledge of $599,000 and 10% of the carbon tax collected for the UN Climate Change Committee but like many Labor's promises and pledges they are more often than not broken and it is no surprise to me the ABC, the Age and the Guardian did not report on the back flip......Had it been the conservative government who had reneged on the deal it would have been all over the headlines and a Labor induced senate inquiry......but ah alas, not a word has been spoken....I am also surprised to learn the UN had not pressed the issue with the then Labor Government.

I do not believe Obama and Cameron are really interested in the UN Climate Change conference and their indulgence is skin deep...they are there because they feel obliged to be there....At least Abbott is up front and does not hide what he believes in.

There are some interesting facts in the link below which has a lot of merit.


http://www.markmaldridge.com/CARBON-TAX-WHOLE-STORY-UPDATE.html

On top of my years of interest, reading and speaking on the topic, the information in this report comes from the 4 IPCC reports, The Australian Governments latest comprehensive reports, a variety of credible scientific articles and news broadcasts.

While the world toils over the whole debate, division appears an important part of the agenda, misinformation, spin, and self-interest clouding the truth, if indeed a simple truth exists. The biggest looser is unfortunately the future of the environment, the one part of the game; both believers and deniers have lost sight of, and the very thing that could unite us all.

If we study the United Nations IPCC reports, the facts support both sceptics and believers, the world is to continue warming, regardless of any action we take, due to the time lines associated with climate warming, the lead authors and chairman of the reports in the most have been critical of the final result, some what a direct result of the UN’s self interest, the trillions of dollars they will control over the next decade to play the worlds Robin Hood, (10% of our Carbon Tax, will go direct to the UN) appears to have had an impact in their final released reports.

*“Australia’s suite of measures appears to have been much more cost effective and to have produced more abatement.”

So lets get into the facts, Australia produces around 1.2% of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions, of the 3% man contributes to the total out put of Co2, which is only a minor percentage of green house gases and we are not about to shut down, so at the best we may be able to cut back our emissions by 20% on 1990 figures over the next 20 years, at a cost of upwards of 12 billion in the first year alone.

To the every day Aussie, this means by 2020, twice the amount of people, will have to live on a lot less resources, and endure a much higher cost of living, heading us back to hardships we have all worked hard to put behind us.

Australia will join with a hard full of countries that combined emit around 11%, of the worlds 3% contribution to Co2 emissions, while some countries will not only continue on with business as usual, but continue to increase their emissions and seemingly with less environmental protections than we presently have worked hard to achieve.

 

[noco]

Herewith another link to digest on the ill fated carbon dioxide tax.



http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/7b...educe-co2-by-0-3-and-cool-us-by-zero-degrees/

This news was so boringly predictable I almost didn’t post it, but numbers like this of actual outcomes of visionary Big-Government Experiments are hard to come by.

Seven billion dollars works out to $350 per person, and $1,350 per household of four, for one year. If Bill Shorten (leader of the opposition) had to knock on doors to collect this tax, there would be a riot in the street tomorrow.

The Australian reports that the $1,350 from your house for the year to Sept 2013, produced an emissions fall from 543.9 million tons all the way down to 542.1 .

 

[IFocus]

I have to hand it to him, that was the best speech in the interests of Australia and the World I have heard for a long time. No polywaffle, it was succinct, it was intelligent , it was what we have come to expect from erudite and educated men...hands down David Cameron's words were inspirational. Shame our national leader didn't have the same delivery, but David made Obama look like an apprentice too.

Have seen Cameron perform on the floor of the British parliament, makes our current conservative leader leader look 3rd rate and shallow.

 

[drsmith]

On matters dividend imputation,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ealthy-investors/story-e6frgac6-1227071960565

THE most important rule when investing is to focus on making profits first and then worry about paying taxes second.

Australian ultra high net worth (UHNW) investors are naturally acutely aware of this guiding principle primarily because accumulating their affluent positions involved a high degree of concentration when transfiguring their entities’ gross profits into personal net wealth.

