We all know that the left loves demonising the rich, but for the life of me I can't see why. The rich pay more taxes in a year than the dole bludgers ever pay, and that the working class pay in several years. Let's break it down into a very very simple example:

Person A gets an education, goes to uni and becomes a successful (insert profession, insert anything). They pay their tax. Person B goes on drugs, gets a disability pension and pays no money. Person A pays the dole with his taxes, that goes to Person B. Person B is lauded as a hero, whilst Person A is condemned as a selfish, greedy rich bastard for having the temerity to actually want to save the money that he has earned himself through study and hard work.

Nearly half of people in Australia today get their money from people like Person A. Meanwhile, Person A gets not a cent of money after he retires, despite paying more in taxes than the vast majority of others, despite getting no extra benefits than the likes of Person B.

The problem is too, that both major parties now confirm to this view of thinking. How dare people want to put away money for their own retirement? Money that they have earned themselves through hard work? How selfish, how arrogant!

it's not about the rich or poor (at least that's what the politicians tell us), it's about he economy

trickle down doesn't work

trickle up does

Give a rich person a tax cut, he may spend it, he may not ... 50/50 chance that if he does spend it, it'll go overseas

give a poor person a tax cut and you can guarantee he'll spend every last cent and contribute towards economic growth

The reason why the rich shouldn't be a priority for tax cuts is that they have already received almost all the tax cuts handed out in the past 33 years while the tax burden for people on low and middle incomes has increased. In 1983 the top marginal tax rate for people on median incomes was 30%. It's now 34.5%. That's not including the effect on the GST which is a further tax burden.

Any future tax cuts should address this as a priority. Increase the tax free threshold to $32,500, scrap the 19% threshold and cut the next tax bracket from 32.5% to 27%.

Remember - the rich would also get this tax cut.

another rich kid having a whinge.

matty wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:43pm:

We all know that the left loves demonising the rich, but for the life of me I can't see why. The rich pay more taxes in a year than the dole bludgers ever pay, and that the working class pay in several years. Let's break it down into a very very simple example: Person A gets an education, goes to uni and becomes a successful (insert profession, insert anything). They pay their tax. Person B goes on drugs, gets a disability pension and pays no money. Person A pays the dole with his taxes, that goes to Person B. Person B is lauded as a hero, whilst Person A is condemned as a selfish, greedy rich bastard for having the temerity to actually want to save the money that he has earned himself through study and hard work. Nearly half of people in Australia today get their money from people like Person A. Meanwhile, Person A gets not a cent of money after he retires, despite paying more in taxes than the vast majority of others, despite getting no extra benefits than the likes of Person B. The problem is too, that both major parties now confirm to this view of thinking. How dare people want to put away money for their own retirement? Money that they have earned themselves through hard work? How selfish, how arrogant!

In contrary to your extremist belief.  Not all people on disability support or the dole are druggies.  That is your fallacy.   Everyone of those who is on disability support still have to pay GST.   And those GSTs goes to fund person A's university course that made him a professional, and the hospital that helped bringing him into this world.   And the money will also be there if or when he suffers a series of unfortunate events that make him disabled in the future.  This is called a country, a community. 

John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

it's not about the rich or poor (at least that's what the politicians tell us), it's about he economy trickle down doesn't work trickle up does Give a rich person a tax cut, he may spend it, he may not ... 50/50 chance that if he does spend it, it'll go overseas give a poor person a tax cut and you can guarantee he'll spend every last cent and contribute towards economic growth

Oh, you're so very wrong. Don't you remember what nearly everyone did with their $900 cheque's from Rudd (paid for out of borrowed money, by the way)? That's right, it either went into the bank as savings or was used to pay off bills. Virtually none of it went into buying a new TV or DVD player or computer or blender or clothes. It was saved or used to pay the rego.

I heard an economist on ABC radio yesterday saying the bottom 3rd of the population pays just about no tax, even with GST when you factor in family benefits, medicare, education and pensions.

He most defiantly wasn't a righartd, his position was  NOBODY pays enough tax to fund the handouts we're so accustomed to.

The rich want more tax cuts.  Wait while I get my violin out.   :'(

GordyL wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:02am:

I heard an economist on ABC radio yesterday saying the bottom 3rd of the population pays just about no tax, even with GST when you factor in family benefits, medicare, education and pensions. We most defiantly wasn't a righartd, his position was  NOBODY pays enough tax to fund the handouts we're so accustomed to.

exactly.....when they are too gutless to raise the GST....... then we deserve what we get....the GST is about the only TAX that affects everyone the same...there is no distinction...

we are too stoooopid to see it.

The Victorian Premier Mr Andrews has made it very clear.  He does not support an increase in the GST.   :)

cods wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:06am:

GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:02am: I heard an economist on ABC radio yesterday saying the bottom 3rd of the population pays just about no tax, even with GST when you factor in family benefits, medicare, education and pensions. We most defiantly wasn't a righartd, his position was  NOBODY pays enough tax to fund the handouts we're so accustomed to. exactly.....when they are too gutless to raise the GST....... then we deserve what we get....the GST is about the only TAX that affects everyone the same...there is no distinction... we are too stoooopid to see it.

I'm not into a GST increase. I think hitting the really high earners wold be a start, winding back fuel subsidies for mining.

wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:10am:

The Victorian Premier Mr Andrews has made it very clear.  He does not support an increase in the GST.   :)

funny thing that.... YET HE WHINES HE WANTS MORE MONEY HE DOESNT HAVE ENOUGH>>>

I wonder if he would take it if they did increase it....

hahaha

of course he wouldnt hes against it isnt he???..

If you live in australia in 2016 , you should fall to the ground every morning, weeping tears of joy that you live in australia in 2016.

You are one of the MOST BLESSED and LUCKIEST people ever to be born in the history of mankind.

If you live in australia in 2016 and your mindset is one of envy, jealousy and self pity.
If you sit around and complain ...


Help

Help

Help me.

will somebody please help me.
When i was a child if i had a problem , my mummy would fix it for me.

Are you my mummy?

Please help me.
I have learned helplessness.


You are a pitiful loser.


this goes for rich and poor alike.

if you are rich and complain you pay too much, work harder and earn more and stop being a pussy.
if you are poor and complain you dont have enough, radically change your personal philosophy.

this is the path of the superior man

GordyL wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:13am:

cods wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06am: GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:02am: I heard an economist on ABC radio yesterday saying the bottom 3rd of the population pays just about no tax, even with GST when you factor in family benefits, medicare, education and pensions. We most defiantly wasn't a righartd, his position was  NOBODY pays enough tax to fund the handouts we're so accustomed to. exactly.....when they are too gutless to raise the GST....... then we deserve what we get....the GST is about the only TAX that affects everyone the same...there is no distinction... we are too stoooopid to see it. I'm not into a GST increase. I think hitting the really high earners wold be a start, winding back fuel subsidies for mining.

so if you were earning $79.000 a year and your next increase wopuld put you into the higher tax bracket....


where would that leave you???>.. would you knock back that promotion....because you would be working only for the govt???...

if you tax people to the point where they wont bother achieving......doesnt that defeat everything in the end..?

matty wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:43pm:

We all know that the left loves demonising the rich, but for the life of me I can't see why. The rich pay more taxes in a year than the dole bludgers ever pay, and that the working class pay in several years. Let's break it down into a very very simple example: Person A gets an education, goes to uni and becomes a successful (insert profession, insert anything). They pay their tax. Person B goes on drugs, gets a disability pension and pays no money. Person A pays the dole with his taxes, that goes to Person B. Person B is lauded as a hero, whilst Person A is condemned as a selfish, greedy rich bastard for having the temerity to actually want to save the money that he has earned himself through study and hard work. Nearly half of people in Australia today get their money from people like Person A. Meanwhile, Person A gets not a cent of money after he retires, despite paying more in taxes than the vast majority of others, despite getting no extra benefits than the likes of Person B. The problem is too, that both major parties now confirm to this view of thinking. How dare people want to put away money for their own retirement? Money that they have earned themselves through hard work? How selfish, how arrogant!

