Labor with one eye over it's shoulder at it's heavy reliance on the Labor Left and the Greens is hellbent on the 50% Renewable Energy target and let the devil take tomorrow

Which, if Bill Shorten becomes Prime Minister the devil surely will

The recent heavy blasts of hot weather has shown just how feeble our national energy grid is

200,000 homes fell over in Victoria, one of, if not the most dependant State on renewable energy

Lefty critics were quick to blame aging Coal Energy areas for the shortfall

That is correct but it doesn't hold up if you put it under the magnifying glass

Labor States have been putting Coal energy to the sword for quite some time now. You can't have it both ways. If you allow older generating stations to fail and don't replace them with modern more efficient facilities then they will surely let you down when you require them to perform like Phar Lap

There will come the time..inevitable under Shorten when the national electricity  network will fold like a tent

Just hope all the lefties and greenies don't whinge when they have to live like the early settlers

Windmills and solar panels can't cut it, when the demand goes up a fraction

The national Energy market is in total chaos with coal companies unwilling to invest in a very uncertain future under Labor

Shorten will likely make his 50% but there will be many times in the long hot summer when we are sitting by candlelight and having cold showers

I suppose 0% renewable target is energy sanity.

red baron wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 1:37pm:

Labor with one eye over it's shoulder at it's heavy reliance on the Labor Left and the Greens is hellbent on the 50% Renewable Energy target and let the devil take tomorrow Which, if Bill Shorten becomes Prime Minister the devil surely will The recent heavy blasts of hot weather has shown just how feeble our national energy grid is 200,000 homes fell over in Victoria, one of, if not the most dependant State on renewable energy Lefty critics were quick to blame aging Coal Energy areas for the shortfall That is correct but it doesn't hold up if you put it under the magnifying glass Labor States have been putting Coal energy to the sword for quite some time now. You can't have it both ways. If you allow older generating stations to fail and don't replace them with modern more efficient facilities then they will surely let you down when you require them to perform like Phar Lap

New coal plants are more expensive than renewable energy. We passed that tipping point a few years ago.

The only reason old coal energy may appear cheap is the old energy generation facilities have depreciated long ago. A new coal-fired plant would be significantly more expensive. That's ignoring the added cost of cleaning up the emissions to modern standards and the possibility that such a plant cannot get financed at all.

As for reliability, it was the coal plants that failed, not the renewable generators.

If there's any failing on renewable energy, it's not the reliability. It's the storage of excess energy. Sometimes solar generates so much energy that surplus energy is simply lost. Adding more batteries to the grid can do a lot to mitigate this. It would have the side benefit of smoothing out supply and reducing peak prices.

But one thing is clear. Coal is not the answer. It is a moribund technology with its best days behind it.

Unfortunately Red fella, national energy is in a parlous state only because the current government have no energy policy at all. Without clarity of direction there will be subdued investment. Without necessary investment each state simply kludges together whatever will get them over the hump with little available money and forced sell offs.

Six Years and 14 energy policy variations and still we have no idea,  well apart from sky rocketing prices on account of this government,  that's the only certainty

I'm going 100% when we move oceanside... a system 25% more capacity than we use.... even when it's cloudy it will still produce enough...

There's not enough renewable energy !! If we had enough solar then the load imposed by the air-conditioners during the day would not be a problem because solar PV produces maximum power when there is maximum demand from air conditioners. It's a no-brainer !

Why are aussies so thick ?

Despite all the hot air from the gullible Globally Warmed Lefties the sun STILL won't shine at night AND the wind still won't blow all the time.

And the tiny white elephant Tesla battery in SA could only run the Tomago Aluminium smelter for a few minutes before exploding in huge sheets of flame and debris!!!!

In SA AND Vic both states ruined by the grossly incompetent Labor Govts the windymills conk out if it gets too hot and they hardly produced anything during the hot spell as the wind stopped because it was too hot.

Renewable energy has all the Labor hallmarks of another NeverBuiltNetwork written all over it.

Renewables can only ever be a Secondary Power source because it cannot be relied on to be there when needed.

The ONLY way renewables might be tolerated is if ALL industry in Australia was moved to Asia and Australia became a primitive agrarian society like something you would find in Africa.

But the THIS IS EXACTLY what the Extremist Greenies WANT TO HAPPEN and will be blackmailing Labor from the Senate to do exactly this.

SO DO NOT VOTE FOR the union and Extremist Greeny controlled Labor Party. If you do you will live to REGRET IT SEVERELY!!!!!

Bam wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 2:28pm:

New coal plants are more expensive than renewable energy. We passed that tipping point a few years ago.

Does that include the attendant battery back up? Figures would be nice; not just bland assertions.

Coalition going into the election without a climate policy and a socialist big stick energy policy.

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 11:11pm:

There's not enough renewable energy !! If we had enough solar then the load imposed by the air-conditioners during the day would not be a problem because solar PV produces maximum power when there is maximum demand from air conditioners. It's a no-brainer ! Why are aussies so thick ?

The trick with solar is to put some of the panels on west-facing rooftops to catch the afternoon sun. That's the time of the day when demand peaks.

My solar absolutely rocks,  10.40 credit last bill and I'm thrashing the air con

Love my solar power  :)

Its time wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 7:26pm:

My solar absolutely rocks,  10.40 credit last bill and I'm thrashing the air con Love my solar power  :)

You love your tax subsidy...

Frank wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 7:52pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 7:26pm: My solar absolutely rocks,  10.40 credit last bill and I'm thrashing the air con Love my solar power  :) You love your tax subsidy...

I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation,  let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment? 

Goodness me rtards and least get in a barrel instead of a thimble before I shoot you with 12 gauge

Its time wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 8:17pm:

I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation,  let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?

Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 9:48pm:

Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 8:17pm: I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation,  let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?  Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That's because it isn't a subsidy. It's a credit for tax already paid. The Neanderthals around here haven't quite worked it out yet.

Here is my political dilemma:

The global warming denial, do nothing policies of the Right, show they have their heads stuffed firmly up their arses.

The open border, universal income, defense-only military, and asylum policies of the Left, show they have their heads stuffed  firmly up their arses.

issuevoter wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 10:37pm:

The global warming denial, do nothing policies of the Right, show they have their heads stuffed firmly up their arses.

Which global warming denial would that be? I don't know of anyone who denies climate changes. And that includes both warming and cooling.

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 4:18pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 2:28pm: New coal plants are more expensive than renewable energy. We passed that tipping point a few years ago. Does that include the attendant battery back up? Figures would be nice; not just bland assertions.

Here you go dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-03/angus-taylor-energy-minister-power-price-solution-curious/10188496

Love my renewable energy,  solar power winner winner chicken dinner,  10.40 credit with air-con cranking . Free power all summer  :)

crocodile wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2019 at 10:12pm:

lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 9:48pm: Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 8:17pm: I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation,  let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?  Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That's because it isn't a subsidy. It's a credit for tax already paid. The Neanderthals around here haven't quite worked it out yet.

It's isn't sustainable because the amount of this rebate is growing quickly. Superannuation contributions are taxed at low rates and many self-funded retirees don't pay any tax at all. The country simply cannot afford to be having such a large number of people paying little or no tax and receiving tax refunds on taxes they aren't even paying while requiring access to expensive government-funded health and aged care. If they're not making a taxation contribution to the cost of their own care, who is?

It would be more sustainable to abolish the tax breaks and replace them with access to the aged pension, tax free. It would save a few billion a year, which can be spent on better services for the aged and an increase to the aged pension.

And yes, the scrapping of dividend imputation should be considered as well. The proceeds of that can be used to fund company tax cuts.

Doing all of that would bring savings through lower administration costs.

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 9:50am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 10:12pm: lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 9:48pm: Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 8:17pm: I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation,  let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?  Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That's because it isn't a subsidy. It's a credit for tax already paid. The Neanderthals around here haven't quite worked it out yet. It's isn't sustainable because the amount of this rebate is growing quickly. Superannuation contributions are taxed at low rates and many self-funded retirees don't pay any tax at all. The country simply cannot afford to be having such a large number of people paying little or no tax and receiving tax refunds on taxes they aren't even paying while requiring access to expensive government-funded health and aged care. If they're not making a taxation contribution to the cost of their own care, who is? It would be more sustainable to abolish the tax breaks and replace them with access to the aged pension, tax free. It would save a few billion a year, which can be spent on better services for the aged and an increase to the aged pension. And yes, the scrapping of dividend imputation should be considered as well. The proceeds of that can be used to fund company tax cuts. Doing all of that would bring savings through lower administration costs.

But they are paying tax on the dividend. The company paid it for them before distribution. No different to the company taking taxes out of your wages before distribution.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 7:22am:

Here you go dickhead!!!

Thanks fool.

"There is a caveat — because renewable energy sources are variable, there will be a future need for "balancing" or stabilising technologies to maintain adequate electricity supply 24/7 as the penetration of renewable energy increases.


But the cheapest way to do this, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator and most analysts, is a combination of battery storage (likely to fall in price as production scales up), pumped hydro and electricity from gas-fired power plants to meet peaks in demand — not coal."

No mention of cost, merely a hoped for decrease in battery prices. So not factored in.

BTW - If you were referring to this ""The lowest cost replacement for this retiring capacity and energy will be a portfolio of resources, including solar (28 gigawatts), wind (10.5 GW) and storage (17 GW and 90 GWh), complemented by 500 megawatts of flexible gas plant and transmission investment," it said."

That's talking about pumped storage and hydro, not batteries.

So the answer is a resounding NO. ;)

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 9:50am:

It would be more sustainable to abolish the tax breaks and replace them with access to the aged pension, tax free. It would save a few billion a year, which can be spent on better services for the aged and an increase to the aged pension.

