What about the super profits of the Banks and other multi nationals/ There are plenty of super profits.

I don't think anyone can get better than Howard/Costello. Not for a long time anyway.

Rusty is correct. Gillard and Rudd were major beneficiaries of the mining boom. But they had the GFC which we weathered as an economy, but the deficit was beginning to build and Rudd/Gillard didn't even try to balance the books.

Which countries/ Break it down for me?

I think you will find that Australia is probably the biggest GDP of most if not all those countries mentioned in terms of GDP per capita. So it is only to be expected that that tax on a GDP basis are going to be lower.

Edited by Aikhme: 9/5/2016 04:06:58 PM

You are missing the point - rusty stated that the ALP was the beneficiary of the mining boom. I am pointing out that the mining super profits tax, brought in by the ALP to tax the surplus profits of the mining industry, raised nothing.

That is evidence that the boom was over when the GFC hit.

This re-writing of history you are trying to argue is absurd.

Anyone think of any left equivalents of the Daily Terror?
Mainstream media, has to be.

Couple of points:
1- You did not say GDP per capita, you just said GDP. So on that basis, many countries are larger than us.

If you are looking at GDP per capita, we are similar to all the major OECD companies. Specific rankings can vary depending on how you measure it - eg nominal $ value, real $ value, Purchasing Power Parity etc.

2- I still argue that the question itself is irrelevant. The countries with the highest tax levels are the Scandinavian countries, and they have the highest taxation levels.

The relevant measure is the stage of development of the economy. Rich industrial nations are comparable, BRICS are in their own group etc.

Your argument that because we have high GDP per capita, this somehow means that our spending is "skewed" is not a meaningful point.

Azza it also only covers what the highest tax rate is in each country, not any of the other brackets or indeed when those tax rates kick in. I was looking at a job in the netherlands for example and their 50% tax rate kicks in at 70,000 Euro. A bit different to our $180,000!

Such a simplistic view, is this how CEOs actually think? :lol:

Edited by mcjules: 9/5/2016 04:27:03 PM

Working in the Industry, I can tell you that the mining boom lasted to about 2012. So Gillard/Rudd were in office for a lot of the boom years. The big decline began from 2014 onwards.

I shouldn't have to say GDP per capita. It goes without saying. Of course Australia's GDP is not larger than China's, USA, Germany, UK or Japan. But on a per capita basis it is larger than most of those countries.

I am aware about tax levels in Scandinavia. But do we really need to go there?

I am talking about the OECD and comparing to other countries similar to us. We are very highly taxed. Our Government is inefficient. We do have an expenditure issue which needs to be addressed otherwise we go further into debt. In other words, we are creating debt which our children will have to pay off. Eventually, we will be paying just interest, which means more taxes. It is a vicious cycle which will not be good for the country.

I think the same of the Left. Case in point. Leyonhjelm hasn't denied anthropogenic global warming, he has just stated that there is no scientific evidence that the current or proposed government policies will change the trajectory of global warming and that the Liberal Democrats support a market based solution. Which is consistent with the Liberal Democrats views. But as with most arguments made by the left, "the narrative is more important than the fact".

He does believe wind turbines cause noise pollution (which by the very definition of noise pollution, they do) but I don't think he would have a problem with wind turbines if they were privately funded.

Fun fact for you Murdoch. Leyonhjelm started in politics as a Labor party member and a socialist , just like you, but he altered his point of view on Socialism after visiting Socialist African countries and Eastern European countries. I would call that an educated point of view.

The Left are the best at silencing any opposition.

Isn't that what we are seeing in the Gay Marriage, Transgender Safe Schools debate etc etc?

Voice your opinion which opposes, then get ready to be labeled a bigot and many other things.

"But", "if", "should". Evidence was compelling over 25 years ago. Anthropogenic climate change denial.



Fun fact: Right wingers when presented with evidence choose denial. It's a neurobiological coping mechanism, because their cerebrums have lower cognitive processing capabilities...

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 9/5/2016 05:04:52 PM

If you highlight the full sentence, you might show some understanding of the Liberal Democrat/Libertarian principles. It is not enough that Global Warming is man made,it has to be established that there is a significant negative consequence and that intervention would realistically reverse the impacts. The whole point of Libertarian is to advocate or limit government intervention where possible. If there is not an absolute need for the government to intervene, then the government shouldn't.

This is what has attracted me to Libertarianism. Failure is not looked at as a negative and peoples right to make bad decisions is looked at as a fundamental in life. I know you don't agree with that point but I think when you finish your University Degree and start meeting people outside of your social bubble, you'll understand there are more than two points of view on any given subject and you can't separate everything into Right and Left wing.

If anyone wants a rating of the major parties on their level of rationality, this site provides a good guide:
https://www.rationalist.com.au/secular-scorecard-2013/

As expected, of the major parties, The Greens have the most rational based policies and the Libs & Nats the least. Well, der......:lol: :lol: :lol:

And yet the Liberals always seem to do a better job of running the country when they're in power. I guess putting it on paper is easier than executing it in practice.

The greens policies involve everyone holding hands in a drum circle singing wuss rock songs while smoking pot.

Pretty childish straw man argument.

So we are to score parties on their secular status now? Well, it doesn't work for me.

The Greens might score well, but that doesn't change the fact that they are fruit loops, and that the LNP are considered the best economic managers overall.

Liberal ideals are all about small Government, low tax, and complete freedom of thought, and little interference from Government. It is not accurate to just divide things into LEFT wing and RIGHT wing.

And taking lot's of drugs and having anal sex! :lol:

The Greens are the most dangerous party of the lot.

Although rationality has nothing to do with 'running a country', if economics is what is used to define such, the debt has skyrocketed thanks to their economic incompetence. Like I said, the children are in charge.
Red herrings. Reality, denial. Right wingers; no wonder they believe in sky fairies.

So higher rationality = fruit loops?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Right wingers remind me of the Dunning-Kruger effect - incompetent people over estimate their abilities
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

That's based on your assumption that you have any rationality at all.

Just because you're secular, does not mean you have higher rationality.

Science (and mathematics) is the epitome of rationality. More arm waving.....

Under the Greens.
border security would be non existent
Mining would die thus meaning the economy would die
Not a dime would be spent on defence
Big business would flee offshore due to the large taxes they'd impose on big business

You can tell murdoch rags has never had a real job.

Does that apply to people who think they're really really rational as well?

Yeh, great question if I may say so.

The self-professed rationalists giving scorecards on rationality. :lol:

As opposed to yourself who has to send nasty messages through private messaging.
Typical right winger - hates reality being exposed, so has to attack the source. Similar to what animals do when they perceive threat....:idea: (*woosh* it sails over the cranium....)

Don't knock till you try it.

Its obvious he's really ignorant, he just likes to quote and refer to people smarter than he is , so he can piggyback off their intellect rather than make any real effort himself.

Cheers. You've exemplified the right wing mindset which goes as such:
"Malcolm Turnbull was a 'successful' investment banker, so therefore he will make a great prime minister"...