Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54
  1. #1
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,687

    Who is being ripped

    Certain things are coming out about the coalition regime which are very nasty.

    1) If you work one hour or more a week you are classed as employed. This is why unemployment statistics look reasonable. A recent survey shows the underlying unemployment rate is between 9-10 per cent. Sorry dollar sweetie but two out of three sucks. A treasurer's job is to maintain high employment, low inflation and a reasonable rate of economic growth. Sorry dollar sweetie but two out of three sucks. Running the economy requires considerable skill, hard work, intestitudinal fortitude, and ticker. On your record so far I think that you would make a worse Prime Minister than Paul Keating.

    2) The tax system is unfair. If I look at my net tax (tax paid less government handouts) I pay more tax than middle class families who earn 60% more than I do.

    3) the two big rorts, negative gearing and chopping capital gains have totally
    euchred the tax system and made it regressive for the rich. Also they have driven property prices from 6 times earnings to 9 times earnings.

    4) tax bracket creep is used to fund middle class tax bribes.

    It is time for a tax revolt. With the Nats going over Niagara in a barrel perhaps it is time to form a Poujadist Party to contest the sets in the bush
    and the Senate.

  2. #2
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    168
    I don't think we need a new party to bring about major change. What's needed is the Australian Labor Party to develop some policies that are traditional Labor Party policies not mimicking the mean and nasty (if you are less well off) policies of the so called Liberal Party of Australia. Normally the 2 major parties would be fighting over the middle ground but the policies of both have shifted so far to the right that the middle ground of 20 years ago is now considered leftist. It was Keating and Howard that led us to this position and no one in any position of influence in the ALP seems to want to head on back to that old middle ground. Labor still has a large voter base out there plus the infrastructure to mount serious campaigns when required...all they are lacking are decent, fair and compassionate policies.

  3. #3
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    188
    David, what is a Poujadist?

  4. #4
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Quote Originally Posted by McTaggart
    David, what is a Poujadist?
    Google is your friend.

    http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/d.../d0010289.html

  5. #5
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    188
    Thanks Matthew,it seems to me that Google could replace the Bible as the "fount of all wisdom",oh boy, will that get me into trouble?

  6. #6
    CC FIDE Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    587

    some care needed

    While I share the disgust of David with many aspects of federal fiscal policy, I wouldl ike to urge some caution on the issue of negative gearing.

    My sisters have moved out of home based upon a negative gearing scheme. We are just a middle class lot who are trying to get something for ourselves; we are not ripping off anybody compared to tax mimimisation schemes or the CEO salaries that were in the news this week.

  7. #7
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,687

    Negative gearing

    Quote Originally Posted by qpawn
    While I share the disgust of David with many aspects of federal fiscal policy, I wouldl ike to urge some caution on the issue of negative gearing.

    My sisters have moved out of home based upon a negative gearing scheme. We are just a middle class lot who are trying to get something for ourselves; we are not ripping off anybody compared to tax mimimisation schemes or the CEO salaries that were in the news this week.
    Negative gearing is a tax rort. However in view of the weakness of the property
    markets and a concept called regression to the mean I would not buy a negative
    geared property in the Eastern States. WEstern Australia might be OK.

    Remember gearing works both ways. It can be really scabby if interest rates rise.

    Oh I forgoy family trusts are another tax rort.

  8. #8
    . eclectic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,840
    provisional tax is another rort ... tax on money a business might earn before it's earned

    come to think of it not getting refund interest on tax that is overpaid is another rort





    .

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidflude
    It is time for a tax revolt.
    What's needed is for men and women of good faith to get themselves involved in grass roots politics, get themselves elected, and change the system. But politics is a dirty business. Not something I'd want to get involved in myself.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

  10. #10
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty
    What's needed is for men and women of good faith to get themselves involved in grass roots politics, get themselves elected, and change the system. But politics is a dirty business. Not something I'd want to get involved in myself.
    "I new an honest politician once, he was never elected" Will Rogers

  11. #11
    CC International Master ElevatorEscapee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,167
    There are also brackets within tax brackets, such as the thresholds (and percentages of income) that people reach before they have to start paying back things like HECS and the SFSS scheme debts.

    They must have moved one of the thresholds after July 1 last year, so suddenly I wasn't earning enough to have to start repaying one of these thingies... then I got a 3% payrise, which means I now get $3 less per fortnight after tax than I was getting before the payrise!

    Quote Originally Posted by eclectic
    come to think of it not getting refund interest on tax that is overpaid is another rort
    One oesn't get charged interest on underpaid income tax if they pay it before a certain date, so I guess that sort of evens out.

    I actually received interest from the ATO early last year when they paid my Superannuation Co-Contribution late. :-)

    I guess if a tax refund is late in being paid, then the ATO should pay the same amount of interest on it that they charge people who are late paying their tax debts. I am not certain whether this happens or not though.