Domestic UHNW investors naturally have sought the lowest, most advantageous tax vehicles for such wealth and, up until recent times, these have been found within the superannuation environment.

Significantly, since 1987, when the then treasurer Paul Keating introduced dividend imputation or “franking credits”, double taxation of profits wa s no longer an ongoing concern and UHNW investors have refocused their efforts towards seeking out the most accommodative environment — which the advent of superannuation provided.

However, later this year, when the framework for the taxation white paper is released, it is likely to engage in a debate about the future of “franking credits” as we currently know them.

Buried deep within the appendix of the Murray inquiry’s interim report is the critical comment: “The case for retaining dividend imputation is less clear than it was in the past” and, importantly, it goes on to highlight that “the benefits of dividend imputation, particularly in lowering the cost of capital, have arguably declined as Australia’s economy has become more open”.

The Murray interim report then states that the franking and other issues should be considered as part of the taxation white paper process, unless they are already under active government consideration.

In recent times, prominent business leaders such as Ken Henry and David Gonski have called for changes to the imputation system on the grounds that the current tax system discourages offshore investment by large Australian corporates — an important factor for a free market economy such as ours.

Once the framework for the taxation white paper has been released for consultation in late 2014, the federal government will look to take the issue of tax imputation to the next federal election in 2016.

Australian UHNW investors are keen to participate in this debate and ensure that an important tax consideration within their investment process is represented during this critical national conversation.

Patrick Broughan, a tax partner at Deloitte, believes the mechanisms to lower the cost of capital today have changed since 25 years ago, when imputation was first introduced.

This is because capital is able to be sourced nowadays from international capital markets and there is less reliance on Australian investors through the domestic equities and corporate bond markets.

Broughan says: “The difficulty is that imputation is likely to bias Australian companies with Australian shareholders to invest in Australian income producing assets, rather than overseas assets.”

He goes on to add that “when capital is sourced from international capital markets, which is more obvious in the current environment, the original benefit of imputation lowering the cost of capital is less relevant, as this cost would be determined by the international capital markets”.

If the Murray inquiry is correct that the case for “retaining dividend imputation is less clear than it was in the past”, then what are the alternative systems for the taxation of company and shareholder income and if franking credits become a casualty of this process, what alternate frameworks make sense, not only for institutional markets but also individual investors as well?

In addressing this, Broughan thinks that in practice “there are very few pure shareholder taxation systems abroad and almost all OECD countries avoid double taxation to some degree coupled with the fact that none provide complete shareholder relief for all corporate taxes paid”.

It is clear that all systems for the taxation of corporate entities and their shareholders have advantages and disadvantages — no taxation system, either theoretical or practical, has nil disadvantages.

The taxation white paper will presumably have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of Australia’s dividend imputation system and decide if Australia should move to a different system or whether modifications can be made to the existing imputation system to ameliorate the deficiencies identified in both the Murray inquiry’s interim report and the earlier Australia’s Future Tax System Report.

These are obviously momentous decisions that will have direct implications for many Australian individual investors, within and outside of the superannuation environment.

An argument for the current imputation system is that listed companies like Telstra, BHP Billiton or the big four banks are economically important to the Australian economy, so taxing them is a means to regulate the behaviour of the people that govern and manage them.

The Murray interim report says that this then “creates a bias for individuals and institutional investors, including superannuation funds, to invest in domestic equities”.

Another advantage of this system is that there is only one level of taxation imposed on company earnings and no biases against corporate form, dividends or *equity.

The disadvantages of an imputation system include revenue instability, double taxation on foreign earnings and the potential for a bias towards Australian companies only investing in Australian assets, rather than global assets.

On this, the Murray interim report is concerned that “dividend imputation may be affecting the development of the domestic corporate bond market” and also that “Mutuals cannot distribute franking credits, unlike institutions with more traditional company structures, which could be affecting competition in banking”.