Person D bludges off his parents for his education and lifestyle.   Person D's parents put earnings in trust funds and overseas tax havens so that to the ATO they are only earning  25K a year. They then also claim all benefits they can from Centrelink, whilst driving the Audi to the supermarket.   Person D then berates the lower class for not paying enough tax, whilst being given a free ride throughout his life by the very people he turns his nose up at.

GordyL wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:13am:

cods wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06am: GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:02am: I heard an economist on ABC radio yesterday saying the bottom 3rd of the population pays just about no tax, even with GST when you factor in family benefits, medicare, education and pensions. We most defiantly wasn't a righartd, his position was  NOBODY pays enough tax to fund the handouts we're so accustomed to. exactly.....when they are too gutless to raise the GST....... then we deserve what we get....the GST is about the only TAX that affects everyone the same...there is no distinction... we are too stoooopid to see it. I'm not into a GST increase. I think hitting the really high earners wold be a start, winding back fuel subsidies for mining.

I strongly support increasing sales tax.
It's the fairest tax. Everyone has to pay it based on consumption.
It's also incredibly hard to avoid.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 6:22am:

Oh, you're so very wrong. Don't you remember what nearly everyone did with their $900 cheque's from Rudd (paid for out of borrowed money, by the way)? That's right, it either went into the bank as savings or was used to pay off bills. Virtually none of it went into buying a new TV or DVD player or computer or blender or clothes. It was saved or used to pay the rego.

geez you're an idiot ... using it to pay bills or rego etc  IS putting it back into the economy ... the only ones putting it into savings were those that didn't need it, hence my point.

Thanks for proving it

cods wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:40am:

so if you were earning $79.000 a year and your next increase wopuld put you into the higher tax bracket.... where would that leave you???>.. would you knock back that promotion....because you would be working only for the govt???.

I've never met a single person who knocked back a pay rise because the govt. might take half .... this is a fallacy spewed out by the right wing nut jobs

GordyL wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:13am:

cods wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06am: GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:02am: I heard an economist on ABC radio yesterday saying the bottom 3rd of the population pays just about no tax, even with GST when you factor in family benefits, medicare, education and pensions. We most defiantly wasn't a righartd, his position was  NOBODY pays enough tax to fund the handouts we're so accustomed to. exactly.....when they are too gutless to raise the GST....... then we deserve what we get....the GST is about the only TAX that affects everyone the same...there is no distinction... we are too stoooopid to see it. I'm not into a GST increase. I think hitting the really high earners wold be a start, winding back fuel subsidies for mining.

Remove CGT concessions, cut back negative gearing, deep cuts to corporate welfare, abolish private health insurance rebate, abolish dividend imputation, cut tax concessions for self funded retirees. These and other similar measures are just welfare for the rich. As long as they are in place, the wealthy who do not use them are subsidising those who do. Cutting back these measures can raise funds that can be handed back to the wealthy in tax cuts (if affordable) and would simplify the tax system.

Because they've already got the sweet ride and in the main don't have to foot the bills for running their life the same as Jo and Joe Bloggs do.  They don't pay for running their cars, their work, and everything else involved in the way they make their money, since they chop those out of 'taxable income', whereas Jo and Joe are deemed to have to run a car etc as simply part of their living expenses.

It is only meet then, M'Lod, that the rich accept that in order to fund their fair share of the taxation to run the country, they should pay a higher rate on their already highly subsidised income.....

Thanks for coming... hope you train up better for next week's game.....

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 6:22am:

John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 9:51pm: it's not about the rich or poor (at least that's what the politicians tell us), it's about he economy trickle down doesn't work trickle up does Give a rich person a tax cut, he may spend it, he may not ... 50/50 chance that if he does spend it, it'll go overseas give a poor person a tax cut and you can guarantee he'll spend every last cent and contribute towards economic growth Oh, you're so very wrong. Don't you remember what nearly everyone did with their $900 cheque's from Rudd (paid for out of borrowed money, by the way)? That's right, it either went into the bank as savings or was used to pay off bills. Virtually none of it went into buying a new TV or DVD player or computer or blender or clothes. It was saved or used to pay the rego.

All of which recycled it back into the tax cycle and thus supported the economy - one day you'll work out that every cent paid out here incurs tax of some kind, and the cycle is 100% OUT - 100% in at the end of the day, and the ONLY difference is the RATE at which the tax dollar is returned to the government, with the ONLY Black Holes being the money off-shored by companies and the rich.

Thank YOU for coming.... perhaps you, like Matty, can train up better for next week's round.....

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 6:22am:

John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 9:51pm: it's not about the rich or poor (at least that's what the politicians tell us), it's about he economy trickle down doesn't work trickle up does Give a rich person a tax cut, he may spend it, he may not ... 50/50 chance that if he does spend it, it'll go overseas give a poor person a tax cut and you can guarantee he'll spend every last cent and contribute towards economic growth Oh, you're so very wrong. Don't you remember what nearly everyone did with their $900 cheque's from Rudd (paid for out of borrowed money, by the way)? That's right, it either went into the bank as savings or was used to pay off bills. Virtually none of it went into buying a new TV or DVD player or computer or blender or clothes. It was saved or used to pay the rego.

Wrong again, Armpit.

"So far, the government has already hailed the payments as a big success.

"Some retailers have recorded bumper sales, with shoppers choosing to spend their stimulus payments on clothing and accessories.

"Retailers in Melbourne's city centre said sales had increased over the Easter weekend, with one woman buying $900 worth of clothing in one purchase." Link

cods wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:40am:

GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13am: cods wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06am: GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:02am: I heard an economist on ABC radio yesterday saying the bottom 3rd of the population pays just about no tax, even with GST when you factor in family benefits, medicare, education and pensions. We most defiantly wasn't a righartd, his position was  NOBODY pays enough tax to fund the handouts we're so accustomed to. exactly.....when they are too gutless to raise the GST....... then we deserve what we get....the GST is about the only TAX that affects everyone the same...there is no distinction... we are too stoooopid to see it. I'm not into a GST increase. I think hitting the really high earners wold be a start, winding back fuel subsidies for mining. so if you were earning $79.000 a year and your next increase wopuld put you into the higher tax bracket.... where would that leave you???>.. would you knock back that promotion....because you would be working only for the govt???... if you tax people to the point where they wont bother achieving......doesnt that defeat everything in the end..?

Nonsense, cods, you would only be paying a small proportion of your overall income at that higher rate - not the whole lot.  You wouldn't be 'working to pay the government' at all, but would still be receiving the bulk of you income at the lower level and paying a few dollars more for the pittance at the top.

Hard life that....  great race the Liberals.... oh, what I'd give for a spit in the face like that over paying $20 more out of the five hundred I get extra...  oh, yes.. regular jailer's pet, you are....

John Smith wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 9:00am:

cods wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:40am: so if you were earning $79.000 a year and your next increase wopuld put you into the higher tax bracket.... where would that leave you???>.. would you knock back that promotion....because you would be working only for the govt???. I've never met a single person who knocked back a pay rise because the govt. might take half .... this is a fallacy spewed out by the right wing nut jobs

I didn't see Fat Joe suggesting he should take a pay cut that would revert him to the lower tax rate....... why would he when the perks are right there?

Quote:

Why should the rich not get more tax cuts?

Because they don't need it ;)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13am: cods wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06am: GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:02am: I heard an economist on ABC radio yesterday saying the bottom 3rd of the population pays just about no tax, even with GST when you factor in family benefits, medicare, education and pensions. We most defiantly wasn't a righartd, his position was  NOBODY pays enough tax to fund the handouts we're so accustomed to. exactly.....when they are too gutless to raise the GST....... then we deserve what we get....the GST is about the only TAX that affects everyone the same...there is no distinction... we are too stoooopid to see it. I'm not into a GST increase. I think hitting the really high earners wold be a start, winding back fuel subsidies for mining. I strongly support increasing sales tax. It's the fairest tax. Everyone has to pay it based on consumption. It's also incredibly hard to avoid.

and everyone consumes roughly the same amount of food then it effects poor people more. Not a great idea :(

Sir lastnail wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 10:40am:

Quote: Why should the rich not get more tax cuts? Because they don't need it ;)

"They" I thought you were a successful businessman with a luxury car.

That would be "we" wouldn't it?


Let me answer that for you, no "we" don't need a tax cut, but fkk it, Ill take it anyway.  :)

BigOl64 wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 10:48am:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:40am: Quote: Why should the rich not get more tax cuts? Because they don't need it ;) "They" I thought you were a successful businessman with a luxury car. That would be "we" wouldn't it? Let me answer that for you, no "we" don't need a tax cut, but fkk it, Ill take it anyway.  :)

i don't believe I have ever said that but try again sucker ;)

cods wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:06am:

GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:02am: I heard an economist on ABC radio yesterday saying the bottom 3rd of the population pays just about no tax, even with GST when you factor in family benefits, medicare, education and pensions. We most defiantly wasn't a righartd, his position was  NOBODY pays enough tax to fund the handouts we're so accustomed to. exactly.....when they are too gutless to raise the GST....... then we deserve what we get....the GST is about the only TAX that affects everyone the same...there is no distinction... we are too stoooopid to see it.

How does it affect everyone the same?
If you're on a pension, and from what you've written here over the years I expect you are, your disposable income is much less than mine.
So you are spending much more of your income on the GST than I am.
The GST doesn't bother me so much.  I worry about how it bothers the likes of you and others like you on fixed low incomes.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13am: cods wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:06am: GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:02am: I heard an economist on ABC radio yesterday saying the bottom 3rd of the population pays just about no tax, even with GST when you factor in family benefits, medicare, education and pensions. We most defiantly wasn't a righartd, his position was  NOBODY pays enough tax to fund the handouts we're so accustomed to. exactly.....when they are too gutless to raise the GST....... then we deserve what we get....the GST is about the only TAX that affects everyone the same...there is no distinction... we are too stoooopid to see it. I'm not into a GST increase. I think hitting the really high earners wold be a start, winding back fuel subsidies for mining. I strongly support increasing sales tax. It's the fairest tax. Everyone has to pay it based on consumption. It's also incredibly hard to avoid.

And to think this guy said he studied economics....

Sir lastnail wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 11:18am:

BigOl64 wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:48am: Sir lastnail wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:40am: Quote: Why should the rich not get more tax cuts? Because they don't need it ;) "They" I thought you were a successful businessman with a luxury car. That would be "we" wouldn't it? Let me answer that for you, no "we" don't need a tax cut, but fkk it, Ill take it anyway.  :) i don't believe I have ever said that but try again sucker ;)

A lie of omission is still a lie.



But it is ok, I have asked for the tax cut on behalf of rich people, because WE deserve one.  :)

GordyL wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:13am:

winding back fuel subsidies for mining.

You do know they are fuel tax credits, aka fuel rebates? That they are added into taxable income? They would have to be the only subsidies tax is paid on.

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 12:12pm:

GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13am: winding back fuel subsidies for mining. You do know they are fuel tax credits, aka fuel rebates? That they are added into taxable income? They would have to be the only subsidies tax is paid on.

So what? The money would be better spent building infrastructure.

Stop the Offshoring!


In breaking news on Panamagate...... every day throws up (sic) a new list of criminally intent tax evasion masterminds who have deposited cash into offshore accounts...... the list grows longer daily and the ATO and Federal Police promise that no stone will be left unturned in digging up any names associated with the 'left' in Australia................ for more detail see editorial in The Daily Grind or catch the full bulletin on our Six O'Clock Follies News.... on KRUD....

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 12:12pm:

GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13am: winding back fuel subsidies for mining. You do know they are fuel tax credits, aka fuel rebates? That they are added into taxable income? They would have to be the only subsidies tax is paid on.

The fuel tax was added in the first place for roads funding. Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for.

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 12:12pm:

GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13am: winding back fuel subsidies for mining. You do know they are fuel tax credits, aka fuel rebates? That they are added into taxable income? They would have to be the only subsidies tax is paid on.

So why bother giving with one hand and then taking with the other?  I'll tell you why - because these rebates are simply to cover the idea that these off-roaders do not use the roads and thus should not pay road tax or equivalent..... therefore the 'rebate' is in no way any effect on profit or taxable income... it is not a cash handout, it is simply a neutral measure and gains nothing and costs nothing to either the end user or the government.

That's the theory anyway.. what the argument becomes is that this is tax money foregone - in the eyes of some....... and thus is a 'black hole' of some kind.  IF - and that is a might big IF all that tax lovely from fuel actually went back into road and transport infrastructure..... few would argue the merits of fuel excise exemption.... farmers get it since they operate on private land and not roads, and it is simply too hard to keep track of their visits to the TAB in town etc.....

crocodile wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 1:32pm:

Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for.

really? I think that's a fallacy

I used to see hundreds of tucks full or coal or ore going up and down Pircton Rd and Mt Ousley Rd every day on their way to the Port Kembla steelworks ... miners didn't pay for those roads although the trucks certainly caused the most damage on them. Sire, miners might build the roads (or rail) around the mine, but the ports or refineries they ship to are usually a long way away from the mines

John Smith wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 1:44pm:

crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:32pm: Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for. really? I think that's a fallacy I used to see hundreds of tucks full or coal or ore going up and down Pircton Rd and Mt Ousley Rd every day on their way to the Port Kembla steelworks ... miners didn't pay for those roads although the trucks certainly caused the most damage on them. Sire, miners might build the roads (or rail) around the mine, but the ports or refineries they ship to are usually a long way away from the mines

The miner will rail to a port before trucking it there you are talking millions of tonnes of product per year and as for the Port Kembla, I dare say it was the steelworks doing the trucking, not the miner.

In some case they may use public roads, but it will be 'normal' trucks doing the work and they also get  tax concessions for fuel just like every other truckie in Aus.

crocodile wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 1:32pm:

lee wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:12pm: GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13am: winding back fuel subsidies for mining. You do know they are fuel tax credits, aka fuel rebates? That they are added into taxable income? They would have to be the only subsidies tax is paid on. The fuel tax was added in the first place for roads funding. Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for.

Which is a quite specious argument from the industry. Do ordinary folks get rebates for petrol for lawnmowers or diesel for generators? No.

85% of the mining industry is foreign owned. We spend roughly as much on diesel rebates for foreigners as we spend on foreign aid.

We would be better off scrapping all of the fuel rebates and removing excise from alternative diesel fuels such as biodiesel and synthetics. Anyone who wants tax-free diesel for mining or farms can still do so under this plan, but would be growing new domestic industries and reducing our reliance on imports.

BigOl64 wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 1:55pm:

John Smith wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:44pm: crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:32pm: Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for. really? I think that's a fallacy I used to see hundreds of tucks full or coal or ore going up and down Pircton Rd and Mt Ousley Rd every day on their way to the Port Kembla steelworks ... miners didn't pay for those roads although the trucks certainly caused the most damage on them. Sire, miners might build the roads (or rail) around the mine, but the ports or refineries they ship to are usually a long way away from the mines The miner will rail to a port before trucking it there you are talking millions of tonnes of product per year and as for the Port Kembla, I dare say it was the steelworks doing the trucking, not the miner. In some case they may use public roads, but it will be 'normal' trucks doing the work and they also get  tax concessions for fuel just like every other truckie in Aus.

trying to say it wasn't the miner but the end user is semantics

coal was being trucked from the BHP Billiton Appin colliery to the BHP steelworks ...

Bam wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:38pm:

crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:32pm: lee wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:12pm: GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13am: winding back fuel subsidies for mining. You do know they are fuel tax credits, aka fuel rebates? That they are added into taxable income? They would have to be the only subsidies tax is paid on. The fuel tax was added in the first place for roads funding. Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for. Which is a quite specious argument from the industry. Do ordinary folks get rebates for petrol for lawnmowers or diesel for generators? No. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned. We spend roughly as much on diesel rebates for foreigners as we spend on foreign aid. We would be better off scrapping all of the fuel rebates and removing excise from alternative diesel fuels such as biodiesel and synthetics. Anyone who wants tax-free diesel for mining or farms can still do so under this plan, but would be growing new domestic industries and reducing our reliance on imports.

What a load of bollocks. They aren't using the end infrastructure. End of story. By all means lobby for it's removal. End result is it becomes a greater input cost and reduces profit and then company tax. Take your pick.

Bam wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:38pm:

Which is a quite specious argument from the industry. Do ordinary folks get rebates for petrol for lawnmowers or diesel for generators? No.

Would ordinary folk like the hassle of working out how much rebate they got and add it back into taxable income? It is a timing issue, nothing more nothing less.

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Bam wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:38pm: Which is a quite specious argument from the industry. Do ordinary folks get rebates for petrol for lawnmowers or diesel for generators? No. Would ordinary folk like the hassle of working out how much rebate they got and add it back into taxable income? It is a timing issue, nothing more nothing less.

Easy - fill a container - produce a card - no excise......  simple enough in a day and age where everything you ever were is on Big Brother..... can all be built into the till machines these days - no problem....

When I can fill out my tax online and the ATO pre-fills in every detail for me.....

BigOl64 wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 1:55pm:

John Smith wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:44pm: crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:32pm: Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for. really? I think that's a fallacy I used to see hundreds of tucks full or coal or ore going up and down Pircton Rd and Mt Ousley Rd every day on their way to the Port Kembla steelworks ... miners didn't pay for those roads although the trucks certainly caused the most damage on them. Sire, miners might build the roads (or rail) around the mine, but the ports or refineries they ship to are usually a long way away from the mines The miner will rail to a port before trucking it there you are talking millions of tonnes of product per year and as for the Port Kembla, I dare say it was the steelworks doing the trucking, not the miner. In some case they may use public roads, but it will be 'normal' trucks doing the work and they also get  tax concessions for fuel just like every other truckie in Aus.

Depends on whether or not the excise exempt (generic name producer) fills the trucks.... dun'it?  I never got fuel excise privilege when I was operating commercially... though I got 'essential services' fuel when things were really bad....

Show me where truckies ordinaire get fuel excise exemption..... I've been out of the loop for a while.. but I thought they paid for excise at the pump like everyone else.

crocodile wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 5:30pm:

Bam wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:38pm: crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:32pm: lee wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:12pm: GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13am: winding back fuel subsidies for mining. You do know they are fuel tax credits, aka fuel rebates? That they are added into taxable income? They would have to be the only subsidies tax is paid on. The fuel tax was added in the first place for roads funding. Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for. Which is a quite specious argument from the industry. Do ordinary folks get rebates for petrol for lawnmowers or diesel for generators? No. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned. We spend roughly as much on diesel rebates for foreigners as we spend on foreign aid. We would be better off scrapping all of the fuel rebates and removing excise from alternative diesel fuels such as biodiesel and synthetics. Anyone who wants tax-free diesel for mining or farms can still do so under this plan, but would be growing new domestic industries and reducing our reliance on imports. What a load of bollocks. They aren't using the end infrastructure. End of story. By all means lobby for it's removal. End result is it becomes a greater input cost and reduces profit and then company tax. Take your pick.

It is still a specious argument. It is also based on a lie - miners DO use the roads that everyone else pays for. How do you think those enormous mining trucks get to the mines?

If you want to have excise-free diesel for miners, you need to explain the following:
* Who pays for the roads and rails when miners use public infrastructure?
* Why do miners get publicly-funded private roads and rail even though they are not contributing excise?
* Why are we paying billions of dollars in subsidies to mining companies, 85% of which are foreign owned?

... and besides - miner may well 'build their own roads' - it's written off as 'research and DEVELOPMENT costs'...

Only way to get a decent cop out of the Guv is to be a 'big boy' .....

Bam wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

* Why are we paying billions of dollars in subsidies to mining companies, 85% of which are foreign owned?

Ah , you quote the Australia Institute a left-leaning organisation, where everything is a subsidy if it is not Green.

Did you read further down, before cherry-picking?

'The peak mining lobby, the Minerals Council of Australia, is hotly contesting the report's findings.

Its chief executive Brendan Pearson says regular analysis by the Commonwealth Government's Productivity Commission finds mining does not receive public largesse.

"The most independent analysis of assistance to industry sectors in Australia is that done by the Productivity Commission. It has found, year after year, that the mining industry receives no subsidies," he responded.'

'The Queensland Resources Council (QRC), representing mining companies in the state that the Australia Institute report says has the biggest subsidies, says the report is full of "howlers" and "would embarrass the North Korean government."

The council's chief executive Michael Roche says most of the Queensland projects included in the study were paid for by mining companies, a fact he says is ignored in the study.

"Almost every capital project undertaken by government-owned businesses for resources sector power supply and distribution, water, rail and port capacity gets a headline," he said.

"These projects were executed on a fully commercial basis, with resources companies entering into commercial contracts that underwrote the capital expenditure and provided commercial returns to government-owned businesses."

Mr Roche argues that the state governments involved actually profited from much of the infrastructure investment.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/mining-industry-receives-billions-of-dollars-in-state-subsidies/5545714

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:09pm:

Bam wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 6:46pm: * Why are we paying billions of dollars in subsidies to mining companies, 85% of which are foreign owned? Ah , you quote the Australia Institute a left-leaning organisation, where everything is a subsidy if it is not Green. Did you read further down, before cherry-picking? 'The peak mining lobby, the Minerals Council of Australia, is hotly contesting the report's findings. Its chief executive Brendan Pearson says regular analysis by the Commonwealth Government's Productivity Commission finds mining does not receive public largesse. "The most independent analysis of assistance to industry sectors in Australia is that done by the Productivity Commission. It has found, year after year, that the mining industry receives no subsidies," he responded.' 'The Queensland Resources Council (QRC), representing mining companies in the state that the Australia Institute report says has the biggest subsidies, says the report is full of "howlers" and "would embarrass the North Korean government." The council's chief executive Michael Roche says most of the Queensland projects included in the study were paid for by mining companies, a fact he says is ignored in the study. "Almost every capital project undertaken by government-owned businesses for resources sector power supply and distribution, water, rail and port capacity gets a headline," he said. "These projects were executed on a fully commercial basis, with resources companies entering into commercial contracts that underwrote the capital expenditure and provided commercial returns to government-owned businesses." Mr Roche argues that the state governments involved actually profited from much of the infrastructure investment.' http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/mining-industry-receives-billions-of-dollars-in-state-subsidies/5545714

Ah , you quote the Minerals Council of Australia a right-leaning organisation, where everything is a tax loss if it is anywhere on the books.

Did you read further down, before cherry-picking?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:14pm:

Ah , you quote the Minerals Council of Australia a right-leaning organisation, where everything is a tax loss if it is anywhere on the books. Did you read further down, before cherry-picking?

Yes I read "Commonwealth Government's Productivity Commission finds mining does not receive public largesse.

"The most independent analysis of assistance to industry sectors in Australia is that done by the Productivity Commission. It has found, year after year, that the mining industry receives no subsidies," he responded.'


Did you not read the post?

So a Liberal-appointed body with an agenda finds that mining receives no subsidies.... Right -O.....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:22pm:

So a Liberal-appointed body with an agenda finds that mining receives no subsidies.... Right -O.....

Actually you will find Labor appointed Commissioners among them. Curious,eh? And Libs have only been in three years, I wonder who said they didn't receive subsidies before that?

Bam wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:

crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 5:30pm: Bam wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:38pm: crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:32pm: lee wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 12:12pm: GordyL wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:13am: winding back fuel subsidies for mining. You do know they are fuel tax credits, aka fuel rebates? That they are added into taxable income? They would have to be the only subsidies tax is paid on. The fuel tax was added in the first place for roads funding. Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for. Which is a quite specious argument from the industry. Do ordinary folks get rebates for petrol for lawnmowers or diesel for generators? No. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned. We spend roughly as much on diesel rebates for foreigners as we spend on foreign aid. We would be better off scrapping all of the fuel rebates and removing excise from alternative diesel fuels such as biodiesel and synthetics. Anyone who wants tax-free diesel for mining or farms can still do so under this plan, but would be growing new domestic industries and reducing our reliance on imports. What a load of bollocks. They aren't using the end infrastructure. End of story. By all means lobby for it's removal. End result is it becomes a greater input cost and reduces profit and then company tax. Take your pick. It is still a specious argument. It is also based on a lie - miners DO use the roads that everyone else pays for. How do you think those enormous mining trucks get to the mines? Pull the other one. Big deal, they get a once off ride to work. So what. Let's just appoint auditors to see just what get used. Fix unemployment I suppose. They can all work for the ATO as auditors reading through mountains of paperwork. If you want to have excise-free diesel for miners, you need to explain the following: * Who pays for the roads and rails when miners use public infrastructure? Are you saying there are no charges levied at all. * Why do miners get publicly-funded private roads and rail even though they are not contributing excise? Who says they're using free roads. * Why are we paying billions of dollars in subsidies to mining companies, 85% of which are foreign owned? Doesn't matter a stuff. The company gets the rebate, not the shareholder. The shareholders distributions are always paid after tax no matter where the they are domiciled. You can make noises to take it away if you want. It will just mean a reduction in gross profit and then tax receipts. Swings and roundabouts.

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:25pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:22pm: So a Liberal-appointed body with an agenda finds that mining receives no subsidies.... Right -O..... Actually you will find Labor appointed Commissioners among them. Curious,eh? And Libs have only been in three years, I wonder who said they didn't receive subsidies before that?

It's not even a subsidy. It's a rebate. There is a difference.

crocodile wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

lee wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:25pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:22pm: So a Liberal-appointed body with an agenda finds that mining receives no subsidies.... Right -O..... Actually you will find Labor appointed Commissioners among them. Curious,eh? And Libs have only been in three years, I wonder who said they didn't receive subsidies before that? It's not even a subsidy. It's a rebate. There is a difference.

I believe I addressed that issue in the context that it was a non-payment of excise due to their not operating on public roads, and thus not bearing the cost of maintenance and upgrade of such.... and that it was essentially tax-neutral in that sense.....

But you need to read the strand before commenting.... just saying... as perhaps THE only honest broker here - I always like to go back and actually READ the comments made and make my decision on my stance based on that input with regard to my own knowledge and understanding.

Just saying....

BTW - this 'productivity commission' of old mates and cronies has clearly stated for umpteen years that the productivity of the individual worker has risen.... but the productivity of 'capital' - read Investment in real terms - has fallen..........

How then, Monsieur, do you stand with regard to negative gearing and the 'dead stock' involved in serial house ownership (as opposed to HOME ownership)?

Here is my comment:-

"So why bother giving with one hand and then taking with the other?  I'll tell you why - because these rebates are simply to cover the idea that these off-roaders do not use the roads and thus should not pay road tax or equivalent..... therefore the 'rebate' is in no way any effect on profit or taxable income... it is not a cash handout, it is simply a neutral measure and gains nothing and costs nothing to either the end user or the government.

That's the theory anyway.. what the argument becomes is that this is tax money foregone - in the eyes of some....... and thus is a 'black hole' of some kind.  IF - and that is a might big IF all that tax lovely from fuel actually went back into road and transport infrastructure..... few would argue the merits of fuel excise exemption.... farmers get it since they operate on private land and not roads, and it is simply too hard to keep track of their visits to the TAB in town etc....."

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:

crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 10:05pm: lee wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:25pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 7:22pm: So a Liberal-appointed body with an agenda finds that mining receives no subsidies.... Right -O..... Actually you will find Labor appointed Commissioners among them. Curious,eh? And Libs have only been in three years, I wonder who said they didn't receive subsidies before that? It's not even a subsidy. It's a rebate. There is a difference. I believe I addressed that issue in the context that it was a non-payment of excise due to their not operating on public roads, and thus not bearing the cost of maintenance and upgrade of such.... and that it was essentially tax-neutral in that sense..... But you need to read the strand before commenting.... just saying... as perhaps THE only honest broker here - I always like to go back and actually READ the comments made and make my decision on my stance based on that input with regard to my own knowledge and understanding. Just saying.... BTW - this 'productivity commission' of old mates and cronies has clearly stated for umpteen years that the productivity of the individual worker has risen.... but the productivity of 'capital' - read Investment in real terms - has fallen.......... So Grapples, where do you suppose the gains in labour productivity came from ( or productivity of the individual worker as you put it ). It has been on the upward path for yonks. But why. How then, Monsieur, do you stand with regard to negative gearing and the 'dead stock' involved in serial house ownership (as opposed to HOME ownership)? That has been dealt with innumerable times in other threads. As it turns out, I have no real problem with it.

It may be that the worker is motivated by being treated as a serf with a disposable job and income and life.... but I don't believe that is the case, since the average worker is no more genuinely productive under duress... actually the opposite... and let's be honest.... many such in the big cities, who these days are from countries where working hard is an option..... no Asian country has a genuine hard-working genuine labour force... are in that category.

So we are left with three things:-

Either the worker is more productive.....

The standards are now much lower.....

Or we are being lied to overall for some gain for someone thus far unspecified......

In an environment in which genuine productivity has been subordinated to subordination to The Boss, who operates a rip-off system.... what genuine productivity can there actually be?  WHAT is being produced?

I lean towards "we are being lied to royally" (again), and this is all smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that this country is falling down as we speak... and there is NO genuine productivity anywhere.....

Grapples, I see that you do not really understand productivity. That's OK, not so many really do. It is real and labour productivity has been growing steadily for about 200 years.

You will find that productivity is no more than output divided by hours worked. That is, increased production per labour input. It is due entirely to the march of technology. It's easy to visualise. I can make the guy with a shovel more productive by buying him a bulldozer.

I can tell you that labour productivity is due to investment in capital equipment or the tools that the workers use to produce the goods and services that we consume.

Given that labour productivity continues to rise makes your assumption that business has stopped investment quite untrue. In fact with capital productivity falling while labour is growing simply means that each increment of labour productivity is provided by increasing capital cost. Basically, less bang for the buck per investment dollar.

But hang on, labour productivity is growing. Therefore investment is still occurring but with higher financial impositions. That is the reason why wages growth is falling.

Buy yourself a decent macro textbook. It's actually quite interesting.

crocodile wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 11:58pm:

Grapples, I see that you do not really understand productivity. That's OK, not so many really do. It is real and labour productivity has been growing steadily for about 200 years. You will find that productivity is no more than output divided by hours worked. That is, increased production per labour input. It is due entirely to the march of technology. It's easy to visualise. I can make the guy with a shovel more productive by buying him a bulldozer. I can tell you that labour productivity is due to investment in capital equipment or the tools that the workers use to produce the goods and services that we consume. Given that labour productivity continues to rise makes your assumption that business has stopped investment quite untrue. In fact with capital productivity falling while labour is growing simply means that each increment of labour productivity is provided by increasing capital cost. Basically, less bang for the buck per investment dollar. But hang on, labour productivity is growing. Therefore investment is still occurring but with higher financial impositions. That is the reason why wages growth is falling. Buy yourself a decent macro textbook. It's actually quite interesting.

So now extend your reasoning to incorporate economic factors such as market forces, transport and such, costs of production..... and let us see why there is some argument over the cost of wages here and now....

'investment' does NOT have to increase to incorporate increased labour productivity - all that is required is to establish a datum and then operate on that basis - and the problems begin when the market forces, including all costs of production and distribution, do not permit a profit under the existing approach.

So - UNLESS there is major investment in genuine infrastructure, and not in short term fixes - there is no outcome other than destruction of the organism that generates opportunity for profit for both worker and investor - and thus ALL lose from declining productivity in inappropriate investment.

As an example - if I run a household, and wish to make it more 'productive' - do I invest in passive  investments such as insulation (etc), or do I invest in an avenue that will recoup positive revenue for my family and home, such as getting a second job, given that the 'opportunity cost' of each is the same (measure that as you will)?

These are the kinds of decision that 'board members' (other than government ones) face every day....

Now - if I am a 'rich person' with all the avenues to minimise my tax and shuffle it off into other avenues and thus reap the benefit...  INCLUDING what I have already mentioned - the ability of the 'business' to offload its running costs that a family does not have...   how then do I decide which avenue for investment is the most appropriate to ensure the ongoing prosperity of myself AND those who do the work required to ensure that prospertity?

By playing 'the bottom line' at all times?

What you are arguing for here is a totally controlled economy, based on imposition, and not on free choice and market forces...

This is your dilemna.... without the input and social productivity of the ordinary person  = the worker, and the organisation itself, no organisation  as a whole can prosper...

The reality is that the prosperity of a company or a nation relies on the prosperity of its people..... and forcing those people to work for lesser conditions is NOT prosperity - it is slavery, and no slave works as well as a willing participant.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 6:36pm:

BigOl64 wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:55pm: John Smith wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:44pm: crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:32pm: Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for. really? I think that's a fallacy I used to see hundreds of tucks full or coal or ore going up and down Pircton Rd and Mt Ousley Rd every day on their way to the Port Kembla steelworks ... miners didn't pay for those roads although the trucks certainly caused the most damage on them. Sire, miners might build the roads (or rail) around the mine, but the ports or refineries they ship to are usually a long way away from the mines The miner will rail to a port before trucking it there you are talking millions of tonnes of product per year and as for the Port Kembla, I dare say it was the steelworks doing the trucking, not the miner. In some case they may use public roads, but it will be 'normal' trucks doing the work and they also get  tax concessions for fuel just like every other truckie in Aus. Depends on whether or not the excise exempt (generic name producer) fills the trucks.... dun'it?  I never got fuel excise privilege when I was operating commercially... though I got 'essential services' fuel when things were really bad.... Show me where truckies ordinaire get fuel excise exemption..... I've been out of the loop for a while.. but I thought they paid for excise at the pump like everyone else.

Did you not claim you fuel as a business expense?


I would assume it would be an operational expense therefore claimable.