Data?

crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 10:39am:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 9:50am: crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 10:12pm: lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 9:48pm: Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 8:17pm: I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation,  let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?  Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That's because it isn't a subsidy. It's a credit for tax already paid. The Neanderthals around here haven't quite worked it out yet. It's isn't sustainable because the amount of this rebate is growing quickly. Superannuation contributions are taxed at low rates and many self-funded retirees don't pay any tax at all. The country simply cannot afford to be having such a large number of people paying little or no tax and receiving tax refunds on taxes they aren't even paying while requiring access to expensive government-funded health and aged care. If they're not making a taxation contribution to the cost of their own care, who is? It would be more sustainable to abolish the tax breaks and replace them with access to the aged pension, tax free. It would save a few billion a year, which can be spent on better services for the aged and an increase to the aged pension. And yes, the scrapping of dividend imputation should be considered as well. The proceeds of that can be used to fund company tax cuts. Doing all of that would bring savings through lower administration costs. But they are paying tax on the dividend. The company paid it for them before distribution. No different to the company taking taxes out of your wages before distribution.

That is bullshit. Income taxes from employment cannot be negative. Refunds for dividend imputation can be.

It is a massive rort and shutting it down is needed to keep the Budget in check. If it isn't abolished how much will it cost the Budget in 20 years?

Bam wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 11:26am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 10:39am: Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 9:50am: crocodile wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 10:12pm: lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 9:48pm: Its time wrote on Feb 3rd, 2019 at 8:17pm: I recollect you opposing any changes to divedend imputation,  let's be consistent you want a subsidy for that but you oppose a subsidy to help out the environment?  Wow. Even St Paul of Keating never called dividend imputation a subsidy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D That's because it isn't a subsidy. It's a credit for tax already paid. The Neanderthals around here haven't quite worked it out yet. It's isn't sustainable because the amount of this rebate is growing quickly. Superannuation contributions are taxed at low rates and many self-funded retirees don't pay any tax at all. The country simply cannot afford to be having such a large number of people paying little or no tax and receiving tax refunds on taxes they aren't even paying while requiring access to expensive government-funded health and aged care. If they're not making a taxation contribution to the cost of their own care, who is? It would be more sustainable to abolish the tax breaks and replace them with access to the aged pension, tax free. It would save a few billion a year, which can be spent on better services for the aged and an increase to the aged pension. And yes, the scrapping of dividend imputation should be considered as well. The proceeds of that can be used to fund company tax cuts. Doing all of that would bring savings through lower administration costs. But they are paying tax on the dividend. The company paid it for them before distribution. No different to the company taking taxes out of your wages before distribution. That is bullshit. Income taxes from employment cannot be negative. Refunds for dividend imputation can be. It is a massive rort and shutting it down is needed to keep the Budget in check. If it isn't abolished how much will it cost the Budget in 20 years?

Just how are they negative. You're confused yet again.

It's just a money grab because Bill can't fund his give aways. Self evident by the fact that taxes aren't being reduced elsewhere. What happens next time these wastrel idiots run out of money. Works well for the French. They tax their citizens almost double to us with an array of personal, inheritance and consumption taxes. They haven't had a budget in the black for over 45 years. There's a good lesson there.

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 11:18am:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 7:22am: Here you go dickhead!!! Quote: "There is a caveat — because renewable energy sources are variable, there will be a future need for "balancing" or stabilising technologies to maintain adequate electricity supply 24/7 as the penetration of renewable energy increases. But the cheapest way to do this, according to the Australian Energy Market Operator and most analysts, is a combination of battery storage (likely to fall in price as production scales up), pumped hydro and electricity from gas-fired power plants to meet peaks in demand — not coal." "The lowest cost replacement for this retiring capacity and energy will be a portfolio of resources, including solar (28 gigawatts), wind (10.5 GW) and storage (17 GW and 90 GWh), complemented by 500 megawatts of flexible gas plant and transmission investment," it said." That's talking about pumped storage and hydro, not batteries.

There are two figures given for storage....What is the difference between pumped storage and hydro Dickhead!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 4:30pm:

There are two figures given for storage...

No Petal. There is only one set of figures. And there is no dollar cost.



philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 4:30pm:

What is the difference between pumped storage and hydro Dickhead!!!

Well you see phil not all hydro is pumped storage. That last one is for hydro whether pumped storage or simply free fall with no pumping back to the dam.

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 5:12pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 4:30pm: There are two figures given for storage... There is only one set of figures. And there is no dollar cost. There are two figures for storage and the analysis clearly considered battery storage and pumped hydro in it's cost analysis!!! Quote: storage (17 GW and 90 GWh) philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 4:30pm: What is the difference between pumped storage and hydro Dickhead!!! Well you see phil not all hydro is pumped storage. That last one is for hydro whether pumped storage or simply free fall with no pumping back to the dam.

Lee wrote....

Quote:

That's talking about pumped storage and hydro, not batteries.

Continuous hydro is not storage....Pumped hydro is storage along with batteries as the article stated....You are a dickhead mate!!!

::) ::) ::)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-03/angus-taylor-energy-minister-power-price-solution-curious/10188496

Ah yes. just skimmed the report.

"By 2040 under the Neutral scenario, the energy production from retired coal-fired generation is projected to be replacedwith about 28 GW of large-scale solar generation and nearly 10.5GW of wind generation(in addition to the 4.5GW already installed), complemented by over 17GