- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,146
- Reactions
- 12,784
You may recall that Labor tried a resources tax and you may recall what happened.
The labor and Liberal Parties, would rather screw over their own families, than tax the companies that are removing our non renewable resources.
Yeah - it rooned usYou may recall that Labor tried a resources tax and you may recall what happened.
You may recall that Labor tried a resources tax and you may recall what happened.
Labor wants to up the refugee intake. At least we know where their new taxes are going.
Yes, and as with most things labor does, they stuffed it up completely.
Rather than just put a tax on volume, they tried to put a tax on excess profits, which the the companies never pay anyway.
Because they find some clause, or start an offshore company, that buys it from them causing a loss, or write off capital investment against it.
It always sounds great from Labor, and is great cattle fodder for the masses, it's a shame the masses don't think it through.
But that is democracy and a failing of demographics.
They knew it was impotent and would be easily avoided, as was proven when the resources boom ended, if they were serious they would have placed a tax on a volume basis.
But as we see now, it is a great card to throw on the table.lol
Ohhh snap.But you wouldn't complain if it they were white South African farmers ?
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/g...in-the-gold-royalty-rate-20171010-gyxqni.html
Let’s cut the company tax rate instead.
After the furore the profit tax caused I’ll get you to explain to the class how they were going to get volume tax over the line
The Labor Party’s new policy platform provides an opportunity to test the idea that parties of the left are increasingly mouthpieces for the concerns and pieties of the educated elite.
- economic correspondent
Sydney
@Adam_Creighton
A striking analysis by economist Thomas Piketty has shown how the main left-of-centre parties in Britain, the US and France have steadily transformed from being parties of workers to being parties of high education since the 1950s. He didn’t include Australia but Labor’s new 211-page document slated for discussion at Labor’s national conference — “a clear statement of Labor’s beliefs, values and program for government” — helps provide the answer here.
Mentions of “intersex” — that’s the “I” in LGBTIQ, in case you didn’t know — occur 63 times, ahead of those more esoteric concerns such as “wealth” (61 times) and “inequality” (47). Whatever intersex means — or is — it’s also far more important than “ownership” (12 mentions), “production” (18) and “distribution” (10).
That “bisexual” out-mentions “poverty”, 31 to 23, says it all. Ben Chifley and Bill McKell, Labor leaders who once championed the dignity and incomes of ordinary men and women, whatever their bedroom proclivities, must be turning in their graves. The light on the hill is now more like a strobe disco ball in a gay nightclub.
The 15 mentions of “LGBTIQ” and a further 21 of “LGBTI” — together roughly on par with “homelessness” (41) — perhaps reflects the ascendant intersex faction’s Bolshevik-style crushing of the formerly dominant queers, whose more mainstream views are going out of style.
But I digress. Why is the oldest political party in Australia so obsessed with this marginal, elitist rubbish? Why does it care about bisexuality anyway, when, as Woody Allen said, it immediately doubles your chance of a date on Saturday night.
At least upper-class women are still front of mind, given Labor’s promise to “promote diversity in corporate Australia, including a quota of 50 per cent on government boards”. Thank God for champions of change like AMP’s Catherine Brenner.
Perusing the document, there are quite a few thunderbolt moments. In the economics chapter, the first priority, ahead of “responsible fiscal policy”, is “recognition that cultural enterprise economy, indigenous culture and knowledge does not conflict with modern economic principles but complements and enhances business development opportunities”.
The top priority in the health chapter is “promoting wellness, preventing disease”. Great news for naturopaths, I guess, but what about ending some of the outrageous lurks doctors and hospitals enjoy that push up health costs?
In the section on banking you may have expected something with economic teeth. Labor clamoured for this royal commission after all. Breaking the banks apart perhaps, or changing the law to make limited liability contingent on higher taxes on top bankers? Nothing. What about how the financial sector siphons billions in fees each year from ordinary people — not all of them alive — arguably the biggest public policy issue in Australia today? Not a peep.
Don’t worry though.
Labor will “establish a Commissioner for Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status issues, to work across government and the private sector”. Just what we need, someone else on $339,460 a year to tweet and foment grievance.
“Gender” is mentioned even more than “tax”, 126 to 105 times. In an era of growing wealth concentration, when the share of income accruing to the top 10 per cent of workers in Europe, the US and Japan is at the highest point since the 1940s, surely that’s odd. Women have never been more economically successful.
Whatever their rhetoric, Piketty suggests so-called left and right-wing parties have ditched their respective advocacy for redistribution on the one hand or genuine free markets. “The ‘left’ has become the party of the intellectual elite or the Brahmin left, while the ‘right’ can be viewed as the party of the business elite, or the ‘Merchant right’,” he says.
More formally, “globalisation and educational expansion have created new dimensions of inequality and conflict, leading to the weakening of previous class-based redistributive coalitions and the gradual development of new cleavages”, he argues.
How else to explain Labor’s apparent focus on identity politics — so far removed from the concerns of ordinary people as to be comical — if not its capture by well-paid, highly educated interests?
It should not be for the big political parties which rich people — white or brown, male or female, straight or gay — get which sinecures.
“Cost of living”, admittedly not a big problem for high-income earners, rates only two mentions in the platform. There are plenty of other things Labor might look at. What about the revolving door between consulting firms, political offices and banks that enriches a powerful sliver of society at everyone else’s expense? Silence.
Sure, Bill Shorten’s Labor has proposed some tax increases on the wealthy: on trusts, some shareholders, people earning $180,000 a year and property investors. And good on Labor if all that extra money goes into cutting taxes for lower-income people.
But I’m willing to bet that, as the election approaches, it will become clear that the bulk of this money, if Labor were elected, will be earmarked for two feel-good, more abstract concepts: “health” and “education”, which in practice means more money for high-income doctors, academics, researchers and bureaucrats etc.
Far from just neglecting the poor, Labor’s determination to ratchet up the rate of compulsory superannuation to 12 per cent positively hurts them. “Raising the super guarantee doesn’t just reduce workers’ take-home pay, it also hits the federal budget. It is a myth that superannuation reduces government spending on retirement,” concludes the Grattan Institute in a paper out today.
And what about Labor’s other obsession with increasing taxes, even further, on millions of (mainly low-income) smokers, despite being gobsmackingly clear that the deterrence value of further hikes has well and truly been exhausted. Excise is in reality a way to force addicted smokers in their 50s who’ll die early to help fund $1m salaries for vice chancellors. It shouldn’t be a surprise though. For all the talk of “wellbeing” in the platform, smokers didn’t get a single mention.
I think it is a foregone conclusion, they want to take money from the self funded pensioners, why would they want them to pass what is left to the kids. LolDaft idea. You would hope Labor aren't so stupid to bring that tax back.
They didn't do it after the Henry review - so I can't see it happening now.
Kevin Rudd is responsible for this. 10 years ago he sent out $900 cheques to dead people and now it's time for the snuffed invoice to go with it.
Interesting viewpoint considering the title of the thread it's being posted inActually if you think about it the death duties makes sense, there is no point in stripping the money from retirees who saved, that's what you want people to do.
It makes more sense to take some of what is left over, so the kids have to work to make their own wealth, that is what is called incentive.
Interesting viewpoint considering the title of the thread it's being posted in
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?