And this is even more hilarious... =d>

:lol: You completely missed the point. It doesn't matter what you're posting if it was written by someone else.

I'm constantly amused by people who feel the need to constantly highlight their intelligence and intellectual superiority. Nothing says 'I haven't got a clue' like trying to belittle the intelligence of others or 'prove' how smart you are :lol:

Talk about a dysfunctional government...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That is some serious tinfoil stuff right there. Please don't tell me you actually believe that? I mean, it's one thing to disagree with opinions but jesus christ :lol:

Also can't help but lol at the anger because something has changed from "patriarchal" to "matriarchal".

I actually feel sorry for you that you weren't born in the glory days of the 1930s.

As soon as "subversion" is mentioned (and not the source control system which is ok) I stop reading :lol:

I must admit I had largely dismissed those credlin - Abbott rumours. But this book seems to have on the record sources, rather than anonymous, from within the libs.

Geezus Abbott is a farking weirdo!

Just like George Pell....

Oh FFS, let me troll that cretin in peace.

Or are you in agreement with him?

Edited by Les Gock: 7/3/2016 07:10:19 PM

If this is true he will undoubtedly go down as the worst of the worst if he has not already. He cannot go parading himself as a Catholic who embodies family values if he has had an affair with his chief of staff.

And Turnbull's satisfaction continues to crash, crash, crash and heads toward net dissatisfaction
:cool: :cool: :cool:

Newspoll two Party Preferred remains at 50-50 , as per their last fortnightly poll

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll/newspoll-malcolm-turnbulls-satisfaction-rating-on-the-slide/news-story/40a1a79bf00c8c64e23733c4ea099071
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll

The honeymoon is over yes, but we're in a bit of a holding pattern in the moment until the government decides to release a policy. Although the way Turnbull has twisted and turned and being held back by his promises to the extremists of his party...it's not going to end well I fear.

Nobody held a gun to his head to force him to originally sign up to the Liberal Party
Anyway, there is no 'holding pattern' - Turnbull spat out the catch cries of 'investing in the future' et al. and as the empty rhetoric has now been exposed the polling chickens are coming home to roost.

Just wait, while I agree things don't look good for him, just wait and see what is offered in the budget. I understand you won't vote for the liberals but if the average person sees there is something in it for them to keep Turnbull in they'll return him to power over the generally unpopular shorten. You need to remember a prime minister is remembered by what is put forward in the budget. We could all be surprised, we could all be underwhelmed. I'm a labor voter mate, but just wait before you get too ahead of yourself.

Of course there will be something in the budget for the average person. Pork barrelling to buy votes is standard fare for an election year budget. But it will highlight their lie of the repeated message of needing to 'tighten the purse strings'. Regardless Turnbull's numbers have dropped predominantly because he lied over the need for tax reform and for investing in innovation and the future. He's done squat.

What shits me is that no government is honest in simply saying that they need to generate more money. No government will ever admit that their departments are inefficient and that we have a spending problem within government.

They're always making promises to throw money at 'X' group and 'Y' group and they always rattle on about helping battling families.

Now everyones answer seems to be to bleed the rich dry which is ridiculous. The top 5% of Australians already pay 50% of the government's income tax taking. Taxing them more because the government can't control spending is putting a band-aid over a gunshot wound. Ending corporate welfare which is inevitable will close the gap somewhat but the country needs to be realistic, we have an unsustainable welfare dependency and an aging population.

It will get worse and the promises will get more unrealistic before things get better.

Want to know an awesome idea?
Abolish state governments
It would save tens of billions of dollars PER YEAR (maybe over a hundred billion from the efficiency gains)
We could simply have a federal government & council municipalities/shires
Problem is these ideas, typically from us forward thinking inner city latte sipping Greenies, are too radical for the general populous, who would nod their head agreement when the economics is explained to them, then turn around & vote NO at a referendum on the issue.

I actually like that idea.

I work in construction with the transport department (TMR in QLD) and we have major issues with funding attributed to 'differences' between state and federal government commitments.

As a result we will do 60k worth of work (and we form a minuscule component of the works) only for the project to disappear because the state and federal government can't reach an agreement over funding.

Does it really matter though?

Are we missing something that the state government does that couldn't be achieved by the federal government?

I guess we'd have to conform to daylight saving in QLD finally :lol:

But seriously it's a massive tax payer cost. Surely there has to be some kind of review into the purpose of spending billions a year to have another level of government.

Not a single source has been named and Savva admitted she refused to ask Abbott or Credlin about it. Headed down the same path as Bob Ellis.

If you want a good chortle go read the comments section of the Facebook page for The Australian and look at all the people there defending Abbott and Credlin rofl.

-PB

What type of lettuce is your favourite?

You seem to be a bit contradictory - on the one hand you are saying we have a revenue problem:


But on the other you say we tax too much:


We are by no means bleeding the rich dry. The quote that the richest 5% pay 50% of income tax revenue is not really relevant without context. The richest 5% are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE richer than the rest of society. So that 50% of revenue is entirely reasonable.

Our top marginal tax rate is about 42-43% when you take medicare levy etc into account. That is not high historically, or when you compare to other countries.

Again, the top 5% pay 50% of income tax because they have such a high proportion of total income.

That is ignoring the various mechanisms the rich use to hide their income that the rest of us average Joe's can't afford.

Lets look at some facts:

We have had a mild increase in govt spending, but this is partly because our economy has been slowing. This is deliberate - the govt spends more when the economy is weaker (more unemployed etc), as this acts partly to stimulate the economy to offset the economic slowdown.

This has been offset by a massive reduction in tax income due to mining royalties. The revenue side is the real issue, not the spending side.

The answer is obvious, but politically difficult - some mild long term spending reductions, closing of loopholes (superannuation beneficial tax rates for the rich, negative gearing etc).

This talk of "bleeding the rich dry" is just not accurate. Australia is a relatively low tax nation.

They're not mutually exclusive and it's not contradictory. You can have spending and taxing issues. We've had a spending issue for years but its only becoming a major 'emergency' to use the LNP's words because our collection is lower due to mining slowing down. The spending issue is also an efficiency issue. The government has blow-outs on literally everything it does because of red tape and useless people in charge with no consequences.

What are your thoughts on getting rid of state governments?



The other statistic is that due to offsets and payments and what not, 50% of the population pays no net tax (other than GST). I think it's fair to say that the tax burden is disproportionate (which is the same everywhere).

I don't know if I feel like we tax too much overall. My rant was more of a reaction to articles on FB from news sources where commenters consistently demand that rich people and multi-national corporations pay for everything. Standard practice really. The have not's are always the most demanding and will take whatever they can get as long as someone else pays for it.



Sure Scandinavia taxes 70% or something to that affect. Good luck getting that approved. Socialists country wide will jump up and down about the gap between rich and poor but as I said earlier, everyone's happy to make demands in this country as long as they don't have to pay for it.

I wish I was getting taxed 43% because I'd be rich but it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

I have a question for you: If people are paying a completely disproportionate amount of tax (lets say we ramp up the highest tax bracket to 70%), does that mean people paying it deserve more of a say on civic issues like infrastructure and services? Just curious, I've been asked before and didn't really know how to answer it.



It feels like the weak/easy way out of the lack of revenue and completely ignores the issues the government has with constantly increasing welfare costs and inefficiency with government projects.

No wonder rich people hide their money because us plebs come after them every time we have a deficit :lol:



It's either legal and an issue with our tax system which the government needs to fix immediately; or
Its illegal, throw the book at these people doing it.

Lets be honest, no one likes paying tax whether you pay $1,200 a year or $12,000,000 a year. I find it a bit rich when people make these kind of suggestions as if rich people are expected to not try and avoid paying tax. Everyone fucking does it. We all claim the maximum km's in personal vehicle use without needing receipts. The only difference is the magnitude. No one ever has a whinge about average Joe's claiming $80 worth of vehicle km's every year so why is the use of legal tax loopholes used by rich people even relevant?



