BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:BETHFC wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:Dear, oh, dear. More massive costs to the economy thanks to more layers of monetary management structure Quote:The Federal Government is floating a radical idea to let the states and territories levy income taxes. Prime Minister and Cabinet Department head Martin Parkinson has briefed state and territory officials about the proposal and premiers and chief ministers will get the full details ahead of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting, on Friday. Treasurer Scott Morrison was this morning questioned about the proposal and said it was under consideration.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-30/coag-states-territories-could-levy-income-taxes/7283232 I wish politicians would come out and just say 'we need more money'. Is it that hard to call a spade a spade in politics? We have reduced income from mining and the shortfall has to come from somewhere. I think they really should be making a bigger deal about collaboration with other countries regarding the taxation of multi-nationals like apple and google. To be fair, the ALP has been doing this - negative gearing changes etc. Its the govt that has been saying every increase in taxes in one area has to be matched by a decrease in another. I mean, this whole issue came about from Abbott just shifting a chunk of health and education spending to the states so he could say he had reduced the federal govt budget deficit. I am very disappointed in Turnbull - the over-the-top language coming out of the govt about the negative gearing changes etc is very reminiscent of Abbott. Exactly. The language concerning budgets is always about 'lowering tax' and 'reducing tax' etc. I think it's a spin to try and keep people on side. In saying that, we have to be realistic. Reduced mining royalties have to be matched from somewhere. You can't expect taxes to reduce without screwing over someone/reducing services.
|
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:BETHFC wrote:Murdoch Rags Ltd wrote:Dear, oh, dear. More massive costs to the economy thanks to more layers of monetary management structure Quote:The Federal Government is floating a radical idea to let the states and territories levy income taxes. Prime Minister and Cabinet Department head Martin Parkinson has briefed state and territory officials about the proposal and premiers and chief ministers will get the full details ahead of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting, on Friday. Treasurer Scott Morrison was this morning questioned about the proposal and said it was under consideration.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-30/coag-states-territories-could-levy-income-taxes/7283232 I wish politicians would come out and just say 'we need more money'. Is it that hard to call a spade a spade in politics? We have reduced income from mining and the shortfall has to come from somewhere. I think they really should be making a bigger deal about collaboration with other countries regarding the taxation of multi-nationals like apple and google. Look it is ideological to think states would ever be abolished - people (simplistically) have a psychological need for 'identity' - its an ego thing Turnbull is right (admittedly with his rhetoric) that we have to become a smart nation - what we learn from history is we don't learn from history; we are intellectually lazy - growing wheat & shearing sheep in the 20th century, digging up shit in the 21st century.... Abolishing states???? Where was that suggested? Its not just a matter of ideology. We would have to significantly change the constitution, meaning a referendum, meaning 4 out of 6 states have to agree, meaning states outside of VIC & NSW will never agree because they realise their interests will be further sidelined. BETHFC & I discussed it further back in this thread
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote: In saying that, we have to be realistic. Reduced mining royalties have to be matched from somewhere. You can't expect taxes to reduce without screwing over someone/reducing services.
Exactly. People seem to forget that under Howard (mainly due to the mining royalties) we actually had a higher level of tax take as a % of GDP than we did under Gillard/Rudd, or now. We would have to increase taxes just to get to the overall level of tax take we had at the time of the mining boom.
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:BETHFC wrote: In saying that, we have to be realistic. Reduced mining royalties have to be matched from somewhere. You can't expect taxes to reduce without screwing over someone/reducing services.
Exactly. People seem to forget that under Howard (mainly due to the mining royalties) we actually had a higher level of tax take as a % of GDP than we did under Gillard/Rudd, or now. We would have to increase taxes just to get to the overall level of tax take we had at the time of the mining boom. It would be nice if the government just came out and said this rather than trying to spin 'savings' and what not. It's unrealistic and I feel leads to mistrust.
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:BETHFC wrote: In saying that, we have to be realistic. Reduced mining royalties have to be matched from somewhere. You can't expect taxes to reduce without screwing over someone/reducing services.
Exactly. People seem to forget that under Howard (mainly due to the mining royalties) we actually had a higher level of tax take as a % of GDP than we did under Gillard/Rudd, or now. We would have to increase taxes just to get to the overall level of tax take we had at the time of the mining boom. It would be nice if the government just came out and said this rather than trying to spin 'savings' and what not. It's unrealistic and I feel leads to mistrust. Wont happen . As the general populaus are kinda dumb about economic issues. Remember we have a lot of previous governments saying government debt is like house hold debt.
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:BETHFC wrote: In saying that, we have to be realistic. Reduced mining royalties have to be matched from somewhere. You can't expect taxes to reduce without screwing over someone/reducing services.
Exactly. People seem to forget that under Howard (mainly due to the mining royalties) we actually had a higher level of tax take as a % of GDP than we did under Gillard/Rudd, or now. We would have to increase taxes just to get to the overall level of tax take we had at the time of the mining boom. It would be nice if the government just came out and said this rather than trying to spin 'savings' and what not. It's unrealistic and I feel leads to mistrust. Wont happen . As the general populaus are kinda dumb about economic issues. Remember we have a lot of previous governments saying government debt is like house hold debt. Oh of course, I'm an idealist. It is also why I consistently donkey vote because they're all a bunch of donkey's.
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Im over poli speak. Both sets of parties do jack shit until the time when an election is near and they pork barrel. Im sick of the general population always asking whats in it for us. Sadly politics have become all about sound bytes and rheotric
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:BETHFC wrote: In saying that, we have to be realistic. Reduced mining royalties have to be matched from somewhere. You can't expect taxes to reduce without screwing over someone/reducing services.
Exactly. People seem to forget that under Howard (mainly due to the mining royalties) we actually had a higher level of tax take as a % of GDP than we did under Gillard/Rudd, or now. We would have to increase taxes just to get to the overall level of tax take we had at the time of the mining boom. It would be nice if the government just came out and said this rather than trying to spin 'savings' and what not. It's unrealistic and I feel leads to mistrust. Wont happen . As the general populaus are kinda dumb about economic issues. Remember we have a lot of previous governments saying government debt is like house hold debt. Oh of course, I'm an idealist. It is also why I consistently donkey vote because they're all a bunch of donkey's. The 2 majors are both donkeys but one is worse than the other for me so I vote accordingly.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:BETHFC wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:BETHFC wrote: In saying that, we have to be realistic. Reduced mining royalties have to be matched from somewhere. You can't expect taxes to reduce without screwing over someone/reducing services.
Exactly. People seem to forget that under Howard (mainly due to the mining royalties) we actually had a higher level of tax take as a % of GDP than we did under Gillard/Rudd, or now. We would have to increase taxes just to get to the overall level of tax take we had at the time of the mining boom. It would be nice if the government just came out and said this rather than trying to spin 'savings' and what not. It's unrealistic and I feel leads to mistrust. Wont happen . As the general populaus are kinda dumb about economic issues. Remember we have a lot of previous governments saying government debt is like house hold debt. Oh of course, I'm an idealist. It is also why I consistently donkey vote because they're all a bunch of donkey's. The 2 majors are both donkeys but one is worse than the other for me so I vote accordingly. Are you that outraged by lettuce taxes? :lol:
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:mcjules wrote:BETHFC wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:BETHFC wrote: In saying that, we have to be realistic. Reduced mining royalties have to be matched from somewhere. You can't expect taxes to reduce without screwing over someone/reducing services.
Exactly. People seem to forget that under Howard (mainly due to the mining royalties) we actually had a higher level of tax take as a % of GDP than we did under Gillard/Rudd, or now. We would have to increase taxes just to get to the overall level of tax take we had at the time of the mining boom. It would be nice if the government just came out and said this rather than trying to spin 'savings' and what not. It's unrealistic and I feel leads to mistrust. Wont happen . As the general populaus are kinda dumb about economic issues. Remember we have a lot of previous governments saying government debt is like house hold debt. Oh of course, I'm an idealist. It is also why I consistently donkey vote because they're all a bunch of donkey's. The 2 majors are both donkeys but one is worse than the other for me so I vote accordingly. Are you that outraged by lettuce taxes? :lol: YES :twisted: :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:BETHFC wrote:mcjules wrote:BETHFC wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:BETHFC wrote:AzzaMarch wrote:BETHFC wrote: In saying that, we have to be realistic. Reduced mining royalties have to be matched from somewhere. You can't expect taxes to reduce without screwing over someone/reducing services.
Exactly. People seem to forget that under Howard (mainly due to the mining royalties) we actually had a higher level of tax take as a % of GDP than we did under Gillard/Rudd, or now. We would have to increase taxes just to get to the overall level of tax take we had at the time of the mining boom. It would be nice if the government just came out and said this rather than trying to spin 'savings' and what not. It's unrealistic and I feel leads to mistrust. Wont happen . As the general populaus are kinda dumb about economic issues. Remember we have a lot of previous governments saying government debt is like house hold debt. Oh of course, I'm an idealist. It is also why I consistently donkey vote because they're all a bunch of donkey's. The 2 majors are both donkeys but one is worse than the other for me so I vote accordingly. Are you that outraged by lettuce taxes? :lol: YES :twisted: :lol: You're not related to top gun jimmy by any chance :twisted: : lol:
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Everyone in Adelaide is related right? :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
Up the ante
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 257,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:Everyone in Adelaide is related right? :lol: Nah mate that's Tasmania
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Up the ante wrote:mcjules wrote:Everyone in Adelaide is related right? :lol: Nah mate that's Tasmania Just to get all the clichès out the way, we're supposed to be proof that Tasmanians can swim... :lol:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
While I agree it can be a good idea to give the income tax powers back to the states, I dread it being in QLD though as the money won't leave the south-east corner like everything now days (generalizing of course). -PB
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:While I agree it can be a good idea to give the income tax powers back to the states, I dread it being in QLD though as the money won't leave the south-east corner like everything now days (generalizing of course).
-PB It's where it should be :lol:
|
|
|
AzzaMarch
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:While I agree it can be a good idea to give the income tax powers back to the states, I dread it being in QLD though as the money won't leave the south-east corner like everything now days (generalizing of course).
-PB To be fair, it is only giving the states a portion of income tax revenue, not handing back income tax powers altogether. It won't have any changes on how the money is spent - it is really just guaranteeing the states a portion of a specific revenue stream, rather than this annual re-negotiation of the $ value of the state's grants from the commonwealth.
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
AzzaMarch wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:While I agree it can be a good idea to give the income tax powers back to the states, I dread it being in QLD though as the money won't leave the south-east corner like everything now days (generalizing of course).
-PB To be fair, it is only giving the states a portion of income tax revenue, not handing back income tax powers altogether. It won't have any changes on how the money is spent - it is really just guaranteeing the states a portion of a specific revenue stream, rather than this annual re-negotiation of the $ value of the state's grants from the commonwealth. Personally, I think something like this will drive the smaller states to the wall.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Another rally by Anti-Islamic protestors, another rally that turned violent as soon as the socialists turn up.
When is the country going to crack down on those attempting to deny the right of others to protest peacefully?
It's also amusing how ANTIFA can't even show their faces.
Edited by bethfc: 4/4/2016 08:06:10 AM
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:Owner-operator truck drivers fear they will be unable to compete against major transport companies when new laws force them to charge their clients at or above a new minimum rate.
Owner Operator Trucking Companies Fear New LawsSpeaking to a mate who works for QLD transport about the new rules concerning minimum charges truck transport. Such a dodgy move by the TWU as this only affects small companies and owner operators who can be undercut by big business. Basically if farmer Tom wants Trucker Peter to move some cattle from NSW to QLD say it costs $2500. However, under the new rules, it will cost $3000. However big business with a certain number of employees can still charge $2500. So why would farmer Tom go with Trucker Pete when he can save money and go with a big business? This is all under the guise of 'safety'. The union is arguing that it will be safer and they can 'charge more'. However they will just get undercut by big players and go out of business. I can't see a positive for small business here. Don't want to talk about political persuasion or Labor vs. Libs on this one. As a law regardless who posed it, it's a worry.
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Im with Ray Hadley on this  Sarah Hanson Young is Australia's dumbest piece of shit politician
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
Condemned666
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.4K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:What's she done?
-PB Being a latté sipping tree hugging leftard
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
BETHFC wrote:
It's also amusing how ANTIFA can't even show their faces.
Edited by bethfc: 4/4/2016 08:06:10 AM
Because they are committing crimes. Common sense. What's amusing is right wingers protesting against Islam/burkas and all that 'women should not have their faces covered' stuff - while having their faces covered. Edited by tsf: 4/4/2016 08:45:16 PM
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Wonder if any of our Pollies had money tied up with Mossack Fonseca. -PB
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Condemned666 wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:What's she done?
-PB Being a latté sipping tree hugging leftard Care to go into details? -PB
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Murdoch now has Labor ahead for the first time since Turnbull took over
|
|
|
TheSelectFew
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 30K,
Visits: 0
|
Bill Shorton is a dud. He needs an Andrews renaissance to get me to like him. He will be a promise guy.
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
We don't have one inspiring or visionary politician - unless they're independents. Greens, labor and liberal are just cliched robots, excelling in varying areas of inadequacy.
|
|
|
Murdoch Rags Ltd
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
In addition to Labor moving ahead 51-49, the Newspoll State of Play suggests they would win a majority government with 78 seats Turnbull's approval rating is still heading south and is now at negative 11%, from a high of nearly positive 40% at te start of the year. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll
|
|
|