The Abbott Government

sptrawler · 28 November 2014

sydboy007 said:
So what's your solution to the falling working aged population, pensioner tsunami, and off shore tax havens siphoning corporate taxes out of the country?

The most efficient tax system targets land and consumption and resources. tax what's not moveable so you can lightly tax that which is ie workers and capital within companies. The Swiss do it and it's not controversial there. Each canton has a wealth tax. I don't seem to recall the country falling into a heap over it. They seem pretty successful actually. Certainly a far greater manufacturing prowess than import everything Australia.

It's not class or generational war fare as you seem to make it out to be. To me it's the only viable option we have. The googles and apples and glencores have shown they don't have any interest in paying taxes here. Heck even the Future Fund uses the same tricks, so it's hard for the Govt to tut tut to businesses over it.

So we can keep on pretending she'll be right, or we need to start making significant changes to the way we source revenue. It needs to be done more efficiently so that the costs of avoidance start to become less attractive. Our problems are as much about spending as it is about the way we tax.

At least I actually present options. Most on this forum like to whinge about the major parties doing nothing but then put their hands up in the air as if to say don't look at me.

I actually agree with you, I just think a lot of people haven't thought it through. It isn't a class or generation war, it is a changing of the fiscal dynamics.

As I've said, you can't keep increasing the take from the productive part of the economy, just to bolster the non productive part of the economy.

However the tax take has to increase, to pay an ever increasing welfare.

I think I've said, I agree with you. I just don't think people, have thought through, what you are saying.

I don't think you have read my previous posts, or I have missrepresented my position.

sptrawler · 28 November 2014

sydboy007 said:
Without the senate we'd now be faced with:

* GP tax poorly targeted.

Some form of deterent from over use of doctors and overservicing, is required.

This has been a known problem since the inception of 'free' medical. The co payment has been mooted for years, it's just no Government has ever dared to voice it. But it is sure to happen, or costs will keep escalating.

The idea of free medical will be abused, as you suggested in your earlier post, saying" you'd have to be crazy to tell the hospital you have private health cover, as it will cost you more".

If it's free it will be abused, trying to make up fairy tales that it won't, doesn't cut it.
Why should taxes be increased, to support a faulty system?

sydboy007 said:
* University fee deregulation.

Again the ballooning cost of lowering entery standards, and allowing more and more people to chose non core courses, which lead nowhere, has to be paid for.

Why should taxes be increased, to facilitate people staying on to achieve a non prodctive outcome?

By increasing the personal cost, it may in fact make the students assess if they have the ability, determination and dedication, to see through their choice. Somewhat like the exams did years ago.

It may also make them say to themselves, is this degree going to lead to a job?
Or is it about personal satisfaction and indulgence?

Why should taxes be increased to support, degrees that lead nowhere?

sydboy007 said:
* RET castrated (when even the Govts own hand picked economic modeller shows it's good for consumers)
* CEF disbanded (even though it makes a profit)

I'm not really sure of the reasoning behind, the above two decissions.

banco · 28 November 2014

sptrawler said:
I actually agree with you, I just think a lot of people haven't thought it through. It isn't a class or generation war, it is a changing of the fiscal dynamics.

There are going to be winners and losers if they get serious about cutting the deficit. Obviously some changes will fall more heavily on some groups than it will on other groups.

sptrawler · 28 November 2014

banco said:
There are going to be winners and losers if they get serious about cutting the deficit. Obviously some changes will fall more heavily on some groups than it will on other groups.

That's so true, and why it is just as important, to ensure the welfare system is accountable.

As the tax base changes from company and payroll based, to consumption and wealth based, it will be important that the welfare system isn't being rorted.

At the moment, everyone thinks it is someone elses problem, that will change.IMO

SirRumpole · 28 November 2014

sptrawler said:
Some form of deterent from over use of doctors and overservicing, is required.

Some form of "no claim bonus" rebate of Medicare levy would help.

If people wanted to retain their NCB they would pay for occasional visits to the doctor, just like holders of other insurances would pay small amounts of damages to their car or house if it yields a greater financial benefit.

sptrawler · 28 November 2014

SirRumpole said:
Some form of "no claim bonus" rebate of Medicare levy would help.

If people wanted to retain their NCB they would pay for occasional visits to the doctor, just like holders of other insurances would pay small amounts of damages to their car or house if it yields a greater financial benefit.

Yes all those sort of ideas will have to be looked into.
One thing for sure, those who have saved and are going to get taxed more and pay more for services, will complain, if they see wastage that's coming out of their pockets.

Julia · 28 November 2014

There seems to be a disproportionate amount of fuss over this co-payment. As far as I can recall what the government suggested, it was to be capped at 10 times, viz $70 p.a. I don't believe that's unaffordable.

No one wants to take any sort of hit, however minimal. Instead there appears on the part of much of the electorate - and certainly the opposition - a conviction that we can just continue to borrow to pay increasing interest etc.

I don't know they fixed on $7, presumably there was some modelling done to show that as an optimum amount.

The government stuffed it up by announcing it with mixed messages, on the one hand that we needed to prop up Medicare or it would not be sustainable (makes sense) but on the other, that the money garnered would go to some new medical research fund.

And now they are confused amongst themselves about whether it's still even policy or not!!!

sptrawler · 28 November 2014

Julia said:
There seems to be a disproportionate amount of fuss over this co-payment. As far as I can recall what the government suggested, it was to be capped at 10 times, viz $70 p.a. I don't believe that's unaffordable.

No one wants to take any sort of hit, however minimal. Instead there appears on the part of much of the electorate - and certainly the opposition - a conviction that we can just continue to borrow to pay increasing interest etc.

I don't know they fixed on $7, presumably there was some modelling done to show that as an optimum amount.

The government stuffed it up by announcing it with mixed messages, on the one hand that we needed to prop up Medicare or it would not be sustainable (makes sense) but on the other, that the money garnered would go to some new medical research fund.

And now they are confused amongst themselves about whether it's still even policy or not!!!

Already everyone without a pension card pay a co contribution, it will have to be brought in sooner or later.

If Labor get in, it will be interesting to see what taxes are introduced, because they sure as hell won't dare touch welfare.:1zhelp:

Abbott really has to take stock over the christmas break, some serious policy planning and implementation is required.

boofhead · 28 November 2014

Julia said:
There seems to be a disproportionate amount of fuss over this co-payment. As far as I can recall what the government suggested, it was to be capped at 10 times, viz $70 p.a. I don't believe that's unaffordable.

The government stuffed it up by announcing it with mixed messages, on the one hand that we needed to prop up Medicare or it would not be sustainable (makes sense) but on the other, that the money garnered would go to some new medical research fund.

The cap was announced for people on various types of welfare. If someon is on a lower income and decides they don't want to take a complementary welfare payment for whatever reason (in some circumstances the hassle doesn't seem worth it) then it can get very costly very quickly.

A couple of years ago as a casual worker working very few hours per week I discovered I had an illness and would have quickly hot the 10 visit limit. I also needed a lot of time off from the first GP visit until the last of the needed treatment. In maybe less than 1 month I had more than 10 visits to medical services that are covered by the co-payment. Pathology is included in the co-payment.

You acknowledge that the Coalition messed up on the sales pitch as it doesn't go to Medicare budget. It is a price signal to scare some from using the services as there is a belief it is over used. I haven't searched for any analysis about the level of over use. $5 is a friendlier price.

Coalition have also messed up the message if it is still happening or not.

SirRumpole · 28 November 2014

Overuse of the medical system ?

The problem is that patients aren't doctors and we don't know if a condition has the potential to become serious, so it's the old story of an ounce of prevention better than a ton of cure. Medical experts agree that discouraging people from seeing doctors leads to higher costs down the track.

Probably one area that is overused is people going to get a medical certificate for colds or flu, for which there is very little that can be done in terms of medical treatment. If patients had to pay a fee for a medical certificate, and that fee went to Medicare then that would offset the cost and make the system more sustainable.

IFocus · 28 November 2014

Whats killing Abbott is lack of any fairness this is of their own doing and absolute sheer arrogance on gaining power never seen such a naked born to rule attitude, George Brandis behaviour in the senate comes to mind.

Read an opinion the other day on a rule about the Japanese government / people / economy.

Rule No 1. The Japanese people are always prepared to take pain for the national sake as long as its shared equally.

Rule No 2. Japanese politicians never cease to exploit rule No 1.

Abbott screamed endlessly about the current budget emergency (1st lie) then broke every election promise to solve the budget emergency (2nd lie the saving go on increased spending) then applies unfairly the cuts to the people who can lest afford them.

To top it off blames Labor after 14 months in office.

banco · 28 November 2014

IFocus said:
Whats killing Abbott is lack of any fairness this is of their own doing and absolute sheer arrogance on gaining power never seen such a naked born to rule attitude, George Brandis behaviour in the senate comes to mind.

Read an opinion the other day on a rule about the Japanese government / people / economy.

Rule No 1. The Japanese people are always prepared to take pain for the national sake as long as its shared equally.

Rule No 2. Japanese politicians never cease to exploit rule No 1.

Abbott screamed endlessly about the current budget emergency (1st lie) then broke every election promise to solve the budget emergency (2nd lie the saving go on increased spending) then applies unfairly the cuts to the people who can lest afford them.

To top it off blames Labor after 14 months in office.

He should have gone after superannuation concessions and/or negative gearing because like it or not if you are liberal Government the electorate assumes you are beholden to high income earners and he need to do something to counter that.

Smurf1976 · 28 November 2014

sptrawler said:
Abbott really has to take stock over the christmas break, some serious policy planning and implementation is required.

Keep going on the same way and at some point the wheels will fall off altogether. We've had much better governments in the past, both Coalition and Labor, whose approach this government would be wise to consider following. Hawke, Keating and Howard all brought about significant changes but they managed to do so without descending into chaos.

Meanwhile in the real world he ASX was thumped down pretty hard once again today. Hmm....

noco · 28 November 2014

sptrawler said:
Already everyone without a pension card pay a co contribution, it will have to be brought in sooner or later.

If Labor get in, it will be interesting to see what taxes are introduced, because they sure as hell won't dare touch welfare.:1zhelp:

Abbott really has to take stock over the christmas break, some serious policy planning and implementation is required.

Labor will bring back the Carbon dioxide tax which will again hurt the poor and the vulnerable.

Labor will bring back the mining tax that cost more to administer than what it brings in.

Labor will continue to prop up the union comrades and subsidize unprofitable industry like the car manufacturing and the Adelaide ship building ......ships they are building now which is $300,000,000 over budget and that far behind schedule.

Labor will continue to borrow $100,000,000 per day to subsidize the unions and be happy to pay $3billion every week in interest for the next generation to pay back.

Labor will lead us into a "BANANA REPUBLIC" LIKE Paul Keating suggested.

Labor will increase taxes and even have their eye on the GST.

Unemployment will rise under Labor.

Yes you are right, Abbott will have to turn the ship around fast if he wants to survive as PM.

IFocus · 28 November 2014

banco said:
He should have gone after superannuation concessions and/or negative gearing because like it or not if you are liberal Government the electorate assumes you are beholden to high income earners and he need to do something to counter that.

I actually think Abbott didn't have to do to much even a token effort of fairness and he could have broken any amount of promisers if it addressed the debt issue.

Abbotts issue he has done neither by running an idealogical policy platform that doesn't address the debt issue but funds higher spending all the time saying black is white.

To top it off its the policy's that don't return very much thats causing all the political pain.

If this runs through to the next election no matter who wins surely there will be more independents and or greens.

Julia · 28 November 2014

Smurf1976 said:
Meanwhile in the real world he ASX was thumped down pretty hard once again today. Hmm....

Probably largely on the basis of the rapidly falling oil price. Note the drop in oil stocks.

banco · 28 November 2014

IFocus said:
I actually think Abbott didn't have to do to much even a token effort of fairness and he could have broken any amount of promisers if it addressed the debt issue.

Abbotts issue he has done neither by running an idealogical policy platform that doesn't address the debt issue but funds higher spending all the time saying black is white.

To top it off its the policy's that don't return very much thats causing all the political pain.

If this runs through to the next election no matter who wins surely there will be more independents and or greens.

He tried a token effort with the wealth tax and didn't work. He needed to do something big enough that there would be vocal opposition from moneyed interests.

SirRumpole · 29 November 2014

UK efforts to curb immigration which could well be considered here

No dole for migrant workers: British Prime Minister outlines radical plan to curb EU migration

British prime minister David Cameron has set out radical proposals aimed at reducing migration from the European Union.

Under his plans, migrants will have to wait four years for certain benefits and will have to leave the country after six months if they have not found work.

Under current arrangements, EU citizens are free to come to the United Kingdom and compete for jobs without being subject to any immigration controls.

But Mr Cameron said benefits that have made Britain a magnetic destination for migrant workers from the EU must be curtailed.

"People want government to have control over the number of people coming here, and the circumstances in which they come, both from around the world and from within the European Union," he said.

"They want control over who has the right to receive benefits and what is expected of them in return."

In a speech designed to breathe new life into his campaign for re-election next May, Mr Cameron set out a detailed blueprint for limiting EU migrants' access to benefits like tax credits and housing.

Mr Cameron said his proposals would require changes to EU treaties, which enshrine freedom of movement as a fundamental principle.

People want government to have control over the number of people coming here, and the circumstances in which they come, both from around the world and from within the European Union.
David Cameron

If re-elected, David Cameron promised to renegotiate Britain's ties with the EU before holding a referendum in 2017 on whether to stay in or leave the 28-nation union.

While making it clear he thought that renegotiation would succeed, he dropped his strongest hint yet that he may campaign for Britain to quit the bloc if he fails.

"I will negotiate a cut to EU migration and make welfare reform an absolute requirement in renegotiation," Mr Cameron said.

Mr Cameron urged other EU leaders to support his proposals, but his demands were likely to meet fierce resistance from EU leaders such as German chancellor Angela Merkel.

"If our concerns fall on deaf ears and we cannot put our relationship with the EU on a better footing, then of course I rule nothing out," Mr Cameron said.

"But I am confident that, with goodwill and understanding, we can and will succeed."

Opposition parties in Britain said Mr Cameron's proposal would do little to address the huge numbers of people migrating to Britain.

The chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, Labour politician Keith Vaz, said the level of EU migration cannot be controlled.

"Somebody can fly from Warsaw to London and not be impeded by anything that is being said today by the prime minister," Mr Vaz said.

"And those who come come to work, they don't actually come to claim benefits."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-29/british-pm-outlines-radical-plan-to-curb-eu-migration/5927534

noco · 29 November 2014

SirRumpole said:
UK efforts to curb immigration which could well be considered here

But the Abbott government has already implemented their policy to stop the boats which as been most successful, something Labor said could not be done.

Yes, some of the UK policies on immigration should also be executed here, but we all know what would happen if the government tried......you would have the professor Gillian Twig from Human rights and the child senator SHY together with the Labor Party protesting in the streets.

noco · 29 November 2014

Tony Abbott has to lift his game and turn things around for the Liberal Party or else face the music from his party.

I would give him until mid 2015 to do it and if he can't, then he should step aside and allow someone else with a bit more charisma and punch......he has to stop being the nice guy.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...e_betrays_joe_hockey_time_it_was_reorganised/

The Abbott Government

sptrawler

sptrawler

banco

sptrawler

SirRumpole

sptrawler

Julia

In Memoriam

sptrawler

boofhead

SirRumpole

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

banco

Smurf1976

noco

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

Julia

In Memoriam

banco

SirRumpole

noco

noco

Similar threads

The Abbott Government

In Memoriam

You are arguing with a Galah

You are arguing with a Galah

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency