Hockey indicates support for welfare increases funded from mining tax

The federal opposition has abandoned its principle of opposing all the measures the mining tax will fund and support $2.9 billion in welfare increases to be funded by the levy.

In the federal budget handed down yesterday, the government scrapped a promise to reduce company tax from 30 per cent to 29 per cent because it could not get the measure through Parliament.

The Greens were only prepared to support a cut for small businesses -  defined as having a turnover of $2 million or less. This would have created a two-tiered system of company tax. The opposition indicated it would oppose the entire tax cut, worth $4.7 billion over four years, because it was funded by the mining tax.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/hockey-indicates-support-for-welfare-increases-funded-from-mining-tax-20120509-1yc0e.html

So if Liberals fluke the next election, would they reverse the welfare if they flipflopped yet again and wanted to dump the mining tax.

Also if they dump the carbon tax, which is impossible, yet they reckon they cans ... so for argument sake.
Will Liberals reduce the tax free threshold down from 18K to $6K, so forcing many Australian to pay. This current change was brought to Australians via the revenue of the carbon pricing scheme via the big polluters paying for their pollution costs.

You are a getting much much worse. Every single thread of yours lately is a manipulated load of cow shite and your polls are ridiculously dishonest.

You are fast becoming the deadhorse drah of the greens.

progressiveslol wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 6:19am:

You are a getting much much worse. Every single thread of yours lately is a manipulated load of cow shite and your polls are ridiculously dishonest. You are fast becoming the deadhorse drah of the greens.

Which part is dishonest?

By a personal attack, I take it you can't back up your rhetoric with a rational answer, on the topic of the thread and not the messenger.

Cash flows as mining tax wedges Libs


THE first payments from the Gillard government's cash splash budget will be handed to families with schoolchildren next month after the opposition failed to block the legislation in the lower house last night.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/cash-flows-as-mining-tax-wedges-libs-20120509-1yd7o.html

Apparently Alan Jones hasn't told progressivelol the answer to that one yet.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 6:44am:

Apparently Alan Jones hasn't told progressivelol the answer to that one yet.

Answer to what. How can you answer a thread that has been manipulated beyond repair as the starting point. Fools the both of ya  ;D

progressiveslol wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 7:34am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 6:44am: Apparently Alan Jones hasn't told progressivelol the answer to that one yet. Answer to what. How can you answer a thread that has been manipulated beyond repair as the starting point. Fools the both of ya  ;D

Liberals voted against the welfare portion of the Budget, funded by the mining tax, in parliament yesterday Prog?


Is so why did the vote show the opposite ... Liberals supporting the mining tax.

____ wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 7:40am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:34am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 6:44am: Apparently Alan Jones hasn't told progressivelol the answer to that one yet. Answer to what. How can you answer a thread that has been manipulated beyond repair as the starting point. Fools the both of ya  ;D Liberals voted against the welfare portion of the Budget, funded by the mining tax, in parliament yesterday Prog? Is so why did the vote show the opposite ... Liberals supporting the mining tax.

lol no it was supporting a different bill that had nothing to do with the mining tax.

progressiveslol wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 7:42am:

____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:40am: progressiveslol wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:34am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 6:44am: Apparently Alan Jones hasn't told progressivelol the answer to that one yet. Answer to what. How can you answer a thread that has been manipulated beyond repair as the starting point. Fools the both of ya  ;D Liberals voted against the welfare portion of the Budget, funded by the mining tax, in parliament yesterday Prog? Is so why did the vote show the opposite ... Liberals supporting the mining tax. lol no it was supporting a different bill that had nothing to do with the mining tax.

Funded via the mining tax.


Why do liberals support spending the mining tax revenue if they don't back it.

Because they now do back the mining tax and it's revenue.

____ wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 4:26am:

So if Liberals fluke the next election, would they reverse the welfare if they flipflopped yet again and wanted to dump the mining tax. Also if they dump the carbon tax, which is impossible, yet they reckon they cans ... so for argument sake. Will Liberals reduce the tax free threshold down from 18K to $6K, so forcing many Australian to pay. This current change was brought to Australians via the revenue of the carbon pricing scheme via the big polluters paying for their pollution costs.

what utter crap unless you mean like your lot did...when they took the bonus payments off the pensioners and gave them a weekly pay increase that amounted to $10 and not the $32 they TOLD US we were getting..


is that what you mean


btw the mining tax is not the same as CARBON TAX.

and the libs have never been 100% against the mining tax.

____ wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 7:45am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:42am: ____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:40am: progressiveslol wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:34am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 6:44am: Apparently Alan Jones hasn't told progressivelol the answer to that one yet. Answer to what. How can you answer a thread that has been manipulated beyond repair as the starting point. Fools the both of ya  ;D Liberals voted against the welfare portion of the Budget, funded by the mining tax, in parliament yesterday Prog? Is so why did the vote show the opposite ... Liberals supporting the mining tax. lol no it was supporting a different bill that had nothing to do with the mining tax. Funded via the mining tax. Why do liberals support spending the mining tax revenue if they don't back it. Because they now do back the mining tax and it's revenue.

Is that what the bill said?

Hockey indicates support for welfare increases funded from mining tax




The federal opposition has abandoned its principle of opposing all the measures the mining tax will fund and support $2.9 billion in welfare increases to be funded by the levy.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/hockey-indicates-support-for-welfare-increases-funded-from-mining-tax-20120509-1yc0e.html

____ wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 7:51am:

Hockey indicates support for welfare increases funded from mining tax The federal opposition has abandoned its principle of opposing all the measures the mining tax will fund and support $2.9 billion in welfare increases to be funded by the levy. http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/hockey-indicates-support-for-welfare-increases-funded-from-mining-tax-20120509-1yc0e.html

Source please. What was it that Hockey said that you are refering to?

progressiveslol wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 7:54am:

____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:51am: Hockey indicates support for welfare increases funded from mining tax The federal opposition has abandoned its principle of opposing all the measures the mining tax will fund and support $2.9 billion in welfare increases to be funded by the levy. http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/hockey-indicates-support-for-welfare-increases-funded-from-mining-tax-20120509-1yc0e.html Source please. What was it that Hockey said that you are refering to?

--> Indicates <--

By supporting spending the revenue from the mining tax.


Liberals have caved in to logic.

Just a shame the tax was so lightweight.

____ wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 8:02am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:54am: ____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:51am: Hockey indicates support for welfare increases funded from mining tax The federal opposition has abandoned its principle of opposing all the measures the mining tax will fund and support $2.9 billion in welfare increases to be funded by the levy. http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/hockey-indicates-support-for-welfare-increases-funded-from-mining-tax-20120509-1yc0e.html Source please. What was it that Hockey said that you are refering to? --> Indicates <-- By supporting spending the revenue from the mining tax. Liberals have caved in to logic. Just a shame the tax was so lightweight.

lol so all that has happened is liberal/hockey supported a spending bill. Nothing more, nothing less. This has nothing to do with the mining tax and everything to do with available tax funding and this is what garbage you are throwing out these days. Manipulated drivel.

progressiveslol wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 8:11am:

____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 8:02am: progressiveslol wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:54am: ____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:51am: Hockey indicates support for welfare increases funded from mining tax The federal opposition has abandoned its principle of opposing all the measures the mining tax will fund and support $2.9 billion in welfare increases to be funded by the levy. http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/hockey-indicates-support-for-welfare-increases-funded-from-mining-tax-20120509-1yc0e.html Source please. What was it that Hockey said that you are refering to? --> Indicates <-- By supporting spending the revenue from the mining tax. Liberals have caved in to logic. Just a shame the tax was so lightweight. lol so all that has happened is liberal/hockey supported a spending bill. Nothing more, nothing less. This has nothing to do with the mining tax and everything to do with available tax funding and this is what garbage you are throwing out these days. Manipulated drivel.

Pyne on ABC24 has just said Liberals support spending the mining tax.


Time for the Liberals to get their spin straight.

____ wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 8:16am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 8:11am: ____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 8:02am: progressiveslol wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:54am: ____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:51am: Hockey indicates support for welfare increases funded from mining tax The federal opposition has abandoned its principle of opposing all the measures the mining tax will fund and support $2.9 billion in welfare increases to be funded by the levy. http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/hockey-indicates-support-for-welfare-increases-funded-from-mining-tax-20120509-1yc0e.html Source please. What was it that Hockey said that you are refering to? --> Indicates <-- By supporting spending the revenue from the mining tax. Liberals have caved in to logic. Just a shame the tax was so lightweight. lol so all that has happened is liberal/hockey supported a spending bill. Nothing more, nothing less. This has nothing to do with the mining tax and everything to do with available tax funding and this is what garbage you are throwing out these days. Manipulated drivel. Pyne on ABC24 has just said Liberals support spending the mining tax. Time for the Liberals to get their spin straight.

That still does not say what you wish it said. It is available tax funds regardless of where it came from.

Now get the liberals to say they support the mining tax bill and that would be different.

Just so you know, which you obviously dont, the liberals could still get rid of the mining tax, get the money from somewhere else and still support the bill you have on this thread.

The other two new measures were the $1.1 billion supplementary allowance, which will provide cash payments to welfare recipients, and a $1.8 billion boost to Family Tax Benefit A, which is paid to low and middle-income earners.

These will be funded from proceeds of the mining tax after the government axed plans to fund a 1 percentage point cut to company tax.

The opposition opposed the company tax cut because it was funded by the mining tax. But yesterday it abandoned its principle of opposing policies funded by the mining tax and said it would support these two welfare measures.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/federal-budget/cash-flows-as-mining-tax-wedges-libs-20120509-1yd7o.html

____ wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 8:52am:

The other two new measures were the $1.1 billion supplementary allowance, which will provide cash payments to welfare recipients, and a $1.8 billion boost to Family Tax Benefit A, which is paid to low and middle-income earners. These will be funded from proceeds of the mining tax after the government axed plans to fund a 1 percentage point cut to company tax. The opposition opposed the company tax cut because it was funded by the mining tax. But yesterday it abandoned its principle of opposing policies funded by the mining tax and said it would support these two welfare measures. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/federal-budget/cash-flows-as-mining-tax-wedges-libs-20120509-1yd7o.html

BTW if you hadnt noticed, the mining tax is already passed, the company tax is not even a bill, this new bill is a bill. Der

progressiveslol wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 8:54am:

____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 8:52am: The other two new measures were the $1.1 billion supplementary allowance, which will provide cash payments to welfare recipients, and a $1.8 billion boost to Family Tax Benefit A, which is paid to low and middle-income earners. These will be funded from proceeds of the mining tax after the government axed plans to fund a 1 percentage point cut to company tax. The opposition opposed the company tax cut because it was funded by the mining tax. But yesterday it abandoned its principle of opposing policies funded by the mining tax and said it would support these two welfare measures. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/federal-budget/cash-flows-as-mining-tax-wedges-libs-20120509-1yd7o.html BTW if you hadnt noticed, the mining tax is already passed, the company tax is not even a bill, this new bill is a bill. Der

So why have Libers flip flopped.

Was their previous position of opposing spending the revenue from the mining tax wrong?

____ wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 8:57am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 8:54am: ____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 8:52am: The other two new measures were the $1.1 billion supplementary allowance, which will provide cash payments to welfare recipients, and a $1.8 billion boost to Family Tax Benefit A, which is paid to low and middle-income earners. These will be funded from proceeds of the mining tax after the government axed plans to fund a 1 percentage point cut to company tax. The opposition opposed the company tax cut because it was funded by the mining tax. But yesterday it abandoned its principle of opposing policies funded by the mining tax and said it would support these two welfare measures. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/federal-budget/cash-flows-as-mining-tax-wedges-libs-20120509-1yd7o.html BTW if you hadnt noticed, the mining tax is already passed, the company tax is not even a bill, this new bill is a bill. Der So why have Libers flip flopped. Was their previous position of opposing spending the revenue from the mining tax wrong?

No, they know they can get the money for this bill from another source, so it has nothing to do with the mining tax.

progressiveslol wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 8:57am: progressiveslol wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 8:54am: ____ wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 8:52am: The other two new measures were the $1.1 billion supplementary allowance, which will provide cash payments to welfare recipients, and a $1.8 billion boost to Family Tax Benefit A, which is paid to low and middle-income earners. These will be funded from proceeds of the mining tax after the government axed plans to fund a 1 percentage point cut to company tax. The opposition opposed the company tax cut because it was funded by the mining tax. But yesterday it abandoned its principle of opposing policies funded by the mining tax and said it would support these two welfare measures. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/federal-budget/cash-flows-as-mining-tax-wedges-libs-20120509-1yd7o.html BTW if you hadnt noticed, the mining tax is already passed, the company tax is not even a bill, this new bill is a bill. Der So why have Libers flip flopped. Was their previous position of opposing spending the revenue from the mining tax wrong? No, they know they can get the money for this bill from another source, so it has nothing to do with the mining tax.

Where, the carbon tax revenue?

Welfare and tax are fine when liberals do it.

Just look at that GST, chains removal welfare. Do you see any people walking about in chains today? No! Imagine how much money they spent taking those chains off?

Bleeding heart liberals they should kill all of [insert minority here] on sight!

Of course it's cheaper to mine in the Congo, they have slave labour duh! If you don't like to pay your fair share go somewhere else, who cares. Swanny says we have 10% more mining applications since the introduction of the mining tax, we don't need another whingeing mining magnate, we have enough already. Go and rape the poor people of the Congo you greedy pig.
......................................................................

Australia is very risky business, says our second wealthiest person Ivan Glasenberg

AUSTRALIA'S second wealthiest person has blamed the Gillard government for making the nation a less attractive place to invest than the world's poorest country - the Congo.

Ivan Glasenberg, the South-African-born head of commodities giant Glencore with a fortune valued at more than $6 billion, said the carbon tax and mining resources rent tax had made Australia a dangerous place to invest.

Speaking at a mining industry dinner in London, Mr Glasenberg said international mining companies were disadvantaged by not enjoying the same leverage in Australia that they did in poorer countries.

"At least in the Congo they need you, they want you there and if they start changing the rules, you may not continue investing," he said.

The war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo was this year voted by The Richest magazine as the poorest nation in the world.

Mr Glasenberg said the Gillard government's impositions on the mining industry made it easier for Glencore to defend investments in riskier countries: "One of the biggest questions was 'You are in difficult, risky countries, you have assets in the Congo in Africa, you have got assets in Zambia (and) Colombia (and) Kazakhstan, these are risky countries. We are not that happy investing in you, we don't know what these countries will do'.

"Ms Gillard made our life easy, because we could say 'Look, Australia just wanted to nationalise 30 per cent of their mines (with) a mineral resources tax!'

"So Australia does have its risk, yes. We saw the carbon tax, we saw the mineral resource tax. It is a first world country but is doing things that are making people cautious of investing, so Australia is becoming another country where you have got to make sure that the rules aren't going to change on you."

A spokesman for Treasurer Wayne Swan last night angrily refuted the claims.

"The facts speak louder than ever before when it comes to mining," he said.

"Figures from the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics show Australia's pipeline of investment in resources is now at an all-time high of half a trillion dollars, growing more than 10 per cent in just six months ago."

http://www.news.com.au/business/australia-is-very-risky-business-says-our-second-wealthiest-person-ivan-glasenberg/story-e6frfm1i-1226389578298#ixzz1xJXrsJa7

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 9:35am:

Of course it's cheaper to mine in the Congo, they have slave labour duh! If you don't like to pay your fair share go somewhere else, who cares. Swanny says we have 10% more mining applications since the introduction of the mining tax, we don't need another whingeing mining magnate, we have enough already. Go and rape the poor people of the Congo you greedy pig.

Lets assume they pay exactly the same price - do you even understand the economic disaster it would cause the Congo government?

Last but not least - it's easier to point a finger and tell what others should do with their money.

But when it's your own money - it's a different story.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 9:40am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 9th, 2012 at 9:35am: Of course it's cheaper to mine in the Congo, they have slave labour duh! If you don't like to pay your fair share go somewhere else, who cares. Swanny says we have 10% more mining applications since the introduction of the mining tax, we don't need another whingeing mining magnate, we have enough already. Go and rape the poor people of the Congo you greedy pig. Lets assume they pay exactly the same price - do you even understand the economic disaster it would cause the Congo government? Last but not least - it's easier to point a finger and tell what others should do with their money. But when it's your own money - it's a different story.

Maqqa your a fountain of wisdom ... but what was the point of all that? and how did it relate to the debate at hand?

John Smith wrote on Jun 9^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 9th, 2012 at 9:40am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 9th, 2012 at 9:35am: Of course it's cheaper to mine in the Congo, they have slave labour duh! If you don't like to pay your fair share go somewhere else, who cares. Swanny says we have 10% more mining applications since the introduction of the mining tax, we don't need another whingeing mining magnate, we have enough already. Go and rape the poor people of the Congo you greedy pig. Lets assume they pay exactly the same price - do you even understand the economic disaster it would cause the Congo government? Last but not least - it's easier to point a finger and tell what others should do with their money. But when it's your own money - it's a different story. Maqqa your a fountain of wisdom ... but what was the point of all that? and how did it relate to the debate at hand?

I was responding to the Congo comment