The majority of voters say ‘No’ to proposed GST increase
February 1, 20165:
News.com


A MAJORITY of voters opposes increasing the GST rate, the latest Newspoll shows.   :)

It also reveals that the federal Coalition is maintaining its two-party preferred lead over Labor, 53 per cent to 47 per cent, while Opposition Leader Bill Shorten’s rating as preferred prime minister has risen six points to 20 per cent.


Tax debate ... Opposition leader Bill Shorten announces Labor's fight against a GST increase as he helps the Grant family do their shopping in southern NSW.

That is still well behind Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is favoured by 59 per cent of voters, the poll taken for The Australian newspaper shows.

The poll of 1837 voters reveals that 54 per cent oppose raising the GST from 10 per cent to 15 per cent as part of a package including tax cuts for all income earners and compensation for low-income earners and welfare recipients.




It showed 37 per cent backed a GST increase while 9 per cent were uncommitted.

The Coalition’s primary support is at 46 per cent, up one point from the previous poll, while Labor has also gained one point.

I would say yes

miketrees wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:03am:

I would say yes

I believe you.

Yeah, economy on the skids, rich people get tens of billions of dollars of tax rorts so let us tax consumption more heavily, THAT should fix the economy! Geez.

Ochlocracy sucks.

The majority of voters want services but want the minority of voters to pay for them.

Swagman wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:13am:

Ochlocracy sucks. The majority of voters want services but want the minority of voters to pay for them.

And the conservatives want services but they want the poor to pay for them ?

I don't rule out the need to increase the GST but IMO it should be the very last resort and not as we see here the sneaky lazy dishonest and stupid first considered option.

didnt BEAZLEY fight the GST...

look what happened to him.

I believe some lefties still fight daylight saving..and seatbelts. ::) ::) ::)

well it makes sense to some.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It is just STUPID to think of taxing consumption more with the economy slowing down. Crazy!

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:35am:

It is just STUPID to think of taxing consumption more with the economy slowing down. Crazy!

your not very bright are you monk..

when the economy goes down...

so does the govt income stream...

petrol is cheaper means their cut is less than it was 12months ago..

but their wage bill remains the same....or going UP.

do you seriously think any downturn doesnt affect the govt???>..only lefties.. :D :D

Typical leftards. They want everything, they just don't want to pay for it... or they want someone else to.

cods wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:38am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:35am: It is just STUPID to think of taxing consumption more with the economy slowing down. Crazy! your not very bright are you monk.. when the economy goes down... so does the govt income stream... petrol is cheaper means their cut is less than it was 12months ago.. but their wage bill remains the same....or going UP. do you seriously think any downturn doesnt affect the govt???>..only lefties.. :D :D

Your argument seems to be supporting what Monk said except for the insult  ?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:40am:

Typical leftards. They want everything, they just don't want to pay for it... or they want someone else to.

1837 people is a majority.....of 8 million...

::) ::) ::) ::)


makes sense to some... >:(

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:42am:

cods wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:38am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:35am: It is just STUPID to think of taxing consumption more with the economy slowing down. Crazy! your not very bright are you monk.. when the economy goes down... so does the govt income stream... petrol is cheaper means their cut is less than it was 12months ago.. but their wage bill remains the same....or going UP. do you seriously think any downturn doesnt affect the govt???>..only lefties.. :D :D Your argument seems to be supporting what Monk said except for the insult  ?

really...

so hes saying lets increase the GST because the govt still has to pay its bills......


really??.. is that what he said?. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:40am:

Typical leftards. They want everything, they just don't want to pay for it... or they want someone else to.

And you think that removing the cost from business and tax payers and the wealthy to push the cost towards the unemployed and pensioners isn't doing the same thing.

Everyone getting tax cuts because the pensioners and unemployed get to pay a bigger share isn't wanting everything, they just don't want to pay for it... or they want someone else to.

Someone has to pay all this does is to change the mix of who it is.

Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth.

Seems straightforward enough to me!

I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::)

I would like to see the Howardista profligacy ripped out of the Budget.

Use some of that to boost Newstart. Newstart recipients spend every cent they get, they have to. This would increase demand which would lead to more jobs.

Govt spending is nearly 26% of GDP!

Once we have gotten rid of the pork barreling and wealthfare Howard built into the Budget—and Profligate Pete was worried about this you may remember—then tax rates, GST etc can be considered.


Just bumping up the GST now would just act to depress demand, increasing unemployment.

When Howard introduced the GST, he almost had a recession.

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:48am:

Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth. Seems straightforward enough to me! I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::)

You seem to forget that a rise in the GST to 15% would be offset by axing a heap of other taxes, along with compensation for low income earners.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:59am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:48am: Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth. Seems straightforward enough to me! I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::) You seem to forget that a rise in the GST to 15% would be offset by axing a heap of other taxes, along with compensation for low income earners.

Its going to raise revenue dope = someone isnt getting an offset = less disposable income overall = less economic growth

Are you trying to say tax offset will cancel it out

More like we will tax you an extra thirty bucks and here is ten bucks to bmake you feel good

Its all a nonsense money grab

Struggling households that are under massive financial pressures are not willing to fork over more taxes so to help out the share values of companies.

No wonder timid Turnbull will not stake the Liberals to a GST position. The coalition are such cowards now.

Bring back Abbott so the Libs can regain so courage.

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:48am:

Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth. Seems straightforward enough to me! I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::)

I dont kn ow how much you spend a week ON THE GST red..

have you checked your sales dockets lately??>.

check how much you pay in GST each week then add 5%.... you will be surprised how little it is..

unless you are into fancy holidays overseas that is... ;) ;)... and dont forget..

where you a re going TIPPING every man and his dog.. will cost more than 15% gst...

thats on top of their[American] form of GST...[sales tax]

have a read it may enlighten you red..

https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Travel-g191-c1484/United-States:Sales.Tax.html

____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:05am:

Struggling households that are under massive financial pressures are not willing to fork over more taxes so to help out the share values of companies. No wonder timid Turnbull will not stake the Liberals to a GST position. The coalition are such cowards now. Bring back Abbott so the Libs can regain so courage.

im not struggling nor do I smoke or drink or gamble... all highly TAXED by both State and Fed govts..

if you spend wisely ... you wouldnt pay any gst....

do you really think 5% on what we pay now will make a huge difference to struggle street??

if they were into buying boats or new cars every two years and updating their homes I would say YES....otherwise...most food doesnt have GST...



your a bunch of whingers....dont appreciate how lucky you are..

cods wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:26am:

didnt BEAZLEY fight the GST... look what happened to him. I believe some lefties still fight daylight saving..and seatbelts. ::) ::) ::) well it makes sense to some.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Going to be one of those days again is it  ::)

Its time wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:24am:

cods wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:26am: didnt BEAZLEY fight the GST... look what happened to him. I believe some lefties still fight daylight saving..and seatbelts. ::) ::) ::) well it makes sense to some.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Going to be one of those days again is it  ::)

well its about the GST..

may I suggest you go elsewhere if its all too hard.

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:03am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:59am: Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:48am: Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth. Seems straightforward enough to me! I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::) You seem to forget that a rise in the GST to 15% would be offset by axing a heap of other taxes, along with compensation for low income earners. Its going to raise revenue dope = someone isnt getting an offset = less disposable income overall = less economic growth Are you trying to say tax offset will cancel it out More like we will tax you an extra thirty bucks and here is ten bucks to bmake you feel good Its all a nonsense money grab

It's not quite so simple Red. The differing deadweight losses need to be taken into account. Even if revenue neutral, GST is a smaller drain on economic activity.

Deadweight Loss of GST = 8c per dollar, Income tax = 24c per dollar.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ScreenHunter_3498-Jul.-28-09.14.jpg

Having said that though, I'd much prefer to attack the spending side first and get rid of all the subsidisation and handouts in return for a lower tax burden overall. Politically difficult though.

cods wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:20am:

____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:05am: Struggling households that are under massive financial pressures are not willing to fork over more taxes so to help out the share values of companies. No wonder timid Turnbull will not stake the Liberals to a GST position. The coalition are such cowards now. Bring back Abbott so the Libs can regain so courage. im not struggling nor do I smoke or drink or gamble... all highly TAXED by both State and Fed govts.. if you spend wisely ... you wouldnt pay any gst.... do you really think 5% on what we pay now will make a huge difference to struggle street?? if they were into buying boats or new cars every two years and updating their homes I would say YES....otherwise...most food doesnt have GST... your a bunch of whingers....dont appreciate how lucky you are..

They are even thinking of putting GST on fresh food, health and education. You know what fresh food, health and education will go up 15% not 5% as most people think that fresh food, health and education will only go up 5%

Bam wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:55am:

When Howard introduced the GST, he almost had a recession.

Forgetting of course the global economic downturn at the time where other countries DID go into recession.

Context, Bambi.  Try it.

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:48am:

Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth. Seems straightforward enough to me! I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::)

Yes that's true to an extent, which is why any GST increase would have to factor in some sort of compensation and / or spending boost.


____ wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:05am:

Struggling households that are under massive financial pressures are not willing to fork over more taxes so to help out the share values of companies.

That's out of left field?  How does an increase in the GST help out the share values of companies?

At any rate the important point about a GST increase that Leftists totally ignore is that it's the poor that benefit the most out of taxation.

That graph is garbage! The GST hits workers when they go out and consume.

With overseas–owned companies the profit flows out the country (my god how it flows out!) And so on, garbage graph!

Come on righties we need some consistency here, where is the same level of outrage about a tax that will cost much much much more than any CT? righties ? Cat got your tongue ? 

Labor voter wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:36am:

cods wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:20am: ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:05am: Struggling households that are under massive financial pressures are not willing to fork over more taxes so to help out the share values of companies. No wonder timid Turnbull will not stake the Liberals to a GST position. The coalition are such cowards now. Bring back Abbott so the Libs can regain so courage. im not struggling nor do I smoke or drink or gamble... all highly TAXED by both State and Fed govts.. if you spend wisely ... you wouldnt pay any gst.... do you really think 5% on what we pay now will make a huge difference to struggle street?? if they were into buying boats or new cars every two years and updating their homes I would say YES....otherwise...most food doesnt have GST... your a bunch of whingers....dont appreciate how lucky you are.. They are even thinking of putting GST on fresh food, health and education. You know what fresh food, health and education will go up 15% not 5% as most people think that fresh food, health and education will only go up 5%

something has got to GO UP... dont you get that?

its an alternative.....either 15% on what we have or 10% on what doesnt have gst as of now...

we are about the lowest in the world....and still we whinge.

next time you shop just look at the GST you paid.....its not 10% of the total bill...

It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced.

The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points.

One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase.

Swagman wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:40am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:48am: Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth. Seems straightforward enough to me! I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::) Yes that's true to an extent, which is why any GST increase would have to factor in some sort of compensation and / or spending boost. ____ wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:05am: Struggling households that are under massive financial pressures are not willing to fork over more taxes so to help out the share values of companies. That's out of left field?  How does an increase in the GST help out the share values of companies? At any rate the important point about a GST increase that Leftists totally ignore is that it's the poor that benefit the most out of taxation.

Quote:

NSW Premier Mike Baird, who last year proposed increasing the GST to 15% in order to pay for looming health and education cost shortfalls in state budgets, has announced a refreshed plan that includes significant cuts to the company tax rate and personal income taxes.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/mike-bairds-updated-gst-increase-plan-2016-2


Cutting the company tax rate so to lift their share value... how do the poor benefit with the big end of town gaining more through their share portfolios ... are the hard right planning on introducing a US style tipping culture?

cods wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:17am:

unless you are into fancy holidays overseas that is...  .

