Tony Abbott for PM

[noco]

Doesn't the money raised by the GST go to the States anyway?

They would be in huge trouble if they applied it to fresh fruit and vegetables imo. We have a real problem with obesity and to further increase cost of healthy food would be counterproductive in a health and social sense as well as financially.

Yes, all the money raised from the GST does go to the states but it is unfairly distrbuted. In the case of Western Austrlaia, and correct me if I am wrong, they only get about 6O% back but the poorer states and terriorities who do not manage their financial affairs too well get a larger proportion and this is one of the reasons Western Australia had to raise the royalties on minerals and the other reasom may have been to reduce the MRRT which the Feds were hoping for but did not get.

With regards to the incresae in Fruit and Vegetables I have just addressed that issue on my reply to Logique which may or may not have read.

 

[Ves]

lots of praise for increase in GST idea

Why should I pay an extra consumption tax in a society where there are excessive welfare benefits being given to those who do not need them? I would have thought that cutting the low-hanging fruit (see: excessive spending that the Co-alition keeps mentioning) like these would avoid any need to raise taxes. There's a contradiction in there somewhere if someone wants to look for it.

 

[Bintang]

Why should I pay an extra consumption tax in a society where there are excessive welfare benefits being given to those who do not need them? I would have thought that cutting the low-hanging fruit (see: excessive spending that the Co-alition keeps mentioning) like these would avoid any need to raise taxes. There's a contradiction in there somewhere if someone wants to look for it.

Because you live in a society that has an 'entitlement culture' and in which politicians spend other people's money to get themselves into office and then spend even more of other people's money in order to keep themselves in office as long as possible. That is their greatest skill - spending other people's money. And they have to take it from you first in order to spend it.

 

[McLovin]

Because you live in a society that has an 'entitlement culture' and in which politicians spend other people's money to get themselves into office and then spend even more of other people's money in order to keep themselves in office as long as possible. That is their greatest skill - spending other people's money. And they have to take it from you first in order to spend it.

Absolutely. Try telling a talkback radio listener who froths at the mouth when they hear about the deficit that they're going to have their welfare cut back to reduce the deficit.

 

[Bintang]

Absolutely. Try telling a talkback radio listener who froths at the mouth when they hear about the deficit that they're going to have their welfare cut back to reduce the deficit.

Too true. And try telling a politician that they should reduce their own entitlements to help reduce the deficit.

 

[dutchie]

Abbott's achille's heel is the paid parental leave, irrespective of who is paying for it, initially.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-false-divisions/story-fn562txd-1226639533795

He will be seen as hypocritical if there is to be austerity in some sections of the budget and yet the introduction of this policy.

He would be mad to go to the election with this policy.

Talk about Australia creating a welfare mentality - Joe Hockey should know better.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/hockey_flags_severe_welfare_and_k97QJUdU66Ux04f3Os9XMM

 

[Julia]

Quote Originally Posted by Knobby22 View Post
I am pleased that though Tony Abbott said though he wants to raise the GST, he would let us vote on it, Like Howard did. That takes one of my main worries away from electing him.

F*** that!

We are already paying ~15% GST, as we must earn in the region of $15 to pay $10 GST. GST is double taxation.

My interpretation of Knobby's post was not so much an endorsement of a rise in the GST as approval for any politician prepared to put major changes to the people, something that Julia Gillard so woefully failed to do with the carbon tax.

Very good point, so how about they just put the GST on 'unhealthy food' which apparently is what most people eat anyway as so many are obese.

I'd go for that, but doubt it would happen due to whining about discrimination against fat people.

Too true. And try telling a politician that they should reduce their own entitlements to help reduce the deficit.

Yep, I reckon any party setting an example of reducing benefits to politicians would be off to a pretty good start.

 

[Bintang]

I'd go for that, but doubt it would happen due to whining about discrimination against fat people.

Agreed, but it could make for some entertaining debate a la the debate a good many years ago when the UK introduced VAT. I remember the famous (or perhaps now infamous) 'larger than life' UK politician Cyril Smith passionately taking up the cause against imposition of VAT on 'fish and chips' which he described as " a nourishing and pleasant dish" and he went on to say that " .... I know what I am talking about. I have eaten dozens of chips-with-soup meals, and it is a delightful meal. It is a nourishing, cheap and good way of feeding a family" (full text of parliamentary speech here, http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=1984-04-30a.31.2).

