Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
Calliope said:
Besides, I don't think facts are debatable...are they?
Click to expand...

Well, it would depend if people accept the facts as true, or id they are debating if the information is actually correct. Just look at the whole climate change debate. We've still not really made it past the point where there's breoad political acceptance of the facts.

Then there's people's inbuilt biases to ignore inconvenient facts. What weighting do you put on each fact?

Without a reasonable consensus it's hard to progress.
 
sydboy007 said:
Well, it would depend if people accept the facts as true, or id they are debating if the information is actually correct. Just look at the whole climate change debate. We've still not really made it past the point where there's breoad political acceptance of the facts.

Then there's people's inbuilt biases to ignore inconvenient facts. What weighting do you put on each fact?

Without a reasonable consensus it's hard to progress.
Click to expand...

Sorry syd. A fact is always true and will stand on it's own merits and it is irrelevant whether people accept them or not. If what you are posting about the Abbott government is actually factual then it is not debatable, and why you should ask someone to debate these "facts" with you beats me, unless your "facts" are just suppositions. Facts can't be embellished, weighted or debated

As for the climate change debate that's a different kettle of fish. There we are debating theories...not facts.

Of course people ignore "inconvenient" facts. Like we ignore the inconvenient fact that there is no sunrise.

Although the Sun appears to "rise" from the horizon, it is actually the Earth's motion that causes the Sun to appear.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia
 
Please, please, can we not turn this thread into yet another argument about global warming. :rolleyes:
 
Global warming is not a theory, it is here and accelerating. New huge storm about to hit the phillipines as we speak. The cause we could debate.

In Aus, unseasonal rains, drought, bushfires in spring.

This should be loud and clear on top of the Abbott Government agenda and is most relevant to this thread.

But then Abbott has God and he of course will look after us. :banghead:
 
explod said:
Global warming is not a theory, it is here and accelerating. New huge storm about to hit the phillipines as we speak. The cause we could debate.

In Aus, unseasonal rains, drought, bushfires in spring.

This should be loud and clear on top of the Abbott Government agenda and is most relevant to this thread.

But then Abbott has God and he of course will look after us. :banghead:
Click to expand...

Global warming should not be at the forefront of government policy. Thats what stuffed the whole thing up in the first place. You have two sides shouting out fudged figures until nothing gets done. Shove it at the back and don't make a song and dance about it when you pass it through. It does not need to be politicized anymore then it already has been.
 
moXJO said:
Yeah ok, saying you worked for labor was a bit low.
Click to expand...

Actually moxjo if you read ifocus tisme and sirrumpole responses. He is the only one that has an original thought. If you don't believe me look at I focus and tisme posts. Then look at the smh headlines on the same dates. Syd at least has original and creative ideas.
 
sptrawler said:
Then look at the smh headlines on the same dates. Syd at least has original and creative ideas.
Click to expand...

Yes he does. Unlike your good self who just disparages and criticises.

Someone is cracking down on multinational tax avoiders, let's hope Hockey follows


Britain slaps 'Google tax' on multinationals


Britain plans to introduce a tax to target multinationals such as Google and Amazon accused of using complex accounting schemes to cut their payments on earnings in the country.

Governments around the world are trying to overhaul international tax treaties to stop big corporates siphoning off profits into low-tax havens, but British finance minister George Osborne broke cover on Wednesday to announce his own changes next year.

However, tax experts cautioned that the move, in response to growing outrage over how little tax some big corporates pay, would be difficult to enforce unilaterally.
Advertisement

"We will make sure that big multinational businesses pay their fair share," Mr Osborne said in a half-yearly budget statement. The tax will be set at a rate of 25 per cent.

"Some of the largest companies in the world, including those in the tech sector, use elaborate structures to avoid paying taxes," he told Parliament.

Companies including Google, coffee shop chain Starbucks and internet retailer Amazon have paid minimal corporate tax in Britain by shifting revenues to low-tax jurisdictions, for example by using a system of internal payments.

Deloitte's head of tax policy Bill Dodwell said he saw the tax as the first step towards wider international corporate tax changes that are being thrashed out by governments.

"It will have to be done in a manner that is compatible with the way the international corporate rules are changing, and the UK is just going a bit early," he said.

Mr Osborne said he would introduce the tax on profits generated by multinationals "from economic activity here in the UK which they then artificially shift out of the country" in April 2015.

Details about how the tax will be levied will be published on December 10.

Mr Osborne said Britain was leading the world in taking such a step, and he predicted the new Diverted Profits Tax would raise more than £1 billion ($1.87 billion) over the next five years.

Toby Ryland, a partner at HW Fisher & Company chartered accountants, said the so-called "Google tax" sounded great in principle but was unlikely to give the average multinational much cause for concern.

"In reality, many of the UK's double tax treaties with other countries dictate where profits can be taxed," he said.

Google declined to comment, while Amazon was not immediately available for comment.

The target to raise more than £1 billion over five years appears modest compared with the profits made by some multinationals.

Google, for example, had UK revenue of $US5.6 billion ($6.7 billion) and a profit margin of about 25 per cent in 2013, according to its annual report. That would result in profit of about $US1.4 billion, and a tax bill at 25 per cent of about $US350 million.

It paid £20.4 million of corporation tax on its profits that year, according to accounts filed at Companies House

Deputy finance minister Danny Alexander told the BBC that Britain could introduce the tax without changes to international agreements on tax treaties.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/worl...inationals-20141204-11zxsr.html#ixzz3L3EMIBho
Click to expand...
 
It is not surprising that a bunch of cretins in the Senate should be opposing Christopher Pyne's proposals for education reform. Heaven forbid that the teachers of our children should be smarter than Senators.:rolleyes:

Compulsory literacy and numeracy tests for aspiring teachers? What sort of nonsense is that? It could lead to aspiring teachers getting jobs for which they are better suited. The wouldn't qualify as check-out chicks...maybe school cleaners.

What the hell are these people doing at a university anyway. Have we gone stark raving mad?:shake:

Our universities used to be "seats of learning". Now they are seats of mediocrity.

Dr Norton tested the maths ability of all 125 students who enrolled in a Griffith University graduate diploma of education — a one-year course for those who have a bachelor degree in another field — last year and this year, as well as 40 students in the third year of a bachelor of education course in 2013. Barely half the would-be teachers knew how to convert 5.48km into metres — and 17 per cent failed to convert 6kg into grams. Only 16 per cent could convert temperatures from degrees Celsius to Fahrenheit, using a formula written on the test paper. Just one in four knew how to convert a fraction to a percentage.

Barely one in five students could find the highest common factor of the numbers 28 and 70, and just 13 per cent knew the lowest common multiple of the numbers 40 and 140. More than half the students could not answer the question: “If the total cost of three tickets is $5.64, how much will 10 tickets cost?’’

Just one in three students knew how to calculate the areas of rectangles and triangles.

The alarming results of the only publicly available tests of student-teacher numeracy in Australia will fuel calls to reform the teaching of mathematics at schools and universities.

Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne has already flagged the introduction of compulsory literacy and numeracy tests for aspiring teachers. The most recent OECD Program for International Student Assessment test reveals that four out of 10 Australian teenagers lack basic maths skills.
Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-sum-disaster/story-fn59nlz9-1227146580360
 
Calliope said:
It is not surprising that a bunch of cretins in the Senate should be opposing Christopher Pyne's proposals for education reform. Heaven forbid that the teachers of our children should be smarter than Senators.:rolleyes:

Compulsory literacy and numeracy tests for aspiring teachers? What sort of nonsense is that? It could lead to aspiring teachers getting jobs for which they are better suited. The wouldn't qualify as check-out chicks...maybe school cleaners.

What the hell are these people doing at a university anyway. Have we gone stark raving mad?:shake:

Our universities used to be "seats of learning". Now they are seats of mediocrity.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-sum-disaster/story-fn59nlz9-1227146580360
Click to expand...

Very sad indeed.

So what is your answer to

the highest common factor of the numbers 28 and 70,

the lowest common multiple of the numbers 40 and 140.

If the total cost of three tickets is $5.64, how much will 10 tickets cost?’’
 
Calliope said:
It is not surprising that a bunch of cretins in the Senate should be opposing Christopher Pyne's proposals for education reform. Heaven forbid that the teachers of our children should be smarter than Senators.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So you support the proposed funding of religious studies in privately run religious colleges?

David Leyonhjelm has cited this as a significant reason for his support.

I'd ave thought those against so much funding to arts degrees would not be too happy with funding for priests now being added to the public teat.

Seems the age of entitlement is moving further towards the Coalition's natural voting base.
 
sydboy007 said:
So you support the proposed funding of religious studies in privately run religious colleges?

David Leyonhjelm has cited this as a significant reason for his support.

I'd ave thought those against so much funding to arts degrees would not be too happy with funding for priests now being added to the public teat.

Seems the age of entitlement is moving further towards the Coalition's natural voting base.
Click to expand...

The religious Right are getting their claws back into government, our wallets and our lives.

There really should be a law against using taxpayers money to fund religious groups, and that includes chaplains.

Scientology is classified as a religion, and we know what nut jobs they are.

So funding basically comes down to a value judgement by politicians as to what religions are worth funding and what are not, and who are they to make that choice ?
 
SirRumpole said:
The religious Right are getting their claws back into government, our wallets and our lives.

There really should be a law against using taxpayers money to fund religious groups, and that includes chaplains.

Scientology is classified as a religion, and we know what nut jobs they are.

So funding basically comes down to a value judgement by politicians as to what religions are worth funding and what are not, and who are they to make that choice ?
Click to expand...

Actually they are remarkably weak (the religious right). They have one of their own as PM and the only bone he can throw them is the school chaplains program.
 
sydboy007 said:
So you support the proposed funding of religious studies in privately run religious colleges?
David Leyonhjelm has cited this as a significant reason for his support.
Click to expand...

He doesn't sound very religious to me.:rolleyes: I think he is just another nutter.

A new player in same-sex marriage politics, Liberal Democratic Party Senator for NSW, David Leyonhjelm, has introduced a bill into the Senate to allow same-sex, transgender and intersex marriages.
Click to expand...

http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/d...-conscience-vote-but-why-20141203-11ycao.html
 
Top