The Abbott Government

[sydboy007]

What negotiation skills prowess the Australian team had with South Korea. 15 years to wait for beef tarrifs to be fully removed. 15 YEARS. I'll be pretty much all the multi year tariff reductions are for Australia, whereas the Abbot Government will have provided near immediate tarrif relief for most of what the South Koreans export to us.

i love this from Robb - ''Concerns about ISDS are totally overblown and are used by those who are 'anti-trade' in a bid to erode public confidence,'' Mr Robb said. ''If governments acted in accordance with their international obligations, there was nothing to fear from ISDS.

UNCTAD advised that 2012 had the highest level of new ISDS cases. It wouldn't be surprising if 2013 beat the record.

 

[Knobby22]

I hope their negotiation skills have improved.
You would think Andrew Robb would have been replaced after some of his previous efforts.

 

[noco]

Grace Collier.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...l-holden-engine/story-fnkdypbm-1226779253154#

Doc, I posted this same article on my post #89 24/12/2013 "HOLEDN - ON YOUR BIKE".

 

[rumpole]

Would anyone care to comment as to why businesses are queing up to leave the country now that the "Party of business" is in power ?

 

[sptrawler]

Would anyone care to comment as to why businesses are queing up to leave the country now that the "Party of business" is in power ?

Haven't you heard, this Government has told them no more welfare, fix your business model.

The last Government upped the cost of doing business.

Rather than put in a long winded explanation. Simon Cowan sums it up o.k in this article.IMO
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-13/cowan-protectionism/5257426


For a " Party of Business" to take this stand, things must be pretty bad.

 

[rumpole]

Haven't you heard, this Government has told them no more welfare, fix your business model.

Obviously they will be fixing their business model in other countries. There goes jobs and skills here.

 

[sptrawler]

Obviously they will be fixing their business model in other countries. There goes jobs and skills here.

So what is the other option, take more money off businesses that are making money, and give it to companies that are losing money.

Wouldn't it make more sense to stop propping up failing business models, with tax payers money.
But instead drop the company taxes, with the money you save, that in theory should help all companies prosper.
You can't just keep throwing away money in the hope it will do better.

If it was your money and say you were funding four businesses.
Three are doing really well, however one business keeps losing money, because it can't sell enough of your product.

Do you increase what you charge for your product?
Do you take funds from the other three businesses, to subsidise the fourth?
Do ask the fourth business, to ascertain if there is any possibility, of an improvement?
Or do you let it just carryon business as usual, till you run out of money?

 

[rumpole]

So what is the other option, take more money off businesses that are making money, and give it to companies that are losing money.

Wouldn't it make more sense to stop propping up failing business models, with tax payers money.
But instead drop the company taxes, with the money you save, that in theory should help all companies prosper.
You can't just keep throwing away money in the hope it will do better.

If it was your money and say you were funding four businesses.
Three are doing really well, however one business keeps losing money, because it can't sell enough of your product.

Do you increase what you charge for your product?
Do you take funds from the other three businesses, to subsidise the fourth?
Do ask the fourth business, to ascertain if there is any possibility, of an improvement?
Or do you let it just carryon business as usual, till you run out of money?

It depends on the importance of the business to the economy.

A key manufacturing industry with spin-offs to a lot of other industries is worth at least trying to save. I don't believe in handouts to business, I believe in co-investment in which the taxpayer gets a return like any other investor. The subsidy model is flawed. If we invest in businesses, that should imply some ownership of their assets, like other shareholders have.

Politicians have a duty to look at the economy as a whole and help strategic industries which may be suffering a downturn from temporary circumstances which can be ridden out by taxpayer investment.

 

[sptrawler]

It depends on the importance of the business to the economy.

A key manufacturing industry with spin-offs to a lot of other industries is worth at least trying to save. I don't believe in handouts to business, I believe in co-investment in which the taxpayer gets a return like any other investor. The subsidy model is flawed. If we invest in businesses, that should imply some ownership of their assets, like other shareholders have.

Politicians have a duty to look at the economy as a whole, not just individual businesses who may be suffering a downturn from temporary circumstances which can be ridden out by taxpayer investment.

Maybe they are.
I remember working for a very large business (one of the biggest). They were given tax breaks as long as they agreed to value add.
Well the plant they built was 1930's technology and a very small scale, but promised to increase the scale at a later date.
To cut a long story short as soon as the Government waived the requirement to upgrade the plant, the company closed it, 1500 jobs lost in 1979. It has sat idle, in the middle of the Perth industrial area, ever since.

The economy can't support, our welfare system, pension system, medicare system and support multi nationals. We don't have enough people to do that.
It would be nice to just keep giving people more money, so they can pay more to support more. Eventually your money becomes worthless.

Like you said, it is strange a Liberal Government has made this stand, they are usually pro business.

The last Government made things worse by adding new taxes on businesses, thereby compounding the problem.
Qantas wants a tax payer handout, yet we taxed them $100milion carbon tax last year,dumb.
How much carbon tax did the car manufacturers pay, lots I bet, yet you say give them tax payers handouts. Why not just tax them less.

Something has to be done to make Australia a sustainable place to do business. Relying on digging up resources isn't the answer, it hasn't worked for Argentina, Brazil or Chile.

We are running a deficit that has built up over a boom period.

 

[sydboy007]

So what is the other option, take more money off businesses that are making money, and give it to companies that are losing money.

Wouldn't it make more sense to stop propping up failing business models, with tax payers money.
But instead drop the company taxes, with the money you save, that in theory should help all companies prosper.
You can't just keep throwing away money in the hope it will do better.

If it was your money and say you were funding four businesses.
Three are doing really well, however one business keeps losing money, because it can't sell enough of your product.

Do you increase what you charge for your product?
Do you take funds from the other three businesses, to subsidise the fourth?
Do ask the fourth business, to ascertain if there is any possibility, of an improvement?
Or do you let it just carryon business as usual, till you run out of money?

Bigget thing all layers of Government could do is to reduce the cost of land. The flow on effect of massively overpriced land is a lack of competitiveness. It doesn't really matter how efficient a business is if the fixed cost of rent is multiples of their competitors.

Add in that any workers have to be overpaid to afford to rent / pay the mortgage and it's crippling the competitiveness of the country.

That it's a non issue for all the major parties shows just how stuffed we're going to be.

 

[sptrawler]

Bigget thing all layers of Government could do is to reduce the cost of land. The flow on effect of massively overpriced land is a lack of competitiveness. It doesn't really matter how efficient a business is if the fixed cost of rent is multiples of their competitors.

Add in that any workers have to be overpaid to afford to rent / pay the mortgage and it's crippling the competitiveness of the country.

That it's a non issue for all the major parties shows just how stuffed we're going to be.

Absolutely, I bet there isn't many politicians that don't have investment properties.

The proactive tax breaks on property, amounts to a government gaurantee on price growth.

I'll be supprised, if there isn't a big shake up of the housing sector, and the way it's taxed.

This might be the government, that has the gonads to do it, it is long overdue. IMO

The residential property market, has become a joke. Yet commercial is in the doldrums.

People see residential property as a 100% gaurantee to make money, that isn't a healthy situation.

 

[rumpole]

Reduce the price of land by restricting foreign investment.

But that's probably too dangerous for some.

 

[sptrawler]

It depends on the importance of the business to the economy.

A key manufacturing industry with spin-offs to a lot of other industries is worth at least trying to save. I don't believe in handouts to business, I believe in co-investment in which the taxpayer gets a return like any other investor. The subsidy model is flawed. If we invest in businesses, that should imply some ownership of their assets, like other shareholders have.

Politicians have a duty to look at the economy as a whole and help strategic industries which may be suffering a downturn from temporary circumstances which can be ridden out by taxpayer investment.

This ABC article probably answers your questions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-18/sammut-and-philipatos-ir-reform/5267192

 

[sydboy007]

Absolutely, I bet there isn't many politicians that don't have investment properties.

The proactive tax breaks on property, amounts to a government gaurantee on price growth.

I'll be supprised, if there isn't a big shake up of the housing sector, and the way it's taxed.

This might be the government, that has the gonads to do it, it is long overdue. IMO

The residential property market, has become a joke. Yet commercial is in the doldrums.

People see residential property as a 100% gaurantee to make money, that isn't a healthy situation.

I truly hope you're right, but considering they couldn't bring themselves to support the removal of the statutory method for car FBT, and how effective just $22M of advertising was against the original mining tax, and the fact PM and Treasure have both been on the record recently to say they don't believe high and rising house prices are bad, I don't see anything changing.

The REIA will bring out the lie that removal of NG will cause the housing market to implode and rents to sky rocket when history shows it wasn't true. Hopefully the punters are smart enough to realise if landlords decide to sell en masse then they either sell to other investors or they sell to renters. Either way there's no change in the supply or demand for rental properties.

 

[sptrawler]

I truly hope you're right, but considering they couldn't bring themselves to support the removal of the statutory method for car FBT, and how effective just $22M of advertising was against the original mining tax, and the fact PM and Treasure have both been on the record recently to say they don't believe high and rising house prices are bad, I don't see anything changing.

The REIA will bring out the lie that removal of NG will cause the housing market to implode and rents to sky rocket when history shows it wasn't true. Hopefully the punters are smart enough to realise if landlords decide to sell en masse then they either sell to other investors or they sell to renters. Either way there's no change in the supply or demand for rental properties.

For my children and grandchildrens sake, I hope i'm right, unabated greed isn't the road to a better society.IMO
Also, the government can't claim it is cutting out taxpayer funded bailouts and yet support taxpayer funded property speculation.
It becomes a glaring contradiction.IMO
They will lose the support of their heartland, unless they apply consistent reasoning.

 

[sydboy007]

For my children and grandchildrens sake, I hope i'm right, unabated greed isn't the road to a better society.IMO
Also, the government can't claim it is cutting out taxpayer funded bailouts and yet support taxpayer funded property speculation.
It becomes a glaring contradiction.IMO
They will lose the support of their heartland, unless they apply consistent reasoning.

Tax free lump sum super with full access to the pension is the other glaringly obvious inconsistency, but I don't see that one changing any faster than NG.

Abbott sided with the 16,000 who were going to have a 15% tax added to their earnings above $100K a year (well into the top income decile, especially since it's tax free) and has made the tax benefits of super for roughly 3.6M workers pretty much non existent and applied the change retrospectively too.

 

[sptrawler]

Tax free lump sum super with full access to the pension is the other glaringly obvious inconsistency, but I don't see that one changing any faster than NG.

Abbott sided with the 16,000 who were going to have a 15% tax added to their earnings above $100K a year (well into the top income decile, especially since it's tax free) and has made the tax benefits of super for roughly 3.6M workers pretty much non existent and applied the change retrospectively too.

On one hand, your saying people who have access to a lump sum to gain a pension, is wrong.

Then on the other, you are saying people who leave it in super and earn above a certain amount, should be taxed.

Before you know it, you would be charging normal tax rates on pensions.lol

Why would you bother, 15% contribution tax, 15% earnings tax, then at the end it depends which ar$e is in office as to how much tax you pay when on a pension. Why bother locking your money up for that long?

Stuff super give me the cash.lol I'll negative gear.

 

[sptrawler]

Tax free lump sum super with full access to the pension is the other glaringly obvious inconsistency, but I don't see that one changing any faster than NG.

Abbott sided with the 16,000 who were going to have a 15% tax added to their earnings above $100K a year (well into the top income decile, especially since it's tax free) and has made the tax benefits of super for roughly 3.6M workers pretty much non existent and applied the change retrospectively too.

Actually Syd, upon thinking about it.
By the time you reach retirement age, all you wish for, will have been enacted.

 

[sydboy007]

On one hand, your saying people who have access to a lump sum to gain a pension, is wrong.

Then on the other, you are saying people who leave it in super and earn above a certain amount, should be taxed.

Before you know it, you would be charging normal tax rates on pensions.lol

Why would you bother, 15% contribution tax, 15% earnings tax, then at the end it depends which ar$e is in office as to how much tax you pay when on a pension. Why bother locking your money up for that long?

Stuff super give me the cash.lol I'll negative gear.

Seriously, a tax discount of around 60% isn't enough for that select group? Most people get a 50% reduction in the tax they pay for contributions and investment returns. It just seems silly to provide massive tax breaks to people based on saying it's to help cut the cost of the pension, but then once they're no longer able to get a pension, the tax losses still rack up. In 15 years we'll have a near doubling of people on tax free super, combined with a 25% reduction in the workers to pensioner ratio.

Tax free super has to be one of the biggest potential drains on the budget in the coming years.

Also, super is compulsory, so why make the tax benefits on something compulsory too generous. I'd say encouraging some extra saving, up to a reasonable amount is good policy, but then with more and more people hitting retirement still with a mortgage I'm not sure how many could benefit from it. Once again most of the tax breaks will go to those who don't need to be encouraged to save for their retirement.

Actually Syd, upon thinking about it.
By the time you reach retirement age, all you wish for, will have been enacted.

It should have been enacted years ago SP. That it hasn't been only means the future pain for those left paying taxes will be that much worse.

Do you believe it's sensible policy to allow someone to take their super as a lump sum and spent it quickly then still be able to gain a full pension? Shouldn't we enforce super to be taken as a pension so as to move as many people off a full pension to a part pension and start saving some expenditure? Aged care services, including the aged pension, already takes up some 20% of the federal budget, and that's when the boomers have only just started retiring.

Maybe it would be easier for people to understand if full tax was paid on super contributions and an equal rebate was provided by the Govt. All rebate money has to be taken as a pension. That way the argument of it's my money can hold true for what you actually contributed, and what the tax payer has contributed is used for the benefit of ALL tax payers ie reducing the cost of the aged pension. Same would go for any fund earnings each FY. It would certainly make it easier for people to see just how many $$$ super is costing.

 

[sptrawler]

Do you believe it's sensible policy to allow someone to take their super as a lump sum and spent it quickly then still be able to gain a full pension? Shouldn't we enforce super to be taken as a pension so as to move as many people off a full pension to a part pension and start saving some expenditure? Aged care services, including the aged pension, already takes up some 20% of the federal budget, and that's when the boomers have only just started retiring.

.

Probably belongs in another thread.
But of the people I know, the only ones talking of pulling their money out, are those with very little in super.
An 80year old friend, who has a fair bit in super, is actually borrowing money to build a house, rather than remove money from super.
The people you are talking about, will end up on a pension anyway. The pension really isn't much to aspire to.
I retired at 55 and I don't expect to ever get a pension, nor do I want one. However, if the tax rules change there is every chance I along with everyone else, will end up on one.
Most "average Australian" baby boomers nearing 60 on an average wage, will have about $150,000 in super. yipee.
You can have that much and qualify for the full pension anyway, I think you're chasing windmills.
The problem your alluding to, won't happen untill average balances are around $500,000 and that is a long way off.IMO