BigOl64 wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 5:34am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 6:36pm: BigOl64 wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:55pm: John Smith wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:44pm: crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 1:32pm: Miners build their own roads or the fuel is used in fixed plant. It isn't a subsidy it is a rebate because they don't make use of the infrastructure that the tax was supposed to be raised for. really? I think that's a fallacy I used to see hundreds of tucks full or coal or ore going up and down Pircton Rd and Mt Ousley Rd every day on their way to the Port Kembla steelworks ... miners didn't pay for those roads although the trucks certainly caused the most damage on them. Sire, miners might build the roads (or rail) around the mine, but the ports or refineries they ship to are usually a long way away from the mines The miner will rail to a port before trucking it there you are talking millions of tonnes of product per year and as for the Port Kembla, I dare say it was the steelworks doing the trucking, not the miner. In some case they may use public roads, but it will be 'normal' trucks doing the work and they also get  tax concessions for fuel just like every other truckie in Aus. Depends on whether or not the excise exempt (generic name producer) fills the trucks.... dun'it?  I never got fuel excise privilege when I was operating commercially... though I got 'essential services' fuel when things were really bad.... Show me where truckies ordinaire get fuel excise exemption..... I've been out of the loop for a while.. but I thought they paid for excise at the pump like everyone else. Did you not claim you fuel as a business expense? I would assume it would be an operational expense therefore claimable.

Exactly the point I made earlier on. Swings and roundabouts.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 1:13am:

crocodile wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 11:58pm: Grapples, I see that you do not really understand productivity. That's OK, not so many really do. It is real and labour productivity has been growing steadily for about 200 years. You will find that productivity is no more than output divided by hours worked. That is, increased production per labour input. It is due entirely to the march of technology. It's easy to visualise. I can make the guy with a shovel more productive by buying him a bulldozer. I can tell you that labour productivity is due to investment in capital equipment or the tools that the workers use to produce the goods and services that we consume. Given that labour productivity continues to rise makes your assumption that business has stopped investment quite untrue. In fact with capital productivity falling while labour is growing simply means that each increment of labour productivity is provided by increasing capital cost. Basically, less bang for the buck per investment dollar. But hang on, labour productivity is growing. Therefore investment is still occurring but with higher financial impositions. That is the reason why wages growth is falling. Buy yourself a decent macro textbook. It's actually quite interesting. So now extend your reasoning to incorporate economic factors such as market forces, transport and such, costs of production..... and let us see why there is some argument over the cost of wages here and now.... 'investment' does NOT have to increase to incorporate increased labour productivity - all that is required is to establish a datum and then operate on that basis - and the problems begin when the market forces, including all costs of production and distribution, do not permit a profit under the existing approach. So - UNLESS there is major investment in genuine infrastructure, and not in short term fixes - there is no outcome other than destruction of the organism that generates opportunity for profit for both worker and investor - and thus ALL lose from declining productivity in inappropriate investment. As an example - if I run a household, and wish to make it more 'productive' - do I invest in passive  investments such as insulation (etc), or do I invest in an avenue that will recoup positive revenue for my family and home, such as getting a second job, given that the 'opportunity cost' of each is the same (measure that as you will)? These are the kinds of decision that 'board members' (other than government ones) face every day.... Now - if I am a 'rich person' with all the avenues to minimise my tax and shuffle it off into other avenues and thus reap the benefit...  INCLUDING what I have already mentioned - the ability of the 'business' to offload its running costs that a family does not have...   how then do I decide which avenue for investment is the most appropriate to ensure the ongoing prosperity of myself AND those who do the work required to ensure that prospertity? By playing 'the bottom line' at all times? What you are arguing for here is a totally controlled economy, based on imposition, and not on free choice and market forces... This is your dilemna.... without the input and social productivity of the ordinary person  = the worker, and the organisation itself, no organisation  as a whole can prosper... The reality is that the prosperity of a company or a nation relies on the prosperity of its people..... and forcing those people to work for lesser conditions is NOT prosperity - it is slavery, and no slave works as well as a willing participant.

Grapples, there are too many points to construct a simple answer. Firstly, you need to get the definition correct. You are determining output in terms of profit. That is not correct. Labour productivity is concerned only with the output of production per unit of labour input. Output of production is not profit, it is the actual goods and services.

Liken it to the guy with the shovel. He may dig a hole a day. With a bob cat he may dig 10 holes a day. His labour productivity has grown by a factor of 10.

John Smith wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

it's not about the rich or poor (at least that's what the politicians tell us), it's about he economy trickle down doesn't work trickle up does Give a rich person a tax cut, he may spend it, he may not ... 50/50 chance that if he does spend it, it'll go overseas give a poor person a tax cut and you can guarantee he'll spend every last cent and contribute towards economic growth

But then where is the incentive for the rich person to do well, when they just have to give up all their money for bludgers and others who don't work? Why should anyone strive to do well when they get nothing in pension and others who contributed less to the Australian economy get around $20000 a year?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 10:11pm:

another rich kid having a whinge.

No, raising a valid point about the lack of fairness towards the rich in our society.

tickleandrose wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 10:19pm:

matty wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 9:43pm: We all know that the left loves demonising the rich, but for the life of me I can't see why. The rich pay more taxes in a year than the dole bludgers ever pay, and that the working class pay in several years. Let's break it down into a very very simple example: Person A gets an education, goes to uni and becomes a successful (insert profession, insert anything). They pay their tax. Person B goes on drugs, gets a disability pension and pays no money. Person A pays the dole with his taxes, that goes to Person B. Person B is lauded as a hero, whilst Person A is condemned as a selfish, greedy rich bastard for having the temerity to actually want to save the money that he has earned himself through study and hard work. Nearly half of people in Australia today get their money from people like Person A. Meanwhile, Person A gets not a cent of money after he retires, despite paying more in taxes than the vast majority of others, despite getting no extra benefits than the likes of Person B. The problem is too, that both major parties now confirm to this view of thinking. How dare people want to put away money for their own retirement? Money that they have earned themselves through hard work? How selfish, how arrogant! In contrary to your extremist belief.  Not all people on disability support or the dole are druggies.  That is your fallacy.   Everyone of those who is on disability support still have to pay GST.   And those GSTs goes to fund person A's university course that made him a professional, and the hospital that helped bringing him into this world.   And the money will also be there if or when he suffers a series of unfortunate events that make him disabled in the future.  This is called a country, a community.

1. I never said all were. The bloke on Q & A was though.
2. Everybody pays the GST.

Vic wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:54am:

matty wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 9:43pm: We all know that the left loves demonising the rich, but for the life of me I can't see why. The rich pay more taxes in a year than the dole bludgers ever pay, and that the working class pay in several years. Let's break it down into a very very simple example: Person A gets an education, goes to uni and becomes a successful (insert profession, insert anything). They pay their tax. Person B goes on drugs, gets a disability pension and pays no money. Person A pays the dole with his taxes, that goes to Person B. Person B is lauded as a hero, whilst Person A is condemned as a selfish, greedy rich bastard for having the temerity to actually want to save the money that he has earned himself through study and hard work. Nearly half of people in Australia today get their money from people like Person A. Meanwhile, Person A gets not a cent of money after he retires, despite paying more in taxes than the vast majority of others, despite getting no extra benefits than the likes of Person B. The problem is too, that both major parties now confirm to this view of thinking. How dare people want to put away money for their own retirement? Money that they have earned themselves through hard work? How selfish, how arrogant! Person D bludges off his parents for his education and lifestyle.   Person D's parents put earnings in trust funds and overseas tax havens so that to the ATO they are only earning  25K a year. They then also claim all benefits they can from Centrelink, whilst driving the Audi to the supermarket.   Person D then berates the lower class for not paying enough tax, whilst being given a free ride throughout his life by the very people he turns his nose up at.

This is just garbage.

Here, ladies and gentlemen. Here is your "working class Aussie battler legend".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/broadcast/the-truth-about-my-father-duncan-storrar-the-q--a-hero/news-story/ecf8f9d4eebbd54f9899697053fb445b

matty wrote on May 19^th, 2016 at 1:28am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 10:11pm: another rich kid having a whinge. No, raising a valid point about the lack of fairness towards the rich in our society.

Let me get this right... the rich are disadvantaged?  So they need protection in recouping their millions from the poor?

I'm kinda lost here ....

matty wrote on May 19^th, 2016 at 1:31am:

Vic wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 8:54am: matty wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 9:43pm: We all know that the left loves demonising the rich, but for the life of me I can't see why. The rich pay more taxes in a year than the dole bludgers ever pay, and that the working class pay in several years. Let's break it down into a very very simple example: Person A gets an education, goes to uni and becomes a successful (insert profession, insert anything). They pay their tax. Person B goes on drugs, gets a disability pension and pays no money. Person A pays the dole with his taxes, that goes to Person B. Person B is lauded as a hero, whilst Person A is condemned as a selfish, greedy rich bastard for having the temerity to actually want to save the money that he has earned himself through study and hard work. Nearly half of people in Australia today get their money from people like Person A. Meanwhile, Person A gets not a cent of money after he retires, despite paying more in taxes than the vast majority of others, despite getting no extra benefits than the likes of Person B. The problem is too, that both major parties now confirm to this view of thinking. How dare people want to put away money for their own retirement? Money that they have earned themselves through hard work? How selfish, how arrogant! Person D bludges off his parents for his education and lifestyle.   Person D's parents put earnings in trust funds and overseas tax havens so that to the ATO they are only earning  25K a year. They then also claim all benefits they can from Centrelink, whilst driving the Audi to the supermarket.   Person D then berates the lower class for not paying enough tax, whilst being given a free ride throughout his life by the very people he turns his nose up at. This is just garbage.

Sounds right to me... I was one of the three highest IQs in my school  I'm only 67 but I have struggled and fought and worked form every iota of my existence.

Nobody ever gave me one thing.

No parent organised a private school education for me.... even though I was 'short-listed' for THE most prestigious school.

Now - I'd like someone to tell me how they - as the scions of some well-to-do family - somehow 'deserve' better than what anyone else with the same qualificataions and ability has.

I have a cousin - she was the only child - her parents owned their home, and had massive super etc... her husband was paying off his home.... she inherited the lot and married a 'clerk of the court' in NSW who is now a 'Deputy Commonwealth DPP' - without having done one thing of genuine value to this country......

SO!   TELL ME what is worth anything in his country?

I've flogged my guts out day and night for something better and have put in 18+ hours a day to do that......... and have been abused almost on daily basis, at every step of the way by the same kinds of people I am now discussing.

My ex - for whom I am 100% carer - is a descendant of the line of Miles Franklin.

What more does this country want from its people?

Let's cross the Rubicon..   I am a retired Major/acting Lieutenant Colonel in British 22 SAS... as an Australian I've  been seconded to operations in seven 'combat zones', including my personal 'shufti' ,meaning the issue I am most personally attached to - of a mission to liberate 're-education camps' near Saigon in 1978.

Those who know me know me, and I know what I know.

matty wrote on May 19^th, 2016 at 1:27am:

John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 9:51pm: it's not about the rich or poor (at least that's what the politicians tell us), it's about he economy trickle down doesn't work trickle up does Give a rich person a tax cut, he may spend it, he may not ... 50/50 chance that if he does spend it, it'll go overseas give a poor person a tax cut and you can guarantee he'll spend every last cent and contribute towards economic growth But then where is the incentive for the rich person to do well, when they just have to give up all their money for bludgers and others who don't work? Why should anyone strive to do well when they get nothing in pension and others who contributed less to the Australian economy get around $20000 a year?

If the poor fella gets a tax cut, the rich guy automatically gets one as well.

wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 8:05am:

The rich want more tax cuts.  Wait while I get my violin out.   :'(

I'm still waiting for the $550 that Abbott promised.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 6:22am:

John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 9:51pm: it's not about the rich or poor (at least that's what the politicians tell us), it's about he economy trickle down doesn't work trickle up does Give a rich person a tax cut, he may spend it, he may not ... 50/50 chance that if he does spend it, it'll go overseas give a poor person a tax cut and you can guarantee he'll spend every last cent and contribute towards economic growth Oh, you're so very wrong. Don't you remember what nearly everyone did with their $900 cheque's from Rudd (paid for out of borrowed money, by the way)? That's right, it either went into the bank as savings or was used to pay off bills. Virtually none of it went into buying a new TV or DVD player or computer or blender or clothes. It was saved or used to pay the rego.

Have you got the stats on that?
Are you saying that all the complaining, by RWNJs, about the money being spent on those flat screens, etc was lies?

Interesting....

Well said Froggie, yes where has the $550 a year gone?.  How about you Mr Turnbull, can you explain this?.   :( 

matty wrote on May 19^th, 2016 at 1:27am:

John Smith wrote on May 12th, 2016 at 9:51pm: it's not about the rich or poor (at least that's what the politicians tell us), it's about he economy trickle down doesn't work trickle up does Give a rich person a tax cut, he may spend it, he may not ... 50/50 chance that if he does spend it, it'll go overseas give a poor person a tax cut and you can guarantee he'll spend every last cent and contribute towards economic growth But then where is the incentive for the rich person to do well, when they just have to give up all their money for bludgers and others who don't work? Why should anyone strive to do well when they get nothing in pension and others who contributed less to the Australian economy get around $20000 a year?

What a load of rubbish. The incentive is still there to do well. Are saying that if you have the potential to make $200k, but the govt. taxes you $80k, the $120k balance isn't enough and you'll just go on the dole? this is the lamest excuse I've ever heard anyone give.

matty wrote on May 12^th, 2016 at 9:43pm:

We all know that the left loves demonising the rich, but for the life of me I can't see why. The rich pay more taxes in a year than the dole bludgers ever pay, and that the working class pay in several years. Let's break it down into a very very simple example: Person A gets an education, goes to uni and becomes a successful (insert profession, insert anything). They pay their tax. Person B goes on drugs, gets a disability pension and pays no money. Person A pays the dole with his taxes, that goes to Person B. Person B is lauded as a hero, whilst Person A is condemned as a selfish, greedy rich bastard for having the temerity to actually want to save the money that he has earned himself through study and hard work. Nearly half of people in Australia today get their money from people like Person A. Meanwhile, Person A gets not a cent of money after he retires, despite paying more in taxes than the vast majority of others, despite getting no extra benefits than the likes of Person B. The problem is too, that both major parties now confirm to this view of thinking. How dare people want to put away money for their own retirement? Money that they have earned themselves through hard work? How selfish, how arrogant!

I agree, Matty. Your parents keep their money in offshore real estate.

Why shouldn't we subsidize this? It's a net benefit to Australia.

You get to go to Dunedin and Rhode Island to avoid the carbon tax.