Quote:

THE Coalition's tax policies will cost Australian businesses $4.57 billion in their first full year of operation, according to the Commonwealth Treasury. Prepared as Treasury attempts to come to grips with a suite of Coalition policies yet to be announced, the analysis includes only those to which it has publicly committed. Excluded are policies with a negative but uncertain impact on business, such as winding back the recent increase in the employee tax-free threshold from $6000 to $18,200. The three policies identified by Treasury are the Coalition's commitment to impose a 1.5 per cent tax levy on big firms to fund paid parental leave, its decision to axe instant asset writeoff and other tax breaks for small business funded from the carbon tax, and its decision to axe the ability for businesses to "carry back" losses and obtain refunds for tax already paid funded from the mining tax. The analysis excludes the benefit to some businesses from axing the carbon and mining taxes. Advertisement Treasury finds that businesses would lose $4.57 billion in the first full year the Coalition's three commitments were operational, accumulating to $17.2 billion over four years. Its calculations suggest manufacturers would pay an extra $1.34 billion a year, retailers an extra $930 million and the construction sector an extra $860 million a year. Although business as a whole would benefit from the Coalition's policies because of the removal of the $6.6 billion a year carbon tax and the $2 billion a year mining tax, the analysis suggests that outside of the few big companies paying those taxes the rest of Australian businesses would suffer. Treasury's responsibility for costing opposition policies in the lead-up to elections has been transferred to the new Parliamentary Budget Office, but it still maintains a watching brief on behalf of the government. During the 2010 campaign it found errors and differences of opinion over Coalition costings amounting to $11 billion. Finance Minister Penny Wong told the ABC on Sunday the Coalition was being irresponsible by attacking government moves to keep the budget in surplus while not detailing how it would fund its own promises to axe the carbon tax and the mining tax. "I'm not sure it's very responsible to talk about the importance of bringing a budget to surplus and the importance of fiscal discipline but not telling people what your cuts are," she said. "And I'm not sure it's responsible to talk about the ending of the age of entitlement but then oppose the tightening of benefits such as the baby bonus, and family tax benefits." Coalition finance spokesman Andrew Robb attacked Senator Wong for refusing to guarantee the budget would be in surplus. "Wayne Swan alone has declared on at least 150 occasions the government will deliver a surplus in 2012-13 come hell or high water," he said. "If Labor walks away from this commitment it would sit alongside Julia Gillard's infamous promise there would be no carbon tax." In budget analysis to be released Monday, Deloitte Access Economics says sliding mining revenues make the forecast surplus unlikely. It expects a deficit of $4.2 billion this financial year, followed by a deficit of $5.1 billion in 2013-14. "China has slowed and that hurts the budget," Access says. "While we cheer the genuinely tough decisions in the budget update - notably the cut to the baby bonus and to indexation of subsidies to private health insurance - the budget is still in search of a surplus." Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbotts-46b-slug-to-business-20121104-28s8t.html#ixzz2BGADJdYK

Good to see no rightie wants to defend good old Tony's $4.6 BILLION DOLLAR HIT TO BUSINESS.

you watch ... all the righties will come on here and say it's all lies ... thats all they can ever do ....

John Smith wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 7:56am:

you watch ... all the righties will come on here and say it's all lies ... thats all they can ever do ....

The party of small business is no longer the party of small business.

Both of you either:

1) didn't read the article fully; and/or

2) failed to understand what was being said.

Que bitching and whining...

Shane B wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 8:19am:

Both of you either: 1) didn't read the article fully; and/or 2) failed to understand what was being said. Que bitching and whining...

Actually I did read the article in its entirety, Lynne.  Did you? Or did you get distracted by those very expensive wines and begin your drinking a little early?

Tony is going to cost businesses up to 4.6billion per annum. Disgraceful.

Shane B wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 8:19am:

Both of you either: 1) didn't read the article fully; and/or 2) failed to understand what was being said. Que bitching and whining...

ohh, as the  economist maybe you can enlighten us as to what part we didn't understand?  I think the following is fairly self explantatory don't you :-

Treasury finds that businesses would lose $4.57 billion in the first full year the Coalition's three commitments were operational, accumulating to $17.2 billion over four years.

Highlights added for the precious dummies, who still won't get it


sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 11:20pm:

Quote: THE Coalition's tax policies will cost Australian businesses $4.57 billion in their first full year of operation, according to the Commonwealth Treasury. Prepared as Treasury attempts to come to grips with a suite of Coalition policies yet to be announced, the analysis includes only those to which it has publicly committed. Excluded are policies with a negative but uncertain impact on business, such as winding back the recent increase in the employee tax-free threshold from $6000 to $18,200. The three policies identified by Treasury are the Coalition's commitment to impose a 1.5 per cent tax levy on big firms to fund paid parental leave, its decision to axe instant asset writeoff and other tax breaks for small business funded from the carbon tax, and its decision to axe the ability for businesses to "carry back" losses and obtain refunds for tax already paid funded from the mining tax. The analysis excludes the benefit to some businesses from axing the carbon and mining taxes. Advertisement Treasury finds that businesses would lose $4.57 billion in the first full year the Coalition's three commitments were operational, accumulating to $17.2 billion over four years. Its calculations suggest manufacturers would pay an extra $1.34 billion a year, retailers an extra $930 million and the construction sector an extra $860 million a year. Although business as a whole would benefit from the Coalition's policies because of the removal of the $6.6 billion a year carbon tax and the $2 billion a year mining tax, the analysis suggests that outside of the few big companies paying those taxes the rest of Australian businesses would suffer. Treasury's responsibility for costing opposition policies in the lead-up to elections has been transferred to the new Parliamentary Budget Office, but it still maintains a watching brief on behalf of the government. During the 2010 campaign it found errors and differences of opinion over Coalition costings amounting to $11 billion. Finance Minister Penny Wong told the ABC on Sunday the Coalition was being irresponsible by attacking government moves to keep the budget in surplus while not detailing how it would fund its own promises to axe the carbon tax and the mining tax. "I'm not sure it's very responsible to talk about the importance of bringing a budget to surplus and the importance of fiscal discipline but not telling people what your cuts are," she said. "And I'm not sure it's responsible to talk about the ending of the age of entitlement but then oppose the tightening of benefits such as the baby bonus, and family tax benefits." Coalition finance spokesman Andrew Robb attacked Senator Wong for refusing to guarantee the budget would be in surplus. "Wayne Swan alone has declared on at least 150 occasions the government will deliver a surplus in 2012-13 come hell or high water," he said. "If Labor walks away from this commitment it would sit alongside Julia Gillard's infamous promise there would be no carbon tax." In budget analysis to be released Monday, Deloitte Access Economics says sliding mining revenues make the forecast surplus unlikely. It expects a deficit of $4.2 billion this financial year, followed by a deficit of $5.1 billion in 2013-14. "China has slowed and that hurts the budget," Access says. "While we cheer the genuinely tough decisions in the budget update - notably the cut to the baby bonus and to indexation of subsidies to private health insurance - the budget is still in search of a surplus." Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbotts-46b-slug-to-business-20121104-28s8t.html#ixzz2BGADJdYK

And why is the Gillard Government politicising Treasury by getting them to do this work?

They have established the impartial Parliamentary Budget Office to do this analysis.

Shane B wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 8:36am:

Highlights added for the precious dummies, who still won't get it sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 11:20pm: Quote: THE Coalition's tax policies will cost Australian businesses $4.57 billion in their first full year of operation, according to the Commonwealth Treasury. Prepared as Treasury attempts to come to grips with a suite of Coalition policies yet to be announced, the analysis includes only those to which it has publicly committed. Excluded are policies with a negative but uncertain impact on business, such as winding back the recent increase in the employee tax-free threshold from $6000 to $18,200. The three policies identified by Treasury are the Coalition's commitment to impose a 1.5 per cent tax levy on big firms to fund paid parental leave, its decision to axe instant asset writeoff and other tax breaks for small business funded from the carbon tax, and its decision to axe the ability for businesses to "carry back" losses and obtain refunds for tax already paid funded from the mining tax. The analysis excludes the benefit to some businesses from axing the carbon and mining taxes. Advertisement Treasury finds that businesses would lose $4.57 billion in the first full year the Coalition's three commitments were operational, accumulating to $17.2 billion over four years. Its calculations suggest manufacturers would pay an extra $1.34 billion a year, retailers an extra $930 million and the construction sector an extra $860 million a year. Although business as a whole would benefit from the Coalition's policies because of the removal of the $6.6 billion a year carbon tax and the $2 billion a year mining tax, the analysis suggests that outside of the few big companies paying those taxes the rest of Australian businesses would suffer. Treasury's responsibility for costing opposition policies in the lead-up to elections has been transferred to the new Parliamentary Budget Office, but it still maintains a watching brief on behalf of the government. During the 2010 campaign it found errors and differences of opinion over Coalition costings amounting to $11 billion. Finance Minister Penny Wong told the ABC on Sunday the Coalition was being irresponsible by attacking government moves to keep the budget in surplus while not detailing how it would fund its own promises to axe the carbon tax and the mining tax. "I'm not sure it's very responsible to talk about the importance of bringing a budget to surplus and the importance of fiscal discipline but not telling people what your cuts are," she said. "And I'm not sure it's responsible to talk about the ending of the age of entitlement but then oppose the tightening of benefits such as the baby bonus, and family tax benefits." Coalition finance spokesman Andrew Robb attacked Senator Wong for refusing to guarantee the budget would be in surplus. "Wayne Swan alone has declared on at least 150 occasions the government will deliver a surplus in 2012-13 come hell or high water," he said. "If Labor walks away from this commitment it would sit alongside Julia Gillard's infamous promise there would be no carbon tax." In budget analysis to be released Monday, Deloitte Access Economics says sliding mining revenues make the forecast surplus unlikely. It expects a deficit of $4.2 billion this financial year, followed by a deficit of $5.1 billion in 2013-14. "China has slowed and that hurts the budget," Access says. "While we cheer the genuinely tough decisions in the budget update - notably the cut to the baby bonus and to indexation of subsidies to private health insurance - the budget is still in search of a surplus." Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbotts-46b-slug-to-business-20121104-28s8t.html#ixzz2BGADJdYK

rehighlighted for your convenience.  As an economist you can surely understand how some businesses may benefit from the mining tax/carbon tax withdrawal, but how others will suffer from the loss of tax breaks and the additional burdens put on by the great liberal idea of maternity leave extravaganza (even after saying that this will happen over his dead body). 