Now that's hitting below the belt, btw didn't you have a holiday overseas about a year ago? The child bride and I have been surviving on tinned dog food for months to save up for this you know!

;D ;D ;D ;D

Just remember cods its not about how you or I are affected, it about the normal mums and dads on average wages raising a family vs big business trying to have taxes changes introduced that favour them. Rent seeking is the term

"The Majority Of Voters Say No To GST Increase".

Say something that will surprise me.

I had to laugh at the ABC's attempt to make it sound like a good news story for the govt.

'More than one-third of voters back GST hike: Newspoll'

the righties were right all along, the ABC is biased after all.... to the right.

If it had been the carbon tax they were discussing it would have read

'two-thirds of voters OPPOSE the Carbon tax'

:D :D

bogarde73 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:14am:

"The Majority Of Voters Say No To GST Increase". Say something that will surprise me.

Should've kept the CT  ;)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:59am:

Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:48am: Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth. Seems straightforward enough to me! I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::) You seem to forget that a rise in the GST to 15% would be offset by axing a heap of other taxes, along with compensation for low income earners.

so why raise it if you're just going to give it back?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:45am:

It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase.

a good result? nice try  ;D ;D ;D ;D

37 % are in favour, about the same percentage of die hard libs like you that would support the libs no matter what they proposed.

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:18am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:59am: Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:48am: Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth. Seems straightforward enough to me! I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::) You seem to forget that a rise in the GST to 15% would be offset by axing a heap of other taxes, along with compensation for low income earners. so why raise it if you're just going to give it back?

Differences in deadweight losses.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:41am:

That graph is garbage! The GST hits workers when they go out and consume. With overseas–owned companies the profit flows out the country (my god how it flows out!) And so on, garbage graph!

Do you have anything to substantiate that the deadweight losses are not as shown. If so, please elaborate. If not then piss off.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:45am:

It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase.

solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote.

You have been crowing about 55 to 45 for weeks. How can 53 to 47 be a slight improvement ?

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:18am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:59am: Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:48am: Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth. Seems straightforward enough to me! I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::) You seem to forget that a rise in the GST to 15% would be offset by axing a heap of other taxes, along with compensation for low income earners. so why raise it if you're just going to give it back?

SSSHhhhhhh don't tell anyone but they are not really going to give it all back.

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:18am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:59am: Redmond Neck wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:48am: Tax everyone harder = less disposable income = less economic growth. Seems straightforward enough to me! I am sure Swaggie would advocate that!  ::) You seem to forget that a rise in the GST to 15% would be offset by axing a heap of other taxes, along with compensation for low income earners. so why raise it if you're just going to give it back?

Tax changes that will ultimately favour the rich,

They will be also giving it back to big business in company tax cuts ...

Rent seeking by the big end of town. Using their influence on the conservative assholes to have tax changes introduced that favour the rich companies

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:19am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:45am: It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase. a good result? nice try  ;D ;D ;D ;D 37 % are in favour, about the same percentage of die hard libs like you that would support the libs no matter what they proposed.

The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points.

What do you think it will do to public opinion when people work out that they will be something like $5,000 worse off ???

I would expect that these numbers will change drastically the other way when it goes from being theoretical to actual money coming out of peoples pockets.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 7:40am:

Typical leftards. They want everything, they just don't want to pay for it... or they want someone else to.

The same can be said for businesses, hardly the bastion of leftism.

They want their taxes cut, they want the GST hiked to pay for it. Who doesn't pay GST? Businesses.

Sure, let's hike the GST by removing some business exemptions such as tax-free transfer pricing.

Increase the GST to lower income & company tax.

At what point do you think politicians will wake up that continually cutting taxation is a bad thing?

Does anyone really think a increase of 5% on the GST will cover the shortfall from the taxes they will cut to "Stimulate growth" as well as fund Health & Education.

F.F.S it's already been modelled that the taxation the government forgoes to allow boomers to "top up" their super cost more than the bloody pension.

Speaking of, does anyone think we'll ever get a person in power who understands perpetual growth is a bad thing???

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:44am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:45am: It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase. solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. You have been crowing about 55 to 45 for weeks. How can 53 to 47 be a slight improvement ?

53/47 is what it has BEEN for some time. 55/45 is what I expect it to GET to before the election.

It  isnt that hard to work out.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:49am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:19am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:45am: It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase. a good result? nice try  ;D ;D ;D ;D 37 % are in favour, about the same percentage of die hard libs like you that would support the libs no matter what they proposed. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. What do you think it will do to public opinion when people work out that they will be something like $5,000 worse off ??? I would expect that these numbers will change drastically the other way when it goes from being theoretical to actual money coming out of peoples pockets.

Because they won't be. Just as with the original GST implementation, most people are no worse of and some better off. It will be the same here. You do seem to have awful difficulty with the concept of compensation. By the polls it would appear most others do not have your blind-eye.

Bam wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:59am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:40am: Typical leftards. They want everything, they just don't want to pay for it... or they want someone else to. The same can be said for businesses, hardly the bastion of leftism. They want their taxes cut, they want the GST hiked to pay for it. Who doesn't pay GST? Businesses. Sure, let's hike the GST by removing some business exemptions such as tax-free transfer pricing.

Who hates business with a real passion?  BAM

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 2:59pm:

53/47 is what it has BEEN for some time. 55/45 is what I expect it to GET to before the election.

Geez you're full of crap. You even started a thread on it you dopey twat

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1453534393

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:04pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 2:59pm: 53/47 is what it has BEEN for some time. 55/45 is what I expect it to GET to before the election. Geez you're full of crap. You even started a thread on it you dopey twat http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1453534393

From REAL pollsters like Newspoll. The ones that get it right. It is always entertaining watching the mental Monk trying to reinterpret every poll as a major disaster for the Libs.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 2:59pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:44am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:45am: It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase. solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. You have been crowing about 55 to 45 for weeks. How can 53 to 47 be a slight improvement ? 53/47 is what it has BEEN for some time. 55/45 is what I expect it to GET to before the election. It  isnt that hard to work out.

I would be surprised if anyone took your meaning that way.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:49am: John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:19am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:45am: It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase. a good result? nice try  ;D ;D ;D ;D 37 % are in favour, about the same percentage of die hard libs like you that would support the libs no matter what they proposed. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. What do you think it will do to public opinion when people work out that they will be something like $5,000 worse off ??? I would expect that these numbers will change drastically the other way when it goes from being theoretical to actual money coming out of peoples pockets. Because they won't be. Just as with the original GST implementation, most people are no worse of and some better off. It will be the same here. You do seem to have awful difficulty with the concept of compensation. By the polls it would appear most others do not have your blind-eye.

Talk about compensation is the worst off among us. The average working guy is looking at paying 15% GST with no compensation at all.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:52pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:49am: John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:19am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:45am: It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase. a good result? nice try  ;D ;D ;D ;D 37 % are in favour, about the same percentage of die hard libs like you that would support the libs no matter what they proposed. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. What do you think it will do to public opinion when people work out that they will be something like $5,000 worse off ??? I would expect that these numbers will change drastically the other way when it goes from being theoretical to actual money coming out of peoples pockets. Because they won't be. Just as with the original GST implementation, most people are no worse of and some better off. It will be the same here. You do seem to have awful difficulty with the concept of compensation. By the polls it would appear most others do not have your blind-eye. Talk about compensation is the worst off among us. The average working guy is looking at paying 15% GST with no compensation at all.

You know this because you are the only person not in Federal Cabinet to know the details of a GST compensation package that by all reports, hasnt even been decided on yet?  Have you any idea just how stupid this makes you sound?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:04pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 2:59pm: 53/47 is what it has BEEN for some time. 55/45 is what I expect it to GET to before the election. Geez you're full of crap. You even started a thread on it you dopey twat http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1453534393 From REAL pollsters like Newspoll. The ones that get it right. It is always entertaining watching the mental Monk trying to reinterpret every poll as a major disaster for the Libs.

from real pollsters? nice try .

You are a liar and an id iot

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:04pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 2:59pm: 53/47 is what it has BEEN for some time. 55/45 is what I expect it to GET to before the election. Geez you're full of crap. You even started a thread on it you dopey twat http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1453534393 From REAL pollsters like Newspoll. The ones that get it right. It is always entertaining watching the mental Monk trying to reinterpret every poll as a major disaster for the Libs.

Like reinterpreting 55 as 57  :D

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:58pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:52pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:49am: John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:19am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:45am: It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase. a good result? nice try  ;D ;D ;D ;D 37 % are in favour, about the same percentage of die hard libs like you that would support the libs no matter what they proposed. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. What do you think it will do to public opinion when people work out that they will be something like $5,000 worse off ??? I would expect that these numbers will change drastically the other way when it goes from being theoretical to actual money coming out of peoples pockets. Because they won't be. Just as with the original GST implementation, most people are no worse of and some better off. It will be the same here. You do seem to have awful difficulty with the concept of compensation. By the polls it would appear most others do not have your blind-eye. Talk about compensation is the worst off among us. The average working guy is looking at paying 15% GST with no compensation at all. You know this because you are the only person not in Federal Cabinet to know the details of a GST compensation package that by all reports, hasnt even been decided on yet?  Have you any idea just how stupid this makes you sound?

You realise that in your previous post you had made the same type of statement about the compensation covering everyone and being no worse off, You know this because you are the only person not in Federal Cabinet to know the details of a GST compensation.

Will Turnbull have the guts to take the 15% GST to the coming election?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 3:01pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:59am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 7:40am: Typical leftards. They want everything, they just don't want to pay for it... or they want someone else to. The same can be said for businesses, hardly the bastion of leftism. They want their taxes cut, they want the GST hiked to pay for it. Who doesn't pay GST? Businesses. Sure, let's hike the GST by removing some business exemptions such as tax-free transfer pricing. Who hates business with a real passion?  BAM

Reported.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:32pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:58pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:52pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:49am: John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:19am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:45am: It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase. a good result? nice try  ;D ;D ;D ;D 37 % are in favour, about the same percentage of die hard libs like you that would support the libs no matter what they proposed. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. What do you think it will do to public opinion when people work out that they will be something like $5,000 worse off ??? I would expect that these numbers will change drastically the other way when it goes from being theoretical to actual money coming out of peoples pockets. Because they won't be. Just as with the original GST implementation, most people are no worse of and some better off. It will be the same here. You do seem to have awful difficulty with the concept of compensation. By the polls it would appear most others do not have your blind-eye. Talk about compensation is the worst off among us. The average working guy is looking at paying 15% GST with no compensation at all. You know this because you are the only person not in Federal Cabinet to know the details of a GST compensation package that by all reports, hasnt even been decided on yet?  Have you any idea just how stupid this makes you sound? You realise that in your previous post you had made the same type of statement about the compensation covering everyone and being no worse off, You know this because you are the only person not in Federal Cabinet to know the details of a GST compensation.

Everybody (but you apparently) knows there will be a compensation package. What it will be exactly is of course unknown since we do not even know the model of the 15% GST.  You seem pathologically incapable of accepting the existence of a GST compensation package for reasons that escape me and everyone else. When has there EVER been a massive increase in one kind of taxation without a compensatory reduction in another? NEVER. why would this be any different.

On a side note, it is interesting psychologically as to where your pathological inability to accept known facts comes from.

Will Turnbull have the guts to take the 15% GST to the coming election?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:09pm:

Will Turnbull have the guts to take the 15% GST to the coming election?