    ================================================== ==

    As for politics, I suspect many people go into politics with ideals, hoping to make the country (and the world) a better place. However, they soon realize that they must join a major party if they really wish to have any influence... and after having joined the party, soon find themselves having to tow the party line.

    A few years of this can squish ideals and turn even idealistic reactionaries into Party apparatchiks.

    Perhaps the way to dismantle the "two party" system that we are currently burdened with is to get rid of two of the major tenets of Australian democracy.

    i) Compulsory voting

    Removing this would remove the influence of all those who don't want to vote, or couldn't care about voting... or those like myself, who sometimes look at a ballot paper and don't think any of the candidates are worth voting for.

    Currently the only way to object to having to vote by not voting, without incurring the wrath of the law, is by voting informally.

    ii) The preferential voting system

    Effectively this equates in most seats to even the most anti-Liberal and anti-Labour voter having to choose which to put last and which to put second last... In that voter's mind, it is basically a choice of the lesser of two known evils.

    Personally I would prefer to have people who really want to vote for someone else, not have their second, third, etc preference turn their vote into someone they didn't want to vote for.

    To this end, I would advocate an idea that, ironically, John Howard came up with back in the mid 1980s when he was opposition leader: "One vote, one value" (ie who you vote for first only counts not who you have assigned preferences to).
    Last edited by ElevatorEscapee; 29-01-2006 at 10:45 AM.
    "On my chess set, all the pawns are Hamburglers" ~ Homer Simpson.

  12. #12
    Account Permanently Banned PHAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    4,254
    Bitching about tax is generally silly until you formally state exactly what the purpose of tax is, and what it is not. From those principles, and a few assumptions such as liberty and stability, the rights/wrongs of our particular tawation system can be much more easly identified. Having said that, I should add that there is often cases where there are competing rights/principles. Derrr. It is those times that we can actually seek compomise/balance. Thus, we must declare our position on the question, "what is tax for?"

    I say: Tax is to organise some portion of the societies whealth toward services and infrastructure, the promotes the longterm stability, which private enterprise cannot deliver.

    Therefore, I conclude that taxation regimes that create a growing underclass which eventually destibilises the other parts of society, is failing to deliver.

    No doubt, the proportion of our citizens who are part of our underclass, is growing slowly. I suggest that the princple tax reason for this is the effective tax rate for people leaving unemployment to enter paid work, is 65%. ie, for every $100 earned, they lose $65 from there welfare payment.

    Since low end jobs pay $10-12 p/h I ask you, who here would bother spending $50 p/w in travel to work for $3 - 4 an hour? (= $114 - 152 p/w).
    This is effectively about $2 p/h.

  13. #13
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    188
    Answer, the really hungry and desparate would. In the USA the lower classes work for US$5. per hour because welfare payments cut out after 6 months,no ifs or buts. Our little Johnno is working towards that scenario here. It is called giving the chronically unemployed an incentive! Under Freidmanism/Thatcherism/Howardism the welfare state will wither away and a new golden age will dawn free from all unions and hand-outs from the state. Back to the future,101. (about 1850)

  14. #14
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by ElevatorEscapee
    ii) The preferential voting system

    Effectively this equates in most seats to even the most anti-Liberal and anti-Labour voter having to choose which to put last and which to put second last... In that voter's mind, it is basically a choice of the lesser of two known evils.

    Personally I would prefer to have people who really want to vote for someone else, not have their second, third, etc preference turn their vote into someone they didn't want to vote for.

    To this end, I would advocate an idea that, ironically, John Howard came up with back in the mid 1980s when he was opposition leader: "One vote, one value" (ie who you vote for first only counts not who you have assigned preferences to).
    If you want to break the 2 party system, don't remove preferential voting!

    Preferential voting makes it possible to vote for a minor party, without wasting your vote. With preferential voting, it is possible (and fairly common) for an independent to win a seat despite having the second most number of first preference votes (typical scenario: Liberal 40%, Independent 35%, Labor 25%, Labor preferences elect the independent).

    Of course an even better way to break the 2 party system is do remove single member electorates, a system which means that close to half the population have a representative they didn't vote for (not even on preferences).
    http://www.peterballard.org

  15. #15
    CC Candidate Master pballard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by qpawn
    While I share the disgust of David with many aspects of federal fiscal policy, I wouldl ike to urge some caution on the issue of negative gearing.

    My sisters have moved out of home based upon a negative gearing scheme. We are just a middle class lot who are trying to get something for ourselves; we are not ripping off anybody compared to tax mimimisation schemes or the CEO salaries that were in the news this week.
    How did NG help? Do you mean they bought a property but lived elsewhere (maybe still with parents) and helped saved money.

    Removing (or gradually reducing) negative gearing would probably have helped your sisters even more: many investors drop out of the market, so demand falls, so house prices fall.
    http://www.peterballard.org

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Illegal Moves Question
    By Carl Gorka in forum Arbiters' Corner
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 20-01-2006, 04:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •