That's what I understand. After you have run through your preferences your vote is no longer counted. By last election results, some states will have around 25% of their votes going to nothing.

What I don't understand is the system for when the last Senate spot is up for grabs and none of the remaining Partys/Candidates have filled their quota. What then?

Edited by vanlassen: 10/5/2016 11:07:38 PM

He ruined it! :(

Oh well! Vote 1 LNP. ;)

If your a social liberal then the LNP is your party. The LNP is like the pinnacle in Liberalism and Liberal ideals.

But of course, I don't really think you really know what you are or what you want!

Yes I know that. Income tax is responsible for raising the lions share of total tax revenue. It exceeds the OECD average by a lot. Therefore, workers are slugged. Not only this, but corporate tax is out of control.

What you are referring to is total tax collected.

What we need is a proper tax review and debate.

Not only that, but the Government has to stop and increased spending until the deficit is wiped out.

Oh ok. Greens are last!

He hasn't lost his marbles after all! :lol:

I wouldn't worry if I were you!

You should vote 1 Mickey Mouse because you're too daft to have your vote counted as formal!

Some people are so dumb and should be struck off the electoral rolls. :lol:

Yes it gets complicated. Like I said I always vote below the line and number all the boxes, usually using something like belowtheline.org.au to print out a how to vote card based on my own preferences. Makes it relatively quick and reduces the chances of error.

Are you saying you can count to 12?

The Wilfully Ignorant Party has ethics? When did this happen?
Right wingers couldn't give a flying fuck for people drowning.
They use it as a smokescreen to justify their xenophobia

no its not total tax collected I am referring to. Chart 6 is preceded by this statement

Relative to GDP, Australia has the third lowest level of total taxation on personal income, which includes taxes on personal income, social security taxes and taxes on payroll, in the OECD (Chart 6). Australia’s tax burden relating to these items (11.2 per cent of GDP) is lower than the OECD average (18.4 per cent).

I'm continually perplexed that the demonstrable damage that "trickle down" economics does to the GDP isn't shown more in our political sphere.

Even anarcho-capitalism would be more productive.

It panders to people's inherent greed and narcissism, and it blinds them. Some people honestly believe they became rich purely from their own awesomeness and owe the community (and nation) they live in nothing. Even though it educated them, provided them a safe and stable place to live and earn and a market to make money amongst other things. The ones that aren't that extreme and acknowledge a some of this assistance they still underestimate it and don't realise that generally the richer you are the more of this "support" pie you extract so think it's "unfair" to pay more tax as a consequence.

Once again that is relative to GDP. Australia has either the highest or second highest GDP per capita in the world and that makes the percentage low.

What is more important is to compare the Tax Free Threshold and the rate of taxation for each bracket. That has more meaning to the worker rather than comparing to GDP.

It also does not include all the indirect taxes most people pay.

Edited by Aikhme: 11/5/2016 07:53:49 AM

Australia has around about the 15th highest gdp ppp per capita and around the seventh highest nominal gdp per capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
although I'm not sure why that would be relevant since while the amount taxed goes up with gdp per capita, the amount you keep goes up too. The fraction is one of the lowest in Australia. Also taxes as percentage of GDP tends to be constant because police, doctors, emergency workers, teachers, nurses, lawyers, scientists, judges, prison workers, road workers, admin staff, welfare recipients, pensioners and social workers tend to have their wages scale with gdp. Its hard to see gdp per capita doubling and every public workers wages not rising. The fraction is typically thought of as the most meaningful measure and that is low
tax free threshold compares pretty favourably around the world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_threshold
USA tax free threshold is $3700
Also chart 1 in the link you originally gave gives all taxes including indirect taxes and we are 5th lowest in the oecd. http://www.treasury.gov.au/Policy-Topics/Taxation/Pocket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Pocket-Guide-to-the-Australian-Tax-System/Part-

The amount you keep does not go up. I dispute that. Workers only get CPI Increases minus bracket creep which puts them behind the 8 ball. I know a lot of people really struggling out there with a relatively high wage. High wage probably means higher mortgage. In fact, unless you are earning above $150,000, you are probably struggling.

GDP is a measure of economic output. That being said, even the Corporate Super profits of the Banking Industry and Mining Industry are a big contributor to GDP output, and we all know that the profits of these mega corporations go nowhere other than their shareholders in the form of a dividend.

Edited by Aikhme: 11/5/2016 08:54:43 AM

I'm not against shifting more of the tax burden from income to corporate or raising the tax free threshold but if our low income taxes per capita were actually an illusion because our gdp per capita more dominated by non income sources than other oecd countries then we would have a low gross national income per capita. But we are also seventh in that too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GNI_(nominal,_Atlas_method)_per_capita

again if what you are proposing is shifting more of the tax burden from income to corporate or raising the tax free threshold I'm not against it but it should be argued on its own merits (or lack thereof for those who disagree) not by comparing to other countries since that doesn't support that case

As much as you can't stand me (because you don't like my copycat use of denigratory tactics typical of right wingers) I acknowledge this as your most insightful & poignant statement.

Damage? You will most of the countries undergoing economic growth, are actually revising their corporate tax rates downwards.

No way! Shifting more tax to Corporate will kill the country. We have the second highest Corporate Tax levels in the OECD. That is a huge hand brake on employment and growth.

We need to be competitive.

Therefore, I support lower Corporate Taxes. I also support reduced Income Taxes to address bracket creep.

So what gives? Well, we need to have a serious debate about increasing the GST and broadening the base. Yes it is unpopular, but what else can you do?

for corporate tax rates we are 7th highest
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/corporate-tax-rate
but of course that is not the effective rate which is much harder to find a list of. USA is right up the top of the list but its effective corporate tax rate is low

Having said that, it is implausible that our effective corporate tax rate is high when our total tax rate compared to the oecd is low and there isn't a large gap between total and income

Edited by grazorblade: 11/5/2016 09:49:21 AM

No we are actually second highest according to official treasury data.

In 2011, we were 4th highest. I posted the links earlier.

Here it is again...



http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Paper.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/report/section_5-07.htm

Our corporate tax is 30%
The average corporate tax in the OECD is about 25% , trending down
In Asia it's 22%, trending down

Our taxes are too high and we are becoming uncompetitive.

You make good points some times and you understand what I don't like about your posts. That puts you streets ahead of some of the morons in this thread. Just troll the right wingers less as it will increase the impact when you do :lol:

Edited by mcjules: 11/5/2016 10:07:05 AM

That's an old list. We are actually 2nd now.

#istandwithduncan :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

This is going around in circles, but I will point this out one last time:

The headline corporate tax rate does not show the whole picture, and can actually be quite misleading, because as the link you posted actually states:

"This largely reflects structural differences in the composition of the incorporated sector in Australia compared with other OECD countries, the imputation system, as well as the strong performance of the Australian corporate sector in recent years".

Namely, our imputation system benefits companies and reduces their effective rate, and the imputation system doesn't exist to the same levels in other countries.

We do not have a social security and healthcare levy on payroll, like many other countries do. Once that is accounted for, our corporate tax burden reduces by a huge amount.

Superannuation and healthcare are funded by workers themselves and through personal income tax (Medicare levy), not corporate tax.

Also, we are still largely reliant on the mining industry for company tax revenue - obviously, mineral extraction makes the industry less mobile. Therefore a higher corporate tax rate is more desirable than in a country with a huge finance industry for example (like the UK) where capital is far more mobile.

Are there things we can do to review the tax mix? Absolutely.

I do not believe it is urgent though, specifically regarding corporate tax, is there is very little to no evidence of capital flight due to our taxation levels.

You keep blithely saying that our corporate tax rate is damaging the economy. I am simply asking for some evidence of this. Evidence based policy is what we should be aiming for, not ideology based policy.


Edited by AzzaMarch: 11/5/2016 10:50:57 AM

Duncan was an ALP plant.

First of all, they assume we are all stupid. If Duncan was on Minimum Wage, he would hardly pay any tax at all.

The minimum wage in Australia is $34,200 pa. Based on that salary, Duncan would only pay $3,032 in tax.

Yes I know we are second.

Every country has been revising their Corporate Taxes down, in order to stay competitive.