Who cares?   :P

Neferti wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:09pm: Will Turnbull have the guts to take the 15% GST to the coming election? Who cares?   :P

I care -

it would be a massive election issue that Turnbull could lose on.

we are in Debt..

Labor put us in this Massive Debt..

Labor are keeping us in Debt by blocking savings..

this will continue till the next election when hopefully we get a clear winner in government and in the senate..

Labor threw Billions of Dollars into the Budget knowing we couldn't afford it and expecting to lose the last election so as to make the next government look bad..

there was so much waste in the last Labor government it was just sickening and still is..

the filthy immigrants are costing us 100 Million dollars a year and will continue to rise.. another Labor Rippa..

so anyways..

to pay back your debts you either raise taxes or cut all of Labors irresponsible spending...

but it seems that the Leftard don't want any cuts.. or.. any tax increases..

and that's why most people know that the leftist is mentally handicapped, selfish, greedy and lazy.. durr  :D

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:14pm:

we are in Debt.. Labor put us in this Massive Debt.. Labor are keeping us in Debt by blocking savings.. this will continue till the next election when hopefully we get a clear winner in government and in the senate.. Labor threw Billions of Dollars into the Budget knowing we couldn't afford it and expecting to lose the last election so as to make the next government look bad.. there was so much waste in the last Labor government it was just sickening and still is.. the filthy immigrants are costing us 100 Million dollars a year and will continue to rise.. another Labor Rippa.. so anyways.. to pay back your debts you either raise taxes or cut all of Labors irresponsible spending... but it seems that the Leftard don't want any cuts.. or.. any tax increases.. and that's why most people know that the leftist is mentally handicapped.. durr  :D

Labor put us in this Massive Debt?

We've had more than a doubling of the debt since the Libbos came to power.

Get your facts straight & apologise to all the readers.

What's the point of a compensation package - that's taking money out and giving it back again - even if it is a lesser amount.

Assuming it is to compensate to the less well off (more likely like most lib policies it will compensate the more well off to a larger degree), it shows that the govt recognises how blunt an instrument this is.

Now how about target other areas of taxation say like super? 

My bet is that if the GST is raised to 15% the Govt. will spend it all & still borrow more.

Next prediction -
we will never pay off our debt - it will only keep increasing until we are like Greece.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:40pm:

Everybody (but you apparently) knows there will be a compensation package. What it will be exactly is of course unknown since we do not even know the model of the 15% GST.  You seem pathologically incapable of accepting the existence of a GST compensation package for reasons that escape me and everyone else. When has there EVER been a massive increase in one kind of taxation without a compensatory reduction in another? NEVER. why would this be any different. On a side note, it is interesting psychologically as to where your pathological inability to accept known facts comes from.

Repeating an incorrect statement does not make it correct.

The government claim that a 15% GST will raise an additional $48 B or so, if nobody is worse off where can this come from ?

Nobody has said that everyone will be compensated.

stunspore wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:17pm:

What's the point of a compensation package - that's taking money out and giving it back again - even if it is a lesser amount. Assuming it is to compensate to the less well off (more likely like most lib policies it will compensate the more well off to a larger degree), it shows that the govt recognises how blunt an instrument this is. Now how about target other areas of taxation say like super?

That has been answered earlier in the thread. Even if revenue neutral, there are different deadweight losses associated with the assortment of taxation regimes.

Deadweight loss of GST = 8c per dollar, income tax = 21c per dollar, company tax = 40c per dollar.

Not particularly hard to see where the push is coming from. Stuff all to do with tax breaks for the rich.

Wouldn't the Libs just say the 18odd k tax free threshold is your compensation, was the only thing that they left after CT abolished.

Its time wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:44pm:

Wouldn't the Libs just say the 18odd k tax free threshold is your compensation, was the only thing that they left after CT abolished.

No, that wouldn't work. It leaves pensioners, self funded retirees and welfare recipients worse off. Compensation measures can't be confined only to the taxation system. There would need to be transfers in some way.

crocodile wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:22pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:44pm: Wouldn't the Libs just say the 18odd k tax free threshold is your compensation, was the only thing that they left after CT abolished. No, that wouldn't work. It leaves pensioners, self funded retirees and welfare recipients worse off. Compensation measures can't be confined only to the taxation system. There would need to be transfers in some way.

True that

Bobby. wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:16pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:14pm: we are in Debt.. Labor put us in this Massive Debt.. Labor are keeping us in Debt by blocking savings.. this will continue till the next election when hopefully we get a clear winner in government and in the senate.. Labor threw Billions of Dollars into the Budget knowing we couldn't afford it and expecting to lose the last election so as to make the next government look bad.. there was so much waste in the last Labor government it was just sickening and still is.. the filthy immigrants are costing us 100 Million dollars a year and will continue to rise.. another Labor Rippa.. so anyways.. to pay back your debts you either raise taxes or cut all of Labors irresponsible spending... but it seems that the Leftard don't want any cuts.. or.. any tax increases.. and that's why most people know that the leftist is mentally handicapped.. durr  :D Labor put us in this Massive Debt? We've had more than a doubling of the debt since the Libbos came to power. Get your facts straight & apologise to all the readers.

So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year.

Do you want to try again oh gullible one?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 10:47am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:16pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:14pm: we are in Debt.. Labor put us in this Massive Debt.. Labor are keeping us in Debt by blocking savings.. this will continue till the next election when hopefully we get a clear winner in government and in the senate.. Labor threw Billions of Dollars into the Budget knowing we couldn't afford it and expecting to lose the last election so as to make the next government look bad.. there was so much waste in the last Labor government it was just sickening and still is.. the filthy immigrants are costing us 100 Million dollars a year and will continue to rise.. another Labor Rippa.. so anyways.. to pay back your debts you either raise taxes or cut all of Labors irresponsible spending... but it seems that the Leftard don't want any cuts.. or.. any tax increases.. and that's why most people know that the leftist is mentally handicapped.. durr  :D Labor put us in this Massive Debt? We've had more than a doubling of the debt since the Libbos came to power. Get your facts straight & apologise to all the readers. So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Do you want to try again oh gullible one?

The deficit was doubled the debt wasn't. Actually you are both wrong.

The Net debt in 2013 was $153B (from final budget outcomes)

The expected net Debt this year is $278 B. (from MYEFO)

So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year.

Obviously to doubt a net debt of $150 Billion it would require 1 deficit of $150B or 3 of $50B.

Still to increase net debt to $278 B is a really good effort.

The Liberals took a $17B deficit and have averages $43B deficit per year over 3 years.

So they have averaged  more than double the deficit they inherited every year in power.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 5:40pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 5:32pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:58pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:52pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 3:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:49am: John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:19am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:45am: It is ironic that every poster here seems to think this is a bad result. Given that a small majority oppose it at this stage is a very good result! New taxes are never going to be popular. There will always be a hard core of people who would oppose new taxes no matter what else is included. But this figure of 54% opposition comes without and detail on the compensation packages.  The Howard GST was also quite unpopular but improved markedly once the huge reductions in income tax and the large increases in welfare payments were announced. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. One of the most important things to be noted is that the polls also show government support solid at 53/47 with a small INCREASE in their vote. It is hardly bad news for the GST increase. a good result? nice try  ;D ;D ;D ;D 37 % are in favour, about the same percentage of die hard libs like you that would support the libs no matter what they proposed. The Liberals would be heartened by this result. With a good marketing campaign, they should be easily able to improve that by 10-15 points. What do you think it will do to public opinion when people work out that they will be something like $5,000 worse off ??? I would expect that these numbers will change drastically the other way when it goes from being theoretical to actual money coming out of peoples pockets. Because they won't be. Just as with the original GST implementation, most people are no worse of and some better off. It will be the same here. You do seem to have awful difficulty with the concept of compensation. By the polls it would appear most others do not have your blind-eye. Talk about compensation is the worst off among us. The average working guy is looking at paying 15% GST with no compensation at all. You know this because you are the only person not in Federal Cabinet to know the details of a GST compensation package that by all reports, hasnt even been decided on yet?  Have you any idea just how stupid this makes you sound? You realise that in your previous post you had made the same type of statement about the compensation covering everyone and being no worse off, You know this because you are the only person not in Federal Cabinet to know the details of a GST compensation. Everybody (but you apparently) knows there will be a compensation package. What it will be exactly is of course unknown since we do not even know the model of the 15% GST.  You seem pathologically incapable of accepting the existence of a GST compensation package for reasons that escape me and everyone else. When has there EVER been a massive increase in one kind of taxation without a compensatory reduction in another? NEVER. why would this be any different. On a side note, it is interesting psychologically as to where your pathological inability to accept known facts comes from.

Perhaps another one of Howards first home buyers grant that just served to push up house prices. I don't thiunk anyone wants to see that again except for the real estate scumbags.

How about forgetting about the GST increases and go for the forbidden topic of negative gearing and CGT discounts on property deals. After all isn't it still all on the table ?

wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:56am:

The majority of voters say ‘No’ to proposed GST increase

They were probably asked a loaded question such as "Would you support a rise in GST to 15%?" rather than being asked if they would support a rise in GST with compensation where it was needed.  Do we know what the actual wording of the question was?

There was an article in yesterday's SMH, in which Mike Baird put forward a case for an increase to 15% in GST, with compensation for low income groups, and estimating the amount of revenue generated and the cost of the compensation.

Then again, we may not have to worry about it as, according to news.com, it's not going to happen in our lifetimes:

wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 6:56am:

February 1, 20165.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 11:02am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 10:47am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:16pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:14pm: we are in Debt.. Labor put us in this Massive Debt.. Labor are keeping us in Debt by blocking savings.. this will continue till the next election when hopefully we get a clear winner in government and in the senate.. Labor threw Billions of Dollars into the Budget knowing we couldn't afford it and expecting to lose the last election so as to make the next government look bad.. there was so much waste in the last Labor government it was just sickening and still is.. the filthy immigrants are costing us 100 Million dollars a year and will continue to rise.. another Labor Rippa.. so anyways.. to pay back your debts you either raise taxes or cut all of Labors irresponsible spending... but it seems that the Leftard don't want any cuts.. or.. any tax increases.. and that's why most people know that the leftist is mentally handicapped.. durr  :D Labor put us in this Massive Debt? We've had more than a doubling of the debt since the Libbos came to power. Get your facts straight & apologise to all the readers. So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Do you want to try again oh gullible one? The deficit was doubled the debt wasn't. Actually you are both wrong. The Net debt in 2013 was $153B (from final budget outcomes) The expected net Debt this year is $278 B. (from MYEFO) So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Obviously to doubt a net debt of $150 Billion it would require 1 deficit of $150B or 3 of $50B. Still to increase net debt to $278 B is a really good effort. The Liberals took a $17B deficit and have averages $43B deficit per year over 3 years. So they have averaged  more than double the deficit they inherited every year in power.

You just get so much wrong, it is quite extraordinary. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. THe $17B deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years and artificially created by putting payments forward into the first Liberal budget year.

And what you need to also remember is that the net debt increase under Labor was $200B as there was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone.

Morgan shows consumer confidence down to 112.2.

Not a good time for a GST increase.

crocodile wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 8:32pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:17pm: What's the point of a compensation package - that's taking money out and giving it back again - even if it is a lesser amount. Assuming it is to compensate to the less well off (more likely like most lib policies it will compensate the more well off to a larger degree), it shows that the govt recognises how blunt an instrument this is. Now how about target other areas of taxation say like super?  That has been answered earlier in the thread. Even if revenue neutral, there are different deadweight losses associated with the assortment of taxation regimes. Deadweight loss of GST = 8c per dollar, income tax = 21c per dollar, company tax = 40c per dollar. Not particularly hard to see where the push is coming from. Stuff all to do with tax breaks for the rich.