I think this was one of the very rare occasions when a politician was telling the truth. You can see what I mean in the attached photo. (Cyril Smith is the guy in the middle)

 

[Some Dude]

My interpretation of Knobby's post was not so much an endorsement of a rise in the GST as approval for any politician prepared to put major changes to the people, something that Julia Gillard so woefully failed to do with the carbon tax.

JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.

It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.

In an election-eve interview with The Australian, the Prime Minister revealed she would view victory tomorrow as a mandate for a carbon price, provided the community was ready for this step.

"I don't rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism," she said of the next parliament. "I rule out a carbon tax."

This is the strongest message Ms Gillard has sent about action on carbon pricing.

While any carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election, Ms Gillard would have two potential legislative partners next term - the Coalition or the Greens. She would legislate the carbon price next term if sufficient consensus existed.

Link.

Who proposed a carbon tax?



Carbon pricing in Australia.

A carbon pricing scheme in Australia, commonly referred to as a carbon tax, was introduced by the Gillard Government on 1 July 2012. It requires businesses emitting over 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually to purchase emissions permits. The scheme directly affects approximately 300 "liable entities" representing the highest emitters in Australia.

...

The introduction of a carbon price in Australia has been controversial. The Federal opposition has accused the Government of breaking an election promise made prior to the 2010 election to not introduce a carbon tax. The Prime Minister has responded to these accusations by saying that circumstances changed following the 2010 election and that accusations of a broken promise are "semantics" and "word games". Opposition leader Tony Abbott has criticised the government's carbon pricing policy on economic grounds referring to it as "toxic" and likening it to an octopus embracing the whole of the economy. He has made a "pledge in blood" to repeal the tax after the 18 clean energy bills passed through the House of Representatives and has stated that the next election will be a referendum on the "carbon tax".

What Julia Gillard said about the carbon tax.

Ms Gillard responded: “I've always believed climate change is real and that it is caused by carbon pollution and we have to reduce the amount we generate. Putting a price on carbon is the cheapest way of reducing that pollution. That's why I decided we should enact the carbon price. It's a fixed price for the first three years - effectively a tax - and then an emissions trading scheme with a cap on carbon pollution.

“… when I said those words I meant every one of them. During the election campaign I spoke about the need to price carbon and have an emissions trading scheme. And now we are pricing carbon - a fixed price to start with - to be followed in three years time by an emissions trading scheme that caps carbon pollution.”

 

[Calliope]

Very good point, so how about they just put the GST on 'unhealthy food' which apparently is what most people eat anyway as so many are obese.

Yes. The lower socio-economic groups are the ones that smoke the most and eat the most junk food, so why not hit them with a double whammy? In that way it would be a voluntary tax.

 

[Bintang]

Yes. The lower socio-economic groups are the ones that smoke the most and eat the most junk food, so why not hit them with a double whammy? In that way it would be a voluntary tax.

Well it would be interesting to see what side the pollies would take on this one. Tony Abbot is a fitness freak so he would probably support the idea of taxing unhealthy food. Then Labor would be able to label him as 'fattist' as well as misogynist.

 

[Calliope]

Who proposed a carbon tax?

I think you are trying to tell us something, but I have no idea what it is.:dunno:

 

[Some Dude]

I think you are trying to tell us something, but I have no idea what it is.:dunno:

It only matters if you care about whether what you believe or communicate to others is true. Otherwise, don't worry about it

 

[Knobby22]

My interpretation of Knobby's post was not so much an endorsement of a rise in the GST as approval for any politician prepared to put major changes to the people, something that Julia Gillard so woefully failed to do with the carbon tax.

Thanks Julia, exactly what I meant.
I have been posting my dislike for increasing this regressive tax elsewhere.
The Murdoch press has been clearing the way for the increase. It is good to see Tony resisting.

 

[wayneL]

Thanks Julia, exactly what I meant.
I have been posting my dislike for increasing this regressive tax elsewhere.
The Murdoch press has been clearing the way for the increase. It is good to see Tony resisting.

