This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Tony Abbott for PM

Jump to new

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.
 
noco said:
lots of praise for increase in GST idea
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 
McLovin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Too true. And try telling a politician that they should reduce their own entitlements to help reduce the deficit.
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
wayneL said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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

Bintang said:
Too true. And try telling a politician that they should reduce their own entitlements to help reduce the deficit.
Click to expand...
Yep, I reckon any party setting an example of reducing benefits to politicians would be off to a pretty good start.
 
Julia said:
I'd go for that, but doubt it would happen due to whining about discrimination against fat people.
Click to expand...

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)
 

Attachments

  • Cyril Smith.jpg
    11.7 KB · Views: 151
Julia said:
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.
Click to expand...


Link.

Who proposed a carbon tax?


Carbon pricing in Australia.


What Julia Gillard said about the carbon tax.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bintang said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Calliope said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.
 
Knobby22 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting you support it, just expressing my horror at the idea.
 
wayneL said:
I wasn't suggesting you support it, just expressing my horror at the idea.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...