Point is - it's shifting the burden of taxation onto those who have already paid income tax on their gross and away from companies that pay tax on net income..... this dramatically skews your figures.... companies no way pay 40% tax on gross earnings.... and they end up paying considerably less than 21% on that, and if they were subjected to the same income tax regime as Josephine Bloggotovski - they would be paying top marginal rate.......

I will allow that you are simply mis-stating your view..... a simple error.....

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 3:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 11:02am: mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 10:47am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:16pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:14pm: we are in Debt.. Labor put us in this Massive Debt.. Labor are keeping us in Debt by blocking savings.. this will continue till the next election when hopefully we get a clear winner in government and in the senate.. Labor threw Billions of Dollars into the Budget knowing we couldn't afford it and expecting to lose the last election so as to make the next government look bad.. there was so much waste in the last Labor government it was just sickening and still is.. the filthy immigrants are costing us 100 Million dollars a year and will continue to rise.. another Labor Rippa.. so anyways.. to pay back your debts you either raise taxes or cut all of Labors irresponsible spending... but it seems that the Leftard don't want any cuts.. or.. any tax increases.. and that's why most people know that the leftist is mentally handicapped.. durr  :D Labor put us in this Massive Debt? We've had more than a doubling of the debt since the Libbos came to power. Get your facts straight & apologise to all the readers. So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Do you want to try again oh gullible one? The deficit was doubled the debt wasn't. Actually you are both wrong. The Net debt in 2013 was $153B (from final budget outcomes) The expected net Debt this year is $278 B. (from MYEFO) So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Obviously to doubt a net debt of $150 Billion it would require 1 deficit of $150B or 3 of $50B. Still to increase net debt to $278 B is a really good effort. The Liberals took a $17B deficit and have averages $43B deficit per year over 3 years. So they have averaged  more than double the deficit they inherited every year in power. You just get so much wrong, it is quite extraordinary. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. THe $17B deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years and artificially created by putting payments forward into the first Liberal budget year. And what you need to also remember is that the net debt increase under Labor was $200B as there was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone.

.. and this after Howard and Co stripped the revenue garnering strands out of the Budget by selling them off.... makes a world of difference right there... Howard handed Labor a poisoned chalice...... from which they had no choice but to drink.... now it's ToJo/Turnbull's turn to reap what that wee waste of space created for us all....

They are merely reaping what their Great Guru sowed......

BOTR....

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 3:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 11:02am: The deficit was doubled the debt wasn't. Actually you are both wrong. The Net debt in 2013 was $153B (from final budget outcomes) The expected net Debt this year is $278 B. (from MYEFO) So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Obviously to doubt a net debt of $150 Billion it would require 1 deficit of $150B or 3 of $50B. Still to increase net debt to $278 B is a really good effort. The Liberals took a $17B deficit and have averages $43B deficit per year over 3 years. So they have averaged  more than double the deficit they inherited every year in power. You just get so much wrong, it is quite extraordinary. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. THe $17B deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years and artificially created by putting payments forward into the first Liberal budget year. And what you need to also remember is that the net debt increase under Labor was $200B as there was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone.

deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years

If you go back 6 you will find that the first was a surplus budget.

was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone.

No there wasn't.

The libs have had TWO budgets, not three.

As stated the third figure is as stated in this years MYEFO and it is a conservative number it will likely be a higher debt in the final outcome.

as there was $48B $30B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone.

Funny what a Global financial crisis will do to a small saving.

Well after privatising medibank, wonder what's next?

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 7:06pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 3:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 11:02am: The deficit was doubled the debt wasn't. Actually you are both wrong. The Net debt in 2013 was $153B (from final budget outcomes) The expected net Debt this year is $278 B. (from MYEFO) So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Obviously to doubt a net debt of $150 Billion it would require 1 deficit of $150B or 3 of $50B. Still to increase net debt to $278 B is a really good effort. The Liberals took a $17B deficit and have averages $43B deficit per year over 3 years. So they have averaged  more than double the deficit they inherited every year in power. You just get so much wrong, it is quite extraordinary. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. THe $17B deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years and artificially created by putting payments forward into the first Liberal budget year. And what you need to also remember is that the net debt increase under Labor was $200B as there was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years If you go back 6 you will find that the first was a surplus budget. was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. No there wasn't. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. As stated the third figure is as stated in this years MYEFO and it is a conservative number it will likely be a higher debt in the final outcome. as there was $48B $30B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. Funny what a Global financial crisis will do to a small saving.

Especially when they also has a massive mining boom at the same time. What about now?

Let's sell gold from the gold reserve...whoops already did that at bargain basement prices...

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 7:44pm:

Especially when they also has a massive mining boom at the same time.

lets just pretend that every other industry didn't collapse then :D :D

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 6:50pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:32pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:17pm: What's the point of a compensation package - that's taking money out and giving it back again - even if it is a lesser amount. Assuming it is to compensate to the less well off (more likely like most lib policies it will compensate the more well off to a larger degree), it shows that the govt recognises how blunt an instrument this is. Now how about target other areas of taxation say like super?  That has been answered earlier in the thread. Even if revenue neutral, there are different deadweight losses associated with the assortment of taxation regimes. Deadweight loss of GST = 8c per dollar, income tax = 21c per dollar, company tax = 40c per dollar. Not particularly hard to see where the push is coming from. Stuff all to do with tax breaks for the rich. Point is - it's shifting the burden of taxation onto those who have already paid income tax on their gross and away from companies that pay tax on net income..... this dramatically skews your figures.... companies no way pay 40% tax on gross earnings.... and they end up paying considerably less than 21% on that, and if they were subjected to the same income tax regime as Josephine Bloggotovski - they would be paying top marginal rate....... I will allow that you are simply mis-stating your view..... a simple error.....

Grapples, It seems that you are confused. Where did you get the figures of 40% and 21% respectively. Have you mistaken the deadweight losses for tax obligations ? They are not the same thing. Get yourself a decent macro textbook or google "deadweight losses" or "marginal excess burden".

By the way, companies pay tax on gross profit, not gross earnings. A point that escapes many around here. I graciously forgive your simple error.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 7:44pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:06pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 3:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 11:02am: The deficit was doubled the debt wasn't. Actually you are both wrong. The Net debt in 2013 was $153B (from final budget outcomes) The expected net Debt this year is $278 B. (from MYEFO) So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Obviously to doubt a net debt of $150 Billion it would require 1 deficit of $150B or 3 of $50B. Still to increase net debt to $278 B is a really good effort. The Liberals took a $17B deficit and have averages $43B deficit per year over 3 years. So they have averaged  more than double the deficit they inherited every year in power. You just get so much wrong, it is quite extraordinary. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. THe $17B deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years and artificially created by putting payments forward into the first Liberal budget year. And what you need to also remember is that the net debt increase under Labor was $200B as there was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years If you go back 6 you will find that the first was a surplus budget. was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. No there wasn't. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. As stated the third figure is as stated in this years MYEFO and it is a conservative number it will likely be a higher debt in the final outcome. as there was $48B $30B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. Funny what a Global financial crisis will do to a small saving. Especially when they also has a massive mining boom at the same time. What about now?

The Howard government had the benefit of a resources boon from around 2002 and they squandered it, During the Labor period the GFC absolutely swamped the resources industry.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 7:44pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:06pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 3:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 11:02am: The deficit was doubled the debt wasn't. Actually you are both wrong. The Net debt in 2013 was $153B (from final budget outcomes) The expected net Debt this year is $278 B. (from MYEFO) So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Obviously to doubt a net debt of $150 Billion it would require 1 deficit of $150B or 3 of $50B. Still to increase net debt to $278 B is a really good effort. The Liberals took a $17B deficit and have averages $43B deficit per year over 3 years. So they have averaged  more than double the deficit they inherited every year in power. You just get so much wrong, it is quite extraordinary. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. THe $17B deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years and artificially created by putting payments forward into the first Liberal budget year. And what you need to also remember is that the net debt increase under Labor was $200B as there was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years If you go back 6 you will find that the first was a surplus budget. was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. No there wasn't. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. As stated the third figure is as stated in this years MYEFO and it is a conservative number it will likely be a higher debt in the final outcome. as there was $48B $30B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. Funny what a Global financial crisis will do to a small saving. Especially when they also has a massive mining boom at the same time. What about now?

Another dick measuring exercise. My surplus is bigger than yours. Your deficit is bigger than mine yadda yadda yadda.

For the record, the 2007-08 net financial balance was $19.754 billion. It's all on the public record in the budget historical data.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/overview/html/overview-35.htm

It's not even hard to see why it vanished. If one cares to look at the data you will find that over the last decade and a half spending hasn't changed an awful lot being within a percentage point of 25% of GDP. Revenue on the other hand collapsed from a high of 25.9% down to a low in 2010-11 of 21.5%. There's your deficit right there.

All the whinging about debt levels that are minor compared to the size of the economy and entirely manageable distracts from the more important issues like really shithouse total factor productivity performance. This does far more harm to real wages growth than any deficit ever will but nary a mention is heard.

crocodile wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 10:51pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:44pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:06pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 3:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 11:02am: The deficit was doubled the debt wasn't. Actually you are both wrong. The Net debt in 2013 was $153B (from final budget outcomes) The expected net Debt this year is $278 B. (from MYEFO) So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Obviously to doubt a net debt of $150 Billion it would require 1 deficit of $150B or 3 of $50B. Still to increase net debt to $278 B is a really good effort. The Liberals took a $17B deficit and have averages $43B deficit per year over 3 years. So they have averaged  more than double the deficit they inherited every year in power. You just get so much wrong, it is quite extraordinary. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. THe $17B deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years and artificially created by putting payments forward into the first Liberal budget year. And what you need to also remember is that the net debt increase under Labor was $200B as there was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years If you go back 6 you will find that the first was a surplus budget. was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. No there wasn't. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. As stated the third figure is as stated in this years MYEFO and it is a conservative number it will likely be a higher debt in the final outcome. as there was $48B $30B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. Funny what a Global financial crisis will do to a small saving. Especially when they also has a massive mining boom at the same time. What about now? Another dick measuring exercise. My surplus is bigger than yours. Your deficit is bigger than mine yadda yadda yadda. For the record, the 2007-08 net financial balance was $19.754 billion. It's all on the public record in the budget historical data. http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/overview/html/overview-35.htm It's not even hard to see why it vanished. If one cares to look at the data you will find that over the last decade and a half spending hasn't changed an awful lot being within a percentage point of 25% of GDP. Revenue on the other hand collapsed from a high of 25.9% down to a low in 2010-11 of 21.5%. There's your deficit right there. All the whinging about debt levels that are minor compared to the size of the economy and entirely manageable distracts from the more important issues like really shithouse total factor productivity performance. This does far more harm to real wages growth than any deficit ever will but nary a mention is heard.

That's all the unions fault.

Its time wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 11:04pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 10:51pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:44pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:06pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 3:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 11:02am: The deficit was doubled the debt wasn't. Actually you are both wrong. The Net debt in 2013 was $153B (from final budget outcomes) The expected net Debt this year is $278 B. (from MYEFO) So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Obviously to doubt a net debt of $150 Billion it would require 1 deficit of $150B or 3 of $50B. Still to increase net debt to $278 B is a really good effort. The Liberals took a $17B deficit and have averages $43B deficit per year over 3 years. So they have averaged  more than double the deficit they inherited every year in power. You just get so much wrong, it is quite extraordinary. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. THe $17B deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years and artificially created by putting payments forward into the first Liberal budget year. And what you need to also remember is that the net debt increase under Labor was $200B as there was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years If you go back 6 you will find that the first was a surplus budget. was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. No there wasn't. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. As stated the third figure is as stated in this years MYEFO and it is a conservative number it will likely be a higher debt in the final outcome. as there was $48B $30B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. Funny what a Global financial crisis will do to a small saving. Especially when they also has a massive mining boom at the same time. What about now? Another dick measuring exercise. My surplus is bigger than yours. Your deficit is bigger than mine yadda yadda yadda. For the record, the 2007-08 net financial balance was $19.754 billion. It's all on the public record in the budget historical data. http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/overview/html/overview-35.htm It's not even hard to see why it vanished. If one cares to look at the data you will find that over the last decade and a half spending hasn't changed an awful lot being within a percentage point of 25% of GDP. Revenue on the other hand collapsed from a high of 25.9% down to a low in 2010-11 of 21.5%. There's your deficit right there. All the whinging about debt levels that are minor compared to the size of the economy and entirely manageable distracts from the more important issues like really shithouse total factor productivity performance. This does far more harm to real wages growth than any deficit ever will but nary a mention is heard. That's all the unions fault.

What's the union's fault ?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 10:47am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:16pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:14pm: we are in Debt.. Labor put us in this Massive Debt.. Labor are keeping us in Debt by blocking savings.. this will continue till the next election when hopefully we get a clear winner in government and in the senate.. Labor threw Billions of Dollars into the Budget knowing we couldn't afford it and expecting to lose the last election so as to make the next government look bad.. there was so much waste in the last Labor government it was just sickening and still is.. the filthy immigrants are costing us 100 Million dollars a year and will continue to rise.. another Labor Rippa.. so anyways.. to pay back your debts you either raise taxes or cut all of Labors irresponsible spending... but it seems that the Leftard don't want any cuts.. or.. any tax increases.. and that's why most people know that the leftist is mentally handicapped.. durr  :D Labor put us in this Massive Debt? We've had more than a doubling of the debt since the Libbos came to power. Get your facts straight & apologise to all the readers. So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Do you want to try again oh gullible one?

The national Govt. debt is $439 billion

http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/

from memory it was less than half that under Labor.

Apologise to the readers.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:52am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 10:47am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:16pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:14pm: we are in Debt.. Labor put us in this Massive Debt.. Labor are keeping us in Debt by blocking savings.. this will continue till the next election when hopefully we get a clear winner in government and in the senate.. Labor threw Billions of Dollars into the Budget knowing we couldn't afford it and expecting to lose the last election so as to make the next government look bad.. there was so much waste in the last Labor government it was just sickening and still is.. the filthy immigrants are costing us 100 Million dollars a year and will continue to rise.. another Labor Rippa.. so anyways.. to pay back your debts you either raise taxes or cut all of Labors irresponsible spending... but it seems that the Leftard don't want any cuts.. or.. any tax increases.. and that's why most people know that the leftist is mentally handicapped.. durr  :D Labor put us in this Massive Debt? We've had more than a doubling of the debt since the Libbos came to power. Get your facts straight & apologise to all the readers. So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Do you want to try again oh gullible one? The national Govt. debt is $439 billion http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ from memory it was less than half that under Labor. Apologise to the readers.

Impossible, the adults are in charge

crocodile wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 11:19pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 11:04pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 10:51pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:44pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:06pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 3:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 11:02am: The deficit was doubled the debt wasn't. Actually you are both wrong. The Net debt in 2013 was $153B (from final budget outcomes) The expected net Debt this year is $278 B. (from MYEFO) So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Obviously to doubt a net debt of $150 Billion it would require 1 deficit of $150B or 3 of $50B. Still to increase net debt to $278 B is a really good effort. The Liberals took a $17B deficit and have averages $43B deficit per year over 3 years. So they have averaged  more than double the deficit they inherited every year in power. You just get so much wrong, it is quite extraordinary. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. THe $17B deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years and artificially created by putting payments forward into the first Liberal budget year. And what you need to also remember is that the net debt increase under Labor was $200B as there was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. deficit was actually $18B and was by far the smallest deficit of the 6 labor years If you go back 6 you will find that the first was a surplus budget. was $48B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. No there wasn't. The libs have had TWO budgets, not three. As stated the third figure is as stated in this years MYEFO and it is a conservative number it will likely be a higher debt in the final outcome. as there was $48B $30B in cash in the bank under Howard and that is now all gone. Funny what a Global financial crisis will do to a small saving. Especially when they also has a massive mining boom at the same time. What about now? Another dick measuring exercise. My surplus is bigger than yours. Your deficit is bigger than mine yadda yadda yadda. For the record, the 2007-08 net financial balance was $19.754 billion. It's all on the public record in the budget historical data. http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/overview/html/overview-35.htm It's not even hard to see why it vanished. If one cares to look at the data you will find that over the last decade and a half spending hasn't changed an awful lot being within a percentage point of 25% of GDP. Revenue on the other hand collapsed from a high of 25.9% down to a low in 2010-11 of 21.5%. There's your deficit right there. All the whinging about debt levels that are minor compared to the size of the economy and entirely manageable distracts from the more important issues like really shithouse total factor productivity performance. This does far more harm to real wages growth than any deficit ever will but nary a mention is heard. That's all the unions fault. What's the union's fault ?

Everything, my mum and dad said so and they vote Liberal, so it must be true.

Its time wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:58am:

Impossible, the adults are in charge

The Libbos have more than doubled our debt.

We are going under just like Greece &
nothing is being done about it.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:52am:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 10:47am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:16pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:14pm: we are in Debt.. Labor put us in this Massive Debt.. Labor are keeping us in Debt by blocking savings.. this will continue till the next election when hopefully we get a clear winner in government and in the senate.. Labor threw Billions of Dollars into the Budget knowing we couldn't afford it and expecting to lose the last election so as to make the next government look bad.. there was so much waste in the last Labor government it was just sickening and still is.. the filthy immigrants are costing us 100 Million dollars a year and will continue to rise.. another Labor Rippa.. so anyways.. to pay back your debts you either raise taxes or cut all of Labors irresponsible spending... but it seems that the Leftard don't want any cuts.. or.. any tax increases.. and that's why most people know that the leftist is mentally handicapped.. durr  :D Labor put us in this Massive Debt? We've had more than a doubling of the debt since the Libbos came to power. Get your facts straight & apologise to all the readers. So bobby, to double the debt would require annual deficits of $140B each year. Do you want to try again oh gullible one? The national Govt. debt is $439 billion http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ from memory it was less than half that under Labor. Apologise to the readers.

The debt clock is for the alarmists. They haven't quite figured out the difference between gross and net debt.

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 6:38am:

The debt clock is for the alarmists. They haven't quite figured out the difference between gross and net debt.

Gross debt is a debt that is disgusting.  Usage is " Oh that debt is gross".

Net debt can come from the purchase of an excessive number of fishing, prawn or crab nets. Most common among fishermen.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 6:47am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:38am: The debt clock is for the alarmists. They haven't quite figured out the difference between gross and net debt. Gross debt is a debt that is disgusting.  Usage is " Oh that debt is gross". Net debt can come from the purchase of an excessive number of fishing, prawn or crab nets. Most common among fishermen.

There was a time when convention made the distinction between net and nett. Seems to have disappeared along many other spelling conventions. Even the spell checker doesn't like it.

Can Turnbull get away with going to a DD election in order to avoid putting out a budget ?

How would this play out for him.

It virtually means that he has given up and has no confidence at all in his finance team, even he believes that they are incompetent.

Although this is true they are incompetent how does it bode for them if they happened to be re elected ? They get to produce another poor unfair incompetent budget after the election instead of before it ?

What do the Liberals campaign on this time around: Honesty, Integrity, economic management, The budget emergency, Industrial relations, Budget Surplus,

Maybe they just go with Turnbull's unjustified bright outlook and a couple of motivational speeches ?

They have done stop the boats, they could try stop the busses ?

Posted this in wrong topic.

John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 9:35pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:44pm: Especially when they also has a massive mining boom at the same time. lets just pretend that every other industry didn't collapse then :D :D

That WOULD be pretending, because every other industry DIDNT collapse.

You really are not very smart.

crocodile wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 9:49pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 6:50pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:32pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:17pm: What's the point of a compensation package - that's taking money out and giving it back again - even if it is a lesser amount. Assuming it is to compensate to the less well off (more likely like most lib policies it will compensate the more well off to a larger degree), it shows that the govt recognises how blunt an instrument this is. Now how about target other areas of taxation say like super?  That has been answered earlier in the thread. Even if revenue neutral, there are different deadweight losses associated with the assortment of taxation regimes. Deadweight loss of GST = 8c per dollar, income tax = 21c per dollar, company tax = 40c per dollar. Not particularly hard to see where the push is coming from. Stuff all to do with tax breaks for the rich. Point is - it's shifting the burden of taxation onto those who have already paid income tax on their gross and away from companies that pay tax on net income..... this dramatically skews your figures.... companies no way pay 40% tax on gross earnings.... and they end up paying considerably less than 21% on that, and if they were subjected to the same income tax regime as Josephine Bloggotovski - they would be paying top marginal rate....... I will allow that you are simply mis-stating your view..... a simple error..... Grapples, It seems that you are confused. Where did you get the figures of 40% and 21% respectively. Have you mistaken the deadweight losses for tax obligations ? They are not the same thing. Get yourself a decent macro textbook or google "deadweight losses" or "marginal excess burden". By the way, companies pay tax on gross profit, not gross earnings. A point that escapes many around here. I graciously forgive your simple error.

The difficulties so many have with the concept of tax on profit and not on revenue or earnings is astonishing. The reason so many here are unemployed or have menial jobs suddenly makes a great deal of sense.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:43pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 9:49pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 6:50pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:32pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:17pm: What's the point of a compensation package - that's taking money out and giving it back again - even if it is a lesser amount. Assuming it is to compensate to the less well off (more likely like most lib policies it will compensate the more well off to a larger degree), it shows that the govt recognises how blunt an instrument this is. Now how about target other areas of taxation say like super?  That has been answered earlier in the thread. Even if revenue neutral, there are different deadweight losses associated with the assortment of taxation regimes. Deadweight loss of GST = 8c per dollar, income tax = 21c per dollar, company tax = 40c per dollar. Not particularly hard to see where the push is coming from. Stuff all to do with tax breaks for the rich. Point is - it's shifting the burden of taxation onto those who have already paid income tax on their gross and away from companies that pay tax on net income..... this dramatically skews your figures.... companies no way pay 40% tax on gross earnings.... and they end up paying considerably less than 21% on that, and if they were subjected to the same income tax regime as Josephine Bloggotovski - they would be paying top marginal rate....... I will allow that you are simply mis-stating your view..... a simple error..... Grapples, It seems that you are confused. Where did you get the figures of 40% and 21% respectively. Have you mistaken the deadweight losses for tax obligations ? They are not the same thing. Get yourself a decent macro textbook or google "deadweight losses" or "marginal excess burden". By the way, companies pay tax on gross profit, not gross earnings. A point that escapes many around here. I graciously forgive your simple error. The difficulties so many have with the concept of tax on profit and not on revenue or earnings is astonishing. The reason so many here are unemployed or have menial jobs suddenly makes a great deal of sense.

Unfortunately it's worse than that. Many are under the mistaken belief that PAYE employees pay tax on gross earnings. That is untrue. There are a host of allowable deductions available to those that have expenses incurred in the course of earning an income.