I wasn't suggesting you support it, just expressing my horror at the idea.

 

[Knobby22]

I wasn't suggesting you support it, just expressing my horror at the idea.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
If you read the GST thread, you can see the surprising support for a rise in the GST from the Coalition sycophants. Not that it is the coalition itself is pushing for it but rather the right wing press and related commentators. Propaganda definitely works.

 

[McLovin]

The Libs first priority (according to their own marketing materials) is to make the economy more productive through lower taxes. So far they have toyed with the idea of raising the company tax rate to pay for maternity leave, where previously they had promised a fall in the company tax rate, and now they're tossing up the idea of raising the GST which is probably the most regressive form of taxation around.

Our company tax rate 10-15 years ago was one of the lowest in the OECD, but has been slipping for the past decade. Even Sweden is now 22%. I'm not saying the rate should be cut but I think there needs to be a whole of government approach to the tax system. What worked during the last two decades is unlikely sustainable for the next two. Instead of a piecemeal approach of implementing a tax/levy every time a hole in the bucket is found, there needs to be a discussion about what the people should expect a government to provide and develop tax around that.

I have fairly low expectations of that discussion ever coming to pass (although I have more faith in the Liberals, largely because Labor clearly isn't interested in it) until some sort of crisis forces it.

 

[sydboy007]

The Libs first priority (according to their own marketing materials) is to make the economy more productive through lower taxes. So far they have toyed with the idea of raising the company tax rate to pay for maternity leave, where previously they had promised a fall in the company tax rate, and now they're tossing up the idea of raising the GST which is probably the most regressive form of taxation around.

Our company tax rate 10-15 years ago was one of the lowest in the OECD, but has been slipping for the past decade. Even Sweden is now 22%. I'm not saying the rate should be cut but I think there needs to be a whole of government approach to the tax system. What worked during the last two decades is unlikely sustainable for the next two. Instead of a piecemeal approach of implementing a tax/levy every time a hole in the bucket is found, there needs to be a discussion about what the people should expect a government to provide and develop tax around that.

I have fairly low expectations of that discussion ever coming to pass (although I have more faith in the Liberals, largely because Labor clearly isn't interested in it) until some sort of crisis forces it.

+1

The only way forward it to somehow get a consensus on the cut off level of income where you should not longer expect help from the Govt.

As the info I posted in another thread for a piece from MacroBusiness shows, households on $150K like to think of themselves as down in the middle income territory when they're really up with the "elites"

I don't see a new Liberal Govt much better than Labor. So far there seems to be little to no acknowledgement of the problem. They can't even bring themselves to accept just what bad wasteful policy the baby bonus was.

I would also argue that lower taxes per se is not the goal, rather efficient spending of the taxes collected that provides the infrastructure and services required to efficiently run a modem economy. That's definitely not happened over the last couple of decades in Australia.

 

[Logique]

Abbott has demolished nobody, the Labor Government has done it all by themselves...

Well you wouldn't think so with all the AbbottAbbottAbbott commentary from Labor and the Greens.

 

[McLovin]

+1

The only way forward it to somehow get a consensus on the cut off level of income where you should not longer expect help from the Govt.

As the info I posted in another thread for a piece from MacroBusiness shows, households on $150 like to think of themselves as down in the middle income territory when they're really up with the "elites"

I don't see a new Liberal Govt much better than Labor. So far there seems to be little to no acknowledgement of the problem. They can't even bring themselves to accept just what bad wasteful policy the baby bonus was.

I would also argue that lower taxes per se is not the goal, rather efficient spending of the taxes collected that provides the infrastructure and services required to efficiently run a modem economy. That's definitely not happened over the last couple of decades in Australia.

Good points Syd.

I agree that lower taxes aren't the endgame, as I said, there should be a discussion about what a government should provide and then go from there. I'd rather low taxes across the board than the current system that hands out different rates of tax to people doing the same job.

Ultimately, if we live a capitalist society there needs to be some acceptance that there will be winners and losers of that system. The government should be there to ensure a basic standard of living, for those who truly need it, and that standard does not include McMansions/cars/holidays. Being more ideological, I don't like the idea of the government taking the money from my efforts only to hand it back to me as welfare. There's a nasty word for that sort of economy.