Shane B wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 8:38am:

And why is the Gillard Government politicising Treasury by getting them to do this work? They have established the impartial Parliamentary Budget Office to do this analysis.

Lynne darling, less drinking in the morning:


Quote:

Treasury's responsibility for costing opposition policies in the lead-up to elections has been transferred to the new Parliamentary Budget Office, but it still maintains a watching brief on behalf of the government.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 8:41am:

Shane B wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 8:38am: And why is the Gillard Government politicising Treasury by getting them to do this work? They have established the impartial Parliamentary Budget Office to do this analysis. Lynne darling, less drinking in the morning: Quote: Treasury's responsibility for costing opposition policies in the lead-up to elections has been transferred to the new Parliamentary Budget Office, but it still maintains a watching brief on behalf of the government.

Treasury did this work, not the Parliamentary Budget Office.

Why didn't Swan and Wong get the Parliamentary Budget Office to do it?

Shane B wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 8:53am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 8:41am: Shane B wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 8:38am: And why is the Gillard Government politicising Treasury by getting them to do this work? They have established the impartial Parliamentary Budget Office to do this analysis. Lynne darling, less drinking in the morning: Quote: Treasury's responsibility for costing opposition policies in the lead-up to elections has been transferred to the new Parliamentary Budget Office, but it still maintains a watching brief on behalf of the government. Treasury did this work, not the Parliamentary Budget Office. Why didn't Swan and Wong get the Parliamentary Budget Office to do it?

It's up to the Coalition to make use of the BUdget Office - but for some reason they choose not to? I wonder why?

And again, for your benefit:


Quote:

Treasury's responsibility for costing opposition policies in the lead-up to elections has been transferred to the new Parliamentary Budget Office, but it still maintains a watching brief on behalf of the government.

Would it be because the Parliamentary Budget Office is an independent Statutory Authority that is accountable to the Parliament and not the Government of the day?

I think this why they want to keep the Treasury on a "watching brief", results produced from Treasury can be manicured.

Shane B wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:13am:

Would it be because the Parliamentary Budget Office is an independent Statutory Authority that is accountable to the Parliament and not the Government of the day? I think this why they want to keep the Treasury on a "watching brief", results produced from Treasury can be manicured.

So if it is an independents statutory authority why have the coalition refused to use them?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

Shane B wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 9:13am: Would it be because the Parliamentary Budget Office is an independent Statutory Authority that is accountable to the Parliament and not the Government of the day? I think this why they want to keep the Treasury on a "watching brief", results produced from Treasury can be manicured. So if it is an independents statutory authority why have the coalition refused to use them?

Can you please tell me when the Opposition have refused or said they would refuse to use them?

Shane B wrote on Nov 5^th, 2012 at 8:53am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 8:41am: Shane B wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 8:38am: And why is the Gillard Government politicising Treasury by getting them to do this work? They have established the impartial Parliamentary Budget Office to do this analysis. Lynne darling, less drinking in the morning: Quote: Treasury's responsibility for costing opposition policies in the lead-up to elections has been transferred to the new Parliamentary Budget Office, but it still maintains a watching brief on behalf of the government. Treasury did this work, not the Parliamentary Budget Office. Why didn't Swan and Wong get the Parliamentary Budget Office to do it?

Why do you think Treasury an arm of the public service is not apolitical?

Is Tony going to sack everyone in Treasury if he wins?

Cant have Labor termites in the ranks can we?

Oh & Coalition doesn't does trust the Parliamentry Budget office


Quote:

Today’s appointment of Mr Phillip Bowen as the inaugural head of Australia’s first Parliamentary Budget Office means the Opposition has run out of excuses for not giving Australians properly costed policies. Yet just this afternoon, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey said he would only give “some policies” to the PBO. This is despite saying earlier this month that he wanted to submit the Opposition’s policies to the Parliamentary Budget Office. HOCKEY: ... we want to submit policies to it. In addition to other services, we want to submit policies to it for costing.

http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media/2012/mr_may_2012_128.html


Joe can't add & Abbott can't count but they know more than both Treasury & the PBO.

Keep bending over & sticking your head in the sand Shane, if you don't see it the ramming won't be as bad. :D

That's very disappointing, the Parliamentary Budget Office was a policy from the Liberals. They should submit all of their policies for costing.

I am not saying Treasury is not apolitical, I'm saying the Government of the day will commission work from them, and then they will cherry pick the bits they like and put Treasury's name against it. That's what seems to have happened here.

Why does the original article only quote the costs of these Coalition tax policies, and doesn't mention the value of the benefits of abolishing the carbon tax and MRRT?

The advice from Treasury, because it has a "watching brief", will never see the light of day because it belongs to the Government, unless it gets an FOI.