PAYE's have a tax free threshold, corporations do not. Despite many threads on the subject many can't accept that a tax on retained earnings is a tax on future labour productivity and therefore a tax on real wages growth. I'm dumbfounded.

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 12:41pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 9:35pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:44pm: Especially when they also has a massive mining boom at the same time. lets just pretend that every other industry didn't collapse then :D :D That WOULD be pretending, because every other industry DIDNT collapse. You really are not very smart.

yeah ... they were all booming weren't they  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:41pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 9:35pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 7:44pm: Especially when they also has a massive mining boom at the same time. lets just pretend that every other industry didn't collapse then :D :D That WOULD be pretending, because every other industry DIDNT collapse. You really are not very smart. yeah ... they were all booming weren't they  :D :D :D

The world money market almost stopped Australian banking was in a huge hole.

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:36pm:

Unfortunately it's worse than that. Many are under the mistaken belief that PAYE employees pay tax on gross earnings. That is untrue. There are a host of allowable deductions available to those that have expenses incurred in the course of earning an income. PAYE's have a tax free threshold, corporations do not. Despite many threads on the subject many can't accept that a tax on retained earnings is a tax on future labour productivity and therefore a tax on real wages growth. I'm dumbfounded.

Another topic is talking about rogue polls but around here a rogue crocodile may be more relevant.

An increase in sales tax is by far the most reasonable way to flatten the tax structure and have a more spread out contribution to revenue contribution.
It's much harder to avoid paying too.

I'd support increase of sales tax.

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 6:38am:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:52am: The national Govt. debt is $439 billion http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ from memory it was less than half that under Labor. Apologise to the readers. The debt clock is for the alarmists. They haven't quite figured out the difference between gross and net debt.

$439 billion

Both increased under Rudd/Gillards wanton spending spree.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 6:41pm:

Both increased under Rudd/Gillards wanton spending spree.

Yet you ignore that they both increased much more and much faster under Abbott and Turnbull's economic disaster.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 6:25pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:36pm: Unfortunately it's worse than that. Many are under the mistaken belief that PAYE employees pay tax on gross earnings. That is untrue. There are a host of allowable deductions available to those that have expenses incurred in the course of earning an income. PAYE's have a tax free threshold, corporations do not. Despite many threads on the subject many can't accept that a tax on retained earnings is a tax on future labour productivity and therefore a tax on real wages growth. I'm dumbfounded. Another topic is talking about rogue polls but around here a rogue crocodile may be more relevant.

Rogue - One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.
I've had worse but the content is true.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 6:36pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:38am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:52am: The national Govt. debt is $439 billion http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ from memory it was less than half that under Labor. Apologise to the readers. The debt clock is for the alarmists. They haven't quite figured out the difference between gross and net debt. $439 billion

Says it all really.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 6:43pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:41pm: Both increased under Rudd/Gillards wanton spending spree. Yet you ignore that they both increased much more and much faster under Abbott and Turnbull's economic disaster.

Yes - but that's a personal choice issue - something sacrosanct these days..... we should all be free to choose if we would rather be dragooned into serfdom or simply have it thrust on us... or if we choose to refuse to see realities in front of our noses.... that's our right...

What this country needs is for all the lazy layabouts to get off their arses, get an accounting qualification, and become hit-men for global companies that thrive in the darkest reaches of the global market, exploiting and devouring all they see for petty profit.. filthy lucre..... get a good job and get your mortgage going, as Joe said... sitting around on the dole when there is at least 25% of the workforce competing with you for a sh!t hauler's job is no excuse.....

Choice-mobile, son.. that's what it's all about.... now knuckle down... every sh1t hauler can become a billionaire with the right approach...... nothing to do with any 'old mates network'... nah... NAH... s'all lies... all lies...

'Paul Keating does not support increasing the GST to 15 per cent.

But making life difficult for Labor, he is open to a rise of 1 or 2 per cent, if it was earmarked to fund public hospitals.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-03/keating-quoted-by-both-sides-of-gst-debate/7138020

Bugger. 50 cents each way.

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 7:29pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:25pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:36pm: Unfortunately it's worse than that. Many are under the mistaken belief that PAYE employees pay tax on gross earnings. That is untrue. There are a host of allowable deductions available to those that have expenses incurred in the course of earning an income. PAYE's have a tax free threshold, corporations do not. Despite many threads on the subject many can't accept that a tax on retained earnings is a tax on future labour productivity and therefore a tax on real wages growth. I'm dumbfounded. Another topic is talking about rogue polls but around here a rogue crocodile may be more relevant. Rogue - One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp. I've had worse but the content is true.

So we tax them on their net income at the same rates as PAYE earners?  Good-oh!

Or is the logic that we simply not tax companies at all since to do so means there will be no future wages preserved, or at the very least much more will be??

Jayzuz - some of you educated economist types confuse yourselves....

Theory ain't everything......

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 9:50pm:

'Paul Keating does not support increasing the GST to 15 per cent. But making life difficult for Labor, he is open to a rise of 1 or 2 per cent, if it was earmarked to fund public hospitals.' http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-03/keating-quoted-by-both-sides-of-gst-debate/7138020 Bugger. 50 cents each way.

That was the job of  State Lotteries... but they sold that off... and it is no more..... now if funds 'entrepreneurs' who are also Party insiders...... funny that....

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:36pm:

mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:43pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 9:49pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 6:50pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:32pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:17pm: What's the point of a compensation package - that's taking money out and giving it back again - even if it is a lesser amount. Assuming it is to compensate to the less well off (more likely like most lib policies it will compensate the more well off to a larger degree), it shows that the govt recognises how blunt an instrument this is. Now how about target other areas of taxation say like super?  That has been answered earlier in the thread. Even if revenue neutral, there are different deadweight losses associated with the assortment of taxation regimes. Deadweight loss of GST = 8c per dollar, income tax = 21c per dollar, company tax = 40c per dollar. Not particularly hard to see where the push is coming from. Stuff all to do with tax breaks for the rich. Point is - it's shifting the burden of taxation onto those who have already paid income tax on their gross and away from companies that pay tax on net income..... this dramatically skews your figures.... companies no way pay 40% tax on gross earnings.... and they end up paying considerably less than 21% on that, and if they were subjected to the same income tax regime as Josephine Bloggotovski - they would be paying top marginal rate....... I will allow that you are simply mis-stating your view..... a simple error..... Grapples, It seems that you are confused. Where did you get the figures of 40% and 21% respectively. Have you mistaken the deadweight losses for tax obligations ? They are not the same thing. Get yourself a decent macro textbook or google "deadweight losses" or "marginal excess burden". By the way, companies pay tax on gross profit, not gross earnings. A point that escapes many around here. I graciously forgive your simple error. The difficulties so many have with the concept of tax on profit and not on revenue or earnings is astonishing. The reason so many here are unemployed or have menial jobs suddenly makes a great deal of sense. Unfortunately it's worse than that. Many are under the mistaken belief that PAYE employees pay tax on gross earnings. That is untrue. There are a host of allowable deductions available to those that have expenses incurred in the course of earning an income. PAYE's have a tax free threshold, corporations do not. Despite many threads on the subject many can't accept that a tax on retained earnings is a tax on future labour productivity and therefore a tax on real wages growth. I'm dumbfounded.

If you have a good education, a solid IQ and some life experience, this place can leave you gobsmacked on a regular basis. Frankly, the justly championed idea of a vote-for-all comes under threat by reading some of the idiocy and ignorance on display here. Imagine if there were an IQ threshold and an education minimum standard for having the vote. Would many here be still on the roll?

mariacostel wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 8:43am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:36pm: mariacostel wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 12:43pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 9:49pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 6:50pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:32pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 6:17pm: What's the point of a compensation package - that's taking money out and giving it back again - even if it is a lesser amount. Assuming it is to compensate to the less well off (more likely like most lib policies it will compensate the more well off to a larger degree), it shows that the govt recognises how blunt an instrument this is. Now how about target other areas of taxation say like super?  That has been answered earlier in the thread. Even if revenue neutral, there are different deadweight losses associated with the assortment of taxation regimes. Deadweight loss of GST = 8c per dollar, income tax = 21c per dollar, company tax = 40c per dollar. Not particularly hard to see where the push is coming from. Stuff all to do with tax breaks for the rich. Point is - it's shifting the burden of taxation onto those who have already paid income tax on their gross and away from companies that pay tax on net income..... this dramatically skews your figures.... companies no way pay 40% tax on gross earnings.... and they end up paying considerably less than 21% on that, and if they were subjected to the same income tax regime as Josephine Bloggotovski - they would be paying top marginal rate....... I will allow that you are simply mis-stating your view..... a simple error..... Grapples, It seems that you are confused. Where did you get the figures of 40% and 21% respectively. Have you mistaken the deadweight losses for tax obligations ? They are not the same thing. Get yourself a decent macro textbook or google "deadweight losses" or "marginal excess burden". By the way, companies pay tax on gross profit, not gross earnings. A point that escapes many around here. I graciously forgive your simple error. The difficulties so many have with the concept of tax on profit and not on revenue or earnings is astonishing. The reason so many here are unemployed or have menial jobs suddenly makes a great deal of sense. Unfortunately it's worse than that. Many are under the mistaken belief that PAYE employees pay tax on gross earnings. That is untrue. There are a host of allowable deductions available to those that have expenses incurred in the course of earning an income. PAYE's have a tax free threshold, corporations do not. Despite many threads on the subject many can't accept that a tax on retained earnings is a tax on future labour productivity and therefore a tax on real wages growth. I'm dumbfounded. If you have a good education, a solid IQ and some life experience, this place can leave you gobsmacked on a regular basis. Frankly, the justly championed idea of a vote-for-all comes under threat by reading some of the idiocy and ignorance on display here. Imagine if there were an IQ threshold and an education minimum standard for having the vote. Would many here be still on the roll?

I agree, as long as its applied politically equally.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 8:49am:

I agree, as long as its applied politically equally.

Why politically equally? Shouldn't it be applied equally, to all? If it is to be politically equal, do leftwingers (or rightwingers), get a lower passmark?

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 10:46am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:49am: I agree, as long as its applied politically equally. Why politically equally? Shouldn't it be applied equally, to all? If it is to be politically equal, do leftwingers (or rightwingers), get a lower passmark?

Think he just means that the implementation should not be politically biased as is so often the case.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 10:30pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:29pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:25pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:36pm: Unfortunately it's worse than that. Many are under the mistaken belief that PAYE employees pay tax on gross earnings. That is untrue. There are a host of allowable deductions available to those that have expenses incurred in the course of earning an income. PAYE's have a tax free threshold, corporations do not. Despite many threads on the subject many can't accept that a tax on retained earnings is a tax on future labour productivity and therefore a tax on real wages growth. I'm dumbfounded. Another topic is talking about rogue polls but around here a rogue crocodile may be more relevant. Rogue - One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp. I've had worse but the content is true. So we tax them on their net income at the same rates as PAYE earners?  Good-oh! Or is the logic that we simply not tax companies at all since to do so means there will be no future wages preserved, or at the very least much more will be?? Jayzuz - some of you educated economist types confuse yourselves.... Theory ain't everything......

Apparently ignorance is everything after all. FFS, read and understand the action of deadweight losses. Corporate tax falls most heavily on the wage earner rather than the owner of the capital. One day you may understand this axiom. Until then, keep shooting the workers in the foot.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2016 at 6:50pm:

companies no way pay 40% tax on gross earnings....

Indeed. The actual figure is roughly 3%.

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 7:29pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:36pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:38am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:52am: The national Govt. debt is $439 billion http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ from memory it was less than half that under Labor. Apologise to the readers. The debt clock is for the alarmists. They haven't quite figured out the difference between gross and net debt. $439 billion Says it all really.

Yes - Abbott & Turnbull are the big spenders.

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 3:41pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 6:50pm: companies no way pay 40% tax on gross earnings.... Indeed. The actual figure is roughly 3%.

So what. Gross earnings isn't gross profit.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 6:50pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 7:29pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:36pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 6:38am: Bobby. wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:52am: The national Govt. debt is $439 billion http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/ from memory it was less than half that under Labor. Apologise to the readers. The debt clock is for the alarmists. They haven't quite figured out the difference between gross and net debt. $439 billion Says it all really. Yes - Abbott & Turnbull are the big spenders.

They all are. You're still relying the lack of detail from the debt clock. Quoting gross debt figures is about as useful as the bottom half of a mermaid. Now be a good muppet and subtract the capital inflows and you may be declared sane after all.

The Debt clock goes up about $1,000 per second:


http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/

crocodile wrote on Feb 1^st, 2016 at 9:36am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:41am: That graph is garbage! The GST hits workers when they go out and consume. With overseas–owned companies the profit flows out the country (my god how it flows out!) And so on, garbage graph! Do you have anything to substantiate that the deadweight losses are not as shown. If so, please elaborate. If not then piss off.

It is a garbage graph. Even you must have heard about those multinationals not paying tax here? GST not hit workers? It does when they go out and buy stuff. The graph is absolute crap.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 8:57pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:41am: That graph is garbage! The GST hits workers when they go out and consume. With overseas–owned companies the profit flows out the country (my god how it flows out!) And so on, garbage graph! Do you have anything to substantiate that the deadweight losses are not as shown. If so, please elaborate. If not then piss off. It is a garbage graph. Even you must have heard about those multinationals not paying tax here? GST not hit workers? It does when they go out and buy stuff. The graph is absolute crap.

I'll take that as No, I have nothing to substantiate that claim.

Ahhh...here is the GST topic.

Ok.

Quick question.

Is there anyone here who is happy with the proposed changes to the GST? If so, why?

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 9:28pm:

Ahhh...here is the GST topic. Ok. Quick question. Is there anyone here who is happy with the proposed changes to the GST? If so, why?

You should be asking why anybody would be happy with a last ditch attempt at raising some revenue after abolishing a revenue stream in Carbon pricing that had 4.5billion worth of new renewable projects locked and loaded ready to go with a heap more density than the Libs model of trying to flog a dead as the stalking policy horsee in mining the libs have been trying to sell the public for 3 years .

crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 8:18pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 3:41pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 2nd, 2016 at 6:50pm: companies no way pay 40% tax on gross earnings.... Indeed. The actual figure is roughly 3%. So what. Gross earnings isn't gross profit.

Yet salary and wage earners are taxed on gross earnings (deductions don't reduce it very much for most people) ... and are then taxed again when they pay the GST using after-tax income. Double taxation.

Yet companies pay 3% of their gross in tax on average and whine as if that's huge. It's not, not when compared to their wage-earning serfs.

It would be a very different picture if salary and wage earners could be taxed on their profits as well, after deducting cost of housing, cost of transport to and from work, various bills, etc. Taxing company profit is like only taxing disposable income for salary and wage earners.

And this government wants to shift the burden of taxation even further onto salary and wage earners. What a joke.

Its time wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 9:46pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Ahhh...here is the GST topic. Ok. Quick question. Is there anyone here who is happy with the proposed changes to the GST? If so, why? You should be asking why anybody would be happy with a last ditch attempt at raising some revenue after abolishing a revenue stream in Carbon pricing that had 4.5billion worth of new renewable projects locked and loaded ready to go with a heap more density than the Libs model of trying to flog a dead as the stalking policy horsee in mining the libs have been trying to sell the public for 3 years .

Oh sigh.

I did say .... A QUICK QUESTION.

YOURS IS A FREAKING EPIC.

(Some interesting points made though).

crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 9:24pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:57pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:41am: That graph is garbage! The GST hits workers when they go out and consume. With overseas–owned companies the profit flows out the country (my god how it flows out!) And so on, garbage graph! Do you have anything to substantiate that the deadweight losses are not as shown. If so, please elaborate. If not then piss off. It is a garbage graph. Even you must have heard about those multinationals not paying tax here? GST not hit workers? It does when they go out and buy stuff. The graph is absolute crap. I'll take that as No, I have nothing to substantiate that claim.

I will take that as, I can’t refute it.

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 9:28pm:

Ahhh...here is the GST topic. Ok. Quick question. Is there anyone here who is happy with the proposed changes to the GST? If so, why?

No, because many other options for reining in the defeicit have not been considered.

* Multinational tax avoidance - find and close various loopholes
* Capital gains tax concessions - axe the concession
* Superannuation tax concessions - reduce them (Implement the Greens' policy here)
* Negative gearing - axe it
* Private health insurance rebate - axe it
* Diesel subsidy for the mining industry - axe it

If these were done (plus one or two more not listed), $50 billion or more could be raised. If so, the deficit would become a surplus and there would be no need to hike the GST. Australian businesses would be more competitive because they would be competing more fairly with tax-dodging multinationals, services could be fully funded, and funds would be made available to offer tax cuts as well.

And the tax cuts I would implement:
* Adjust tax brackets for bracket creep
* Cut the 32.5 cent tax bracket to 30 cents
* Index tax brackets to inflation, and so abolish bracket creep
* If businesses forego various corporate tax breaks, tax concessions and subsidies, these funds should be returned as a cut to the corporate tax rate with some retained for budget balancing. A corporate tax rate of 25% is achievable without making other people pay for it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 10:06pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:24pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 8:57pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 9:36am: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 1st, 2016 at 8:41am: That graph is garbage! The GST hits workers when they go out and consume. With overseas–owned companies the profit flows out the country (my god how it flows out!) And so on, garbage graph! Do you have anything to substantiate that the deadweight losses are not as shown. If so, please elaborate. If not then piss off. It is a garbage graph. Even you must have heard about those multinationals not paying tax here? GST not hit workers? It does when they go out and buy stuff. The graph is absolute crap. I'll take that as No, I have nothing to substantiate that claim. I will take that as, I can’t refute it.

You're the one that made the specious claim Sunny Boy. Put up or shut up.

"Treasury modelling indicated a reform package centred on a GST rise and income tax cuts would not, after the hefty compensation bill, deliver a sufficient economic dividend to be worth the political price."

From http://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-scott-morrison-has-been-wounded-in-gst-row-54199

Its time wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 9:46pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Feb 4th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Ahhh...here is the GST topic. Ok. Quick question. Is there anyone here who is happy with the proposed changes to the GST? If so, why? You should be asking why anybody would be happy with a last ditch attempt at raising some revenue after abolishing a revenue stream in Carbon pricing that had 4.5billion worth of new renewable projects locked and loaded ready to go with a heap more density than the Libs model of trying to flog a dead as the stalking policy horsee in mining the libs have been trying to sell the public for 3 years .

really??? so you havent noticed our exports going down the drain...the mining boom is over and the c arbon tax drove in the finale nail.......ask Palmer??? if you dont believe a lib


the mining tax produced nothing...

gawd you lefties have a good imagination...

I guess if a lefty says it.. then its happened... ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ah, so you can’t refute it! Good to know.

How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway?

How can the GST not be a heavy deadweight loss when workers pay it every time they spend some money?

Cute concept, no real–world reality behind it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 6:40pm:

Ah, so you can’t refute it! Good to know. How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway? How can the GST not be a heavy deadweight loss when workers pay it every time they spend some money? Cute concept, no real–world reality behind it.

Sounds more like you do not understand what a deadweight loss actually is.

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 7:04pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 6:40pm: Ah, so you can’t refute it! Good to know. How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway? How can the GST not be a heavy deadweight loss when workers pay it every time they spend some money? Cute concept, no real–world reality behind it. Sounds more like you do not understand what a deadweight loss actually is.

Not many people do and in fact even most economists ignore it.

It is only really a tax index that rates the economic impact of a tax, in other words if it is tough on business it is a bad tax and if it is tough on people it is a good tax.

That is the reason that a 10% GST rates as a DW tax of 8% and a 30% business tax rates as a 40% DW tax.

Not many people think it a real indication of anything relevant its main use is to justify not taxing business and taxing the community instead.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 7:10pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:04pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 6:40pm: Ah, so you can’t refute it! Good to know. How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway? How can the GST not be a heavy deadweight loss when workers pay it every time they spend some money? Cute concept, no real–world reality behind it. Sounds more like you do not understand what a deadweight loss actually is. Not many people do and in fact even most economists ignore it. It is only really a tax index that rates the economic impact of a tax, in other words if it is tough on business it is a bad tax and if it is tough on people it is a good tax. That is the reason that a 10% GST rates as a DW tax of 8% and a 30% business tax rates as a 40% DW tax. Not many people think it a real indication of anything relevant its main use is to justify not taxing business and taxing the community instead.

That's a load of horseshit too. Stamp duties on property exchange has a high deadweight loss and is seen as a bad tax and is highly personal. Ditto for import tariffs. To suggest that most economists disregard it is just a demonstration of profound ignorance.


Quote:

That is the reason that a 10% GST rates as a DW tax of 8% and a 30% business tax rates as a 40% DW tax.

You really don't have a clue. GST at 10% is a low DW because such a low rate has very little effect on demand elasticity. Income taxes are around a 20% DW because the supply of labour is rather inelastic. Regardless of the tax rate, people still have to work. Corporate taxes have high DW because capital is highly mobile making the supply very elastic. It is easy for the owners of the capital to make choices about where and when they use it. Not so much for labour.

It really isn't that hard to work out.

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 7:04pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 6:40pm: Ah, so you can’t refute it! Good to know. How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway? How can the GST not be a heavy deadweight loss when workers pay it every time they spend some money? Cute concept, no real–world reality behind it. Sounds more like you do not understand what a deadweight loss actually is.

I say again:

How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway?

Can you address that, now or later, alligator please?

You also blabbered on about taxing retained earnings. Companies are taxed on profits (OK maybe private companies are still penalised for retaining earnings but that doesn’t change anything) not retained earnings.

For projects, new computer system say or new machinery, companies borrow money. Company tax really affects shareholders dividend distributions.

I say again:


Quote:

How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway?

Really, a quick look at the budget shows that corporate taxes make up almost one quarter of the nation's entire federal budget. Now add in all the state's payroll taxes. Stop making stuff up.

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/html/Publications/papers/report/image/section_2-3.gif


Quote:

Can you address that, now or later, alligator please?

Already have, earlier on in the thread. But just for your own edification you may read some scholarly article on the subject

http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2015/Working%20Paper%202015%2001/Documents/PDF/TWP2015-01.ashx

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/html/commissioned_work/downloads/kpmg_econtech_efficiency%20of%20taxes_final_report.pdf

http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2014/Economic-Roundup-Issue-1/Economic-Roundup-Issue-1/The-incidence-of-company-tax-in-Australia

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota101.pdf

https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/ota101.pdf



Quote:

You also blabbered on about taxing retained earnings. Companies are taxed on profits (OK maybe private companies are still penalised for retaining earnings but that doesn’t change anything) not retained earnings

.

You're confused. I said no such thing. Retained earnings are what is left from gross profit after tax has been paid and the distributions to the shareholders have been effected.


Quote:

For projects, new computer system say or new machinery, companies borrow money. Company tax really affects shareholders dividend distributions.

Corporations are free to use retained profits for whatever purpose they wish including the acquisition of updated capital equipment. They are not obliged to borrow the funds.

If company tax affected only the shareholder's distributions it would not have any impact if the rate decreased. The value of the imputed credit would diminish by the same amount leaving the shareholder to make up the difference between the corporate rate and their own marginal income tax rate.

Of course your statement is not true as the value of the retained earnings diminishes with taxation as well. This has a direct bearing on the rate of labour productivity growth and therefore real wages growth.

Corporations should be contributing a LOT more tax. Why cannot you see that?

Retained earnings are not used to finance the acquisition of major plant & equipment, debt is.

Company tax is a major part of total revenue take because Tip cut income tax too much in the 2001–7 real estate boom.

So much wrong with your graph and concept, ditch both and use common sense.

And our tariffs are too low. Adjust to the level of our main trading partners: the way they are no wonder we have no major manufacturing left! Yes, will impose some costs but so does the low $A. It will see some industry stay here and maybe some come back. the Libs’ idiot FTAs cost us our car makers and the parts makers too.

Corporations should be contributing a LOT more tax. Why cannot you see that?

Because there's nothing to see. Corporate tax contributions to total government revenue have been steadily increasing since the early 80s. 10% in 1983 to the 20 something % today.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22increased+reliance+on+company+tax%22&biw=1600&bih=770&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix6__3iuPKAhXEW5QKHZqmA0MQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=46cVxhnRdtGYYM%3A

This is despite a tax rate in the 80s of 49c in the dollar. Notwithstanding the tax rate been gradually lowered up until 2001 to 30c in the dollar, tax revenue has more than doubled in real terms.

It has also been pointed out in this thread with citations from reputable academic sources that the burden of corporate taxation falls more heavily on the wage earner than it does on the shareholder.

Smaller retained earnings means less reinvestment into capital stock and consequent falls in productivity, effectively cutting off the only means available to the employees of sustaining real wages growth.

Of course I just expect you to just stick your head in the sand and claim that is all lies.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Speeches/2014/20140704





Retained earnings are not used to finance the acquisition of major plant & equipment, debt is.

Can't really add to that except that you are dead wrong. If you think that company owners just park their retained earnings in the bank and not use them for capital stock then it just shows how absolutely clueless you are in this area.

Company tax is a major part of total revenue take because Tip cut income tax too much in the 2001–7 real estate boom.

Horseshit. Company tax contributions have risen steadily since the early eighties. Long before Tip's tax cuts. All with substantial reductions in the company tax rate and being slugged with a super guarantee component.

So much wrong with your graph and concept, ditch both and use common sense.

I don't think so. You really just don't know.

And our tariffs are too low. Adjust to the level of our main trading partners: the way they are no wonder we have no major manufacturing left! Yes, will impose some costs but so does the low $A. It will see some industry stay here and maybe some come back. the Libs’ nice person FTAs cost us our car makers and the parts makers too.

Tariffs just force the costs up, not down. Manufacturing is leaving because we are being left behind in the productivity stakes and corporate tax reform.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:33pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:04pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 6:40pm: Ah, so you can’t refute it! Good to know. How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway? How can the GST not be a heavy deadweight loss when workers pay it every time they spend some money? Cute concept, no real–world reality behind it. Sounds more like you do not understand what a deadweight loss actually is. I say again: How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway? Can you address that, now or later, alligator please? You also blabbered on about taxing retained earnings. Companies are taxed on profits (OK maybe private companies are still penalised for retaining earnings but that doesn’t change anything) not retained earnings. For projects, new computer system say or new machinery, companies borrow money. Company tax really affects shareholders dividend distributions.

How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway?


Croc deals mostly in textbook theory - so if they did happen to accidentally pay some tax it would be a dead weight.

Yeah, finds a theory he likes and sticks to it regardless of facts.

A poll by ninemsn found only 36% are in favour of a republic.

Wrong thread ArmPit.

Generous to assume he studied economics to know any textbook theory.

crocodile wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 10:35pm:

Because there's nothing to see. Corporate tax contributions to total government revenue have been steadily increasing since the early 80s. 10% in 1983 to the 20 something % today.

that increase is because companies that in the 80's used to make $1m profit, are now making $100m profit. They are paying a little more total tax (less in % terms) for a hell of a lot more profit.

When the economy is slow how can you say the GST doesn’t affect consumption? Maybe when the economy is doing well the GST has less effect.

But if you tax consumption how can you not expect consumption not to decrease by the amount of the tax?

With the Libs’ neocon ideology there will be less and less in the middleclass, more in the class being squeezed by austerity to fund the lifestyle of the very rich will mean the GST will decrease consumption even more.

If nothing gets done about tax avoidance by multinationals then a higher payroll tax levy is one way to get some money out of them. “A levy on jobs” really? You got 3249 employees, are you really going to think about hiring another skilled employee because you are thinking of payroll tax? Doubt it.

Stamp duty is bad/inefficient maybe but a land tax payable every year is good?

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 7:22am:

Generous to assume he studied economics to know any textbook theory.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/04-overflow/20150401_Dilb1.gif

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7196/1963/1600/AusEcDumm.jpg

A senior Liberal senator says he won't support increasing the GST to 15 per cent.

Senator Ian Macdonald says he is one of the few members of parliament who was around when the 10 per cent GST was introduced in 2000.

"I won't be supporting it, and the main reason is that those of us who were there at the time gave a rolled-gold commitment that we would not be part of any increase beyond 10 per cent," he told ABC television on Sunday.

WOW, a lib who wants to keep his word  ... you don't see that very often

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30754108/we-gave-rolled-gold-gst-promise-senator/

John Smith wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 7:34am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:35pm: Because there's nothing to see. Corporate tax contributions to total government revenue have been steadily increasing since the early 80s. 10% in 1983 to the 20 something % today. that increase is because companies that in the 80's used to make $1m profit, are now making $100m profit. They are paying a little more total tax (less in % terms) for a hell of a lot more profit.

Really. The return on investment figures for Aussie companies does not support your hypothesis.

http://www.ampcapital.com/AMPCapitalGlobal/media/contents/Blog/olivers-insights/2014/July/16/chart-2.png

If anything, corporate profits since the early 90s are only just above the bond rate. Another wood duck without a clue.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 12:49am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 9:33pm: crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 7:04pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 6:40pm: Ah, so you can’t refute it! Good to know. How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway? How can the GST not be a heavy deadweight loss when workers pay it every time they spend some money? Cute concept, no real–world reality behind it. Sounds more like you do not understand what a deadweight loss actually is. I say again: How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway? Can you address that, now or later, alligator please? You also blabbered on about taxing retained earnings. Companies are taxed on profits (OK maybe private companies are still penalised for retaining earnings but that doesn’t change anything) not retained earnings. For projects, new computer system say or new machinery, companies borrow money. Company tax really affects shareholders dividend distributions. How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway? Croc deals mostly in textbook theory - so if they did happen to accidentally pay some tax it would be a dead weight.

Terribly sorry that it doesn't conform to your utopian view of how the world works. The so called textbook theory is based upon the analysis of real world data rather than the ramblings of the misfits around here.

Jovial Monk wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 6:44am:

Yeah, finds a theory he likes and sticks to it regardless of facts.

I could same about you. The difference is that unlike you I have linked my statements with references from reputable sources. The facts are there for all to see. All you've done is rant. You probably haven't even read any of it for fear that the truth might interfere with your long held views. You are a goose.

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 7:22am:

Generous to assume he studied economics to know any textbook theory.

Any time you want to argue about the economics of what I've written I'd be happy to oblige. Now put up or piss off.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 8:42am:

stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 7:22am: Generous to assume he studied economics to know any textbook theory. http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2015/04-overflow/20150401_Dilb1.gif http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7196/1963/1600/AusEcDumm.jpg

OK smartarse. If you think what I've written is all tosh you go right ahead and refute all those points with solid material.

Not true because I don't like it is simply not good enough.

crocodile wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 9:23am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 7:34am: crocodile wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:35pm: Because there's nothing to see. Corporate tax contributions to total government revenue have been steadily increasing since the early 80s. 10% in 1983 to the 20 something % today. that increase is because companies that in the 80's used to make $1m profit, are now making $100m profit. They are paying a little more total tax (less in % terms) for a hell of a lot more profit. Really. The return on investment figures for Aussie companies does not support your hypothesis. http://www.ampcapital.com/AMPCapitalGlobal/media/contents/Blog/olivers-insights/2014/July/16/chart-2.png If anything, corporate profits since the early 90s are only just above the bond rate. Another wood duck without a clue.

I didn't claim to have a clue I'm just trying to understand your rambling ... if you can't handle people not agreeing with you then perhaps forums aren't the thing for you.

Isn't the ROI on your graph the return to shareholders? If so, what has that to do with profits?

crocodile wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 9:37am:

stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 7:22am: Generous to assume he studied economics to know any textbook theory. Any time you want to argue about the economics of what I've written I'd be happy to oblige. Now put up or piss off.

Sorry, did I offend?  I could try and debate, but it seems to mostly be talking to an ostrich with head in the sand sometimes.  Or that we don't seem to share values which is reflected in different perspectives.  One set of facts, multiple interpretations. 

crocodile wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 9:37am:

stunspore wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 7:22am: Generous to assume he studied economics to know any textbook theory. Any time you want to argue about the economics of what I've written I'd be happy to oblige. Now put up or piss off.

Sorry, did I offend?  I could try and debate, but it seems to mostly be talking to an ostrich with head in the sand sometimes.  Or that we don't seem to share values which is reflected in different perspectives.  One set of facts, multiple interpretations. 

The more often one sees Turnbull interviewed and questioned on raising the GST, the more I think its dead in the  water.

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 10:55pm:

I say again: Quote: How can company tax be such a heavy deadweight loss when a lot of companies pay little tax anyway? Really, a quick look at the budget shows that corporate taxes make up almost one quarter of the nation's entire federal budget. Now add in all the state's payroll taxes. Stop making stuff up.

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/html/Publications/papers/report/image/section_2-3.gif
An interesting chart that shows the burden of taxation falls predominantly on salary and wage earners.

John Smith wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 10:10am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 9:23am: John Smith wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 7:34am: crocodile wrote on Feb 6th, 2016 at 10:35pm: Because there's nothing to see. Corporate tax contributions to total government revenue have been steadily increasing since the early 80s. 10% in 1983 to the 20 something % today. that increase is because companies that in the 80's used to make $1m profit, are now making $100m profit. They are paying a little more total tax (less in % terms) for a hell of a lot more profit. Really. The return on investment figures for Aussie companies does not support your hypothesis. http://www.ampcapital.com/AMPCapitalGlobal/media/contents/Blog/olivers-insights/2014/July/16/chart-2.png If anything, corporate profits since the early 90s are only just above the bond rate. Another wood duck without a clue. I didn't claim to have a clue I'm just trying to understand your rambling ... if you can't handle people not agreeing with you then perhaps forums aren't the thing for you. Isn't the ROI on your graph the return to shareholders? If so, what has that to do with profits?

Sorry, but that's not what you wrote. You indicated that over thirty years corporate profits have improved 100 fold.

By the way, ROI is heavily linked to profit. Generally, no profit = no dividend, small profit = small dividend and large profit = large dividend. They may not correlate perfectly year on year but they do over time.

It may be construed that ROI is down if there are more shareholders holding smaller comparative stocks but the average price to earnings ratio does not support this.

http://www.fusioninvesting.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/AORD-PE-chart.png


This is obviously only applicable to listed companies as no data exists for private entities. It is safe to say that corporate tax take is progressively up despite reductions in the tax rate because there are more companies. That can't be such a bad thing.