Yet the government seems non-committal on new mining projects which could boost not only the mining sector but numerous support sectors.

Another problem with the Greens. They're so high and mighty about the environment but all their 'renewable' schemes would be paid for by mining royalties they try so hard to kill off :lol:



What are your thoughts on welfare? Is it off limits because of vulnerabilities and what not?

Another one for your list is hitting the multi-nationals up for their fair share of tax. The corporate welfare has to end.



If you ramp up the tax rate on high income earners (which is what my original post refers to) from 40% to 70% it definitely is. That's a huge amount of money for 5% of the population to pay because of an economic downturn due to mining. How rich they are is irrelevant, you're still targeting 5% of the population to make up deficits.

Edited by bethfc: 10/3/2016 09:56:08 AM

Getting rid of state governments is a non-starter. You would essentially need to re-write significant parts of the constitution. It is just not going to happen. Plus, I am not sold on the 'duplication' argument. The argument gets stated a lot, but I've never seen any proper analysis of it. It may be one of those things that sounds true, but isn't actually. State govts legislate in different areas than the federal govt, so it isn't as simple as just eliminating that tier of govt.



I just don't agree that the above is true. I wouldn't judge what the average person thinks based on what is posted on Facebook. I think people suspect (rightly so in many instances) that big companies and the rich are not paying their fair share.



But that does not mean that they pay no tax. It just means that they receive offsetting amounts (eg baby bonus, beneficial super tax treatment etc). That is not an indication that something is wrong. That is how the tax system is supposed to work. One of the main reasons that any tax system exists is redistribution.

The other thing is that I actually question that statistic. It can be a bit slippery, depending how you define the benefits people receive. So I would just advise that stat should be taken with a grain of salt.



I think this is a bit of a straw man - I am not saying we should tax at 70%. I am just saying we don't tax highly compared to most rich countries. Even compared to the US and the UK, other European countries etc. Not just Scandanavian countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

Australian taxation is about 26% of the size of the economy. Germany is 40%, UK 39%, EU average 36%, NZ 35%, USA 27%.

We are not a high taxing country.



Absolutely not - think of it this way: People who make money (and pay tax) don't make it in a vacuum. They benefit from the infrastructure that exists, the rule of law they can enforce contracts with, the people they employ, the customers who buy their products etc.

The reality is those big money interests ALREADY have more of a say on projects due to lobbying, political donations etc.


On what basis are you making that assumption? Our largest welfare spending item is pensions. Other than that, the welfare bill is not increasing compared to the broader economy. The total Social Services budget is only 30% of the total. That is consistent with the past. It isn't "constantly increasing".

Here is a good resource if you are interested in where the govt's money goes:
http://theopenbudget.org



Except that rich people are much better at it, because they can afford accountants. And the amounts they can reduce their tax by are huge.



That's not really the issue. The mining industry was growing at an abnormally strong level, for an abnormally long time. Approving a few mining projects is not going to make a significant different at the revenue level. It is driven by the international (mainly chinese) business cycle.



I think your question is a little dismissive? You have to have a level of welfare, that is part of the reason why government exists. Can you debate the level of welfare, and its structure? Absolutely.

As I illustrated above, welfare costs are not what is driving the deficit. They are stable. The main increase that will happen is pension payments as our population ages. Do you count that as welfare?



Ok - I missed that you were specifically referring to a suggestion of increasing the top tax rate to 70%. I don't agree with doing that.



Whilst I agree that we shouldn't increase the top marginal tax rate to 70%, I disagree that "how rich they are is irrelevant". There is a really key point here that I want to get across.

you need to look at relative % on income paid in taxation. NOT what total percentage of tax paid by the top 5%. For simplicity's sake, I would use this example:

Population of 20 people. Richest person earns $10 million, the remaining 19 earn $100,000 each. Tax rate is 20%.

Total tax revenue $2,000,000 + 380,000 = $2,380,000.

Now, everyone has paid 20% of their income in tax. But the richest person is paying over 80% of all income tax revenue.

I would argue it is fair - in fact I would argue that the richest guy should be paying a higher percentage of his wages in tax, because he earns so much more than everyone else.

But if I told you that "the top 5% is paying 80% of all income tax" that would sound unfair. But it isn't, because the top 5% earns so much more.

My point is that sometimes statistics can be accurate, but misleading!!!

Fair call. I'll be honest I don't really know what they do that the federal government doesn't already.



What I like about FB comments is that you're essentially debating with strangers so there's no filters on commenting. Comments also come from all walks of life.

Seems to me the revenue issue could be helped by the government getting off its arse and closing loopholes and ensuring that big companies like BHP and what not pay their fair share of tax.



It's of course misleading but it does indicate that the magnitude of 'welfare' in a broad sense goes far beyond simply keeping people alive. At work, a lady who works 40 hours (with a husband on decent coin) gets childcare payments. It's essentially middle class welfare.



I can't remember where the 70% came from. The number is irrelevant, the point is their income tax rate for high income earners is significantly higher than ours.



But political donations aren't meant to give you a say right? (cough cough) :lol:



Exactly pensions and those pensions increase as our population ages. When is superannuation meant to take over from pensions? Like 30 years or something?

Social services is a significant chunk of the budget! Like a scary amount of money.



Not relevant though. The issue remains the same. Either it's legal and it's the governments problem or it's illegal and they should be punished.

Magnitude should not dictate whether it's wrong or not. Hence why I bought up the personal vehicle use thing from Etax.



Well the mining boom is over but I think a lot of people understate the affects that Government backing has on the industry. When politicians come out saying "the boom is over" and what not, it's a death sentence.

China's slowing growth really hit hard. From talking to guys in the industry, we got far too comfortable with blokes earning more than professional staff to do labouring jobs which meant the slowing down affect hit harder than it should have.



Of course but 30% as you stated is a massive amount of money for an apparently well off country. We have people with 2 full time incomes getting government payments for school books and that sort of thing. Sure it's not much but add it all up over the country and it's millions upon millions.

I think we need to tighten up the welfare scheme to make sure it covers the vulnerable, not the middle class. The government overreaches with its welfare scheme. I'd be happier to take the middle class welfare and increase vulnerable welfare. I wouldn't know from experience but I've been told that welfare payments are below the poverty line. If that's the case, how the hell are they meant to reduce welfare dependency?



I know what you're saying it's basic maths. Well put.

A consideration is how is this rich person making so much more than the other 19? What risks are being taken? If you keep raising the tax rate on the rich, you essentially lower the benefits of taking risks. People often overlook the huge risks people take to make it to where they are. I've had labourers on building sites complain about the cost of having an engineer stand around watching them work saying things like "any idiot could do that". The thing is though, if they screw up they still get paid and they still go home. At worst they might lose their job. A qualified engineer (CPEng) loses their job, their ability to practice and faces criminal charges for a period of 70 years.

I would argue that welfare (social services) taking up 30% of the budget is fairly standard, and in line with history, and with other countries.

I just don't agree that it is a massive problem.

Agree that we should be squeezing middle class welfare, which is gradually happening. But more can be done. I also think that we actually need to be MORE generous with basic payments for the poor, as you are quite right - many of these payments are below the poverty line.

Whilst rich people may be taking more risks, that is not always the case. Inheritance, luck and having connections is a large part of it as well. Especially in Australia, where most wealth in Australia is generated from property.

Tony Windsor is back in politics!!!
Will knock off Barnaby Joyce at the election, in what would have been a seat as safe as houses for the Nationals.
Go Tony!!

Couple of questions:

1- Has he confirmed he is running in Joyce's seat? I thought he was also considering a senate run...

2- Why do you think he will beat Joyce? Joyce is a popular MP there.