No doubt Glenn Stevens and the Reserve Bank of Australia Board would like competition in banking addressed, especially after Treasurer Joe Hockey has made it crystal clear that his government won’t be challenging the “Four Pillars policy”, which serves as a near perfect textbook example of an “oligopolistic” market.

“Macro-prudential” controls like those employed by the Bank of England may be considered at some point soon but until such time, the Murray interim report may serve to begin the much needed conversation surrounding these issues for regulators, government and investment communities.

Australian UHNW investors know that the profit motive is paramount but never forget that tax decisions made today have material and visible outcomes tomorrow.

Larkin Group is a wholesale wealth adviser focusing on high- yielding global investments.

My bolds.

 

[Calliope]

I have to hand it to him, that was the best speech in the interests of Australia and the World I have heard for a long time. No polywaffle, it was succinct, it was intelligent , it was what we have come to expect from erudite and educated men...hands down David Cameron's words were inspirational. Shame our national leader didn't have the same delivery, but David made Obama look like an apprentice too.

As a parliamentary statesman he certainly makes Abbott look pedestrian.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-27/british-prime-minister-david-cameron-speaks-to-uk/5773364

 

[IFocus]

As a parliamentary statesman he certainly makes Abbott look pedestrian.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-27/british-prime-minister-david-cameron-speaks-to-uk/5773364

Cameron put involvement in the middle east to the parliament..........no hope of that happening here

 

[Julia]

Cameron put involvement in the middle east to the parliament..........no hope of that happening here

That's just silly. The government has the full support of Labor. If the parliament were to waste its time allowing the Greens to rant on, it would make no difference to the outcome.
Try to be a bit realistic, IF. Your Labor Party has been at pains at every possible juncture to assure the voting public that they are lock-step with the government on the whole ME and general terrorist issue.

 

[luutzu]

That's just silly. The government has the full support of Labor. If the parliament were to waste its time allowing the Greens to rant on, it would make no difference to the outcome.
Try to be a bit realistic, IF. Your Labor Party has been at pains at every possible juncture to assure the voting public that they are lock-step with the government on the whole ME and general terrorist issue.

I think what IFocus meant is we ought to have some debates before going to war. That the PM shouldn't just have the power to send the troops off on "missions" or "operations" without at least some form of debates.

But you're right, it wouldn't be much of a debate anyway.

I think it was John Madison, one of the founding fathers of the US, who said something like - there's no greater wisdom in the constitution of the US than to put the power to declare, and fund, war in the hands of Congress and not in the Executive arm of gov't.

 

[drsmith]

That's just silly. The government has the full support of Labor. If the parliament were to waste its time allowing the Greens to rant on, it would make no difference to the outcome.

Some might be unhappy with Bill Shorten's position on this issue.

 

[drsmith]

On matters dividend imputation,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ealthy-investors/story-e6frgac6-1227071960565

My bolds.

One area ripe for reform in my view is where companies use their franking credits to structure share buybacks to suit the tax circumstances of specific shareholder groups with an example being the current Telstra buyback.

In short, the options available for a company to distribute capital should either be a capital distribution without franking credits or an income distribution (special dividend) with franking credits to all shareholders at a nominated rate per share.

The ATO should also be able to look sideways at any proposed arrangement that has the capital component of a share buyback at significant odds with the prevailing market price.

 

[IFocus]

That's just silly. The government has the full support of Labor. If the parliament were to waste its time allowing the Greens to rant on, it would make no difference to the outcome.
Try to be a bit realistic, IF. Your Labor Party has been at pains at every possible juncture to assure the voting public that they are lock-step with the government on the whole ME and general terrorist issue.

Sending our best off to war shouldn't be done lightly IMHO.

Debate in the house forces questions and the government to make their position clear, public statements can be broken backtracked etc statements in the house hold the individual and or government to account.

The British hold to Westminster conventions for good reason Abbott in particular seeks to break and or avoid.

It would also have been interesting to possibly see Labor caught out playing politics rather than policy on this and other matters Shorten continues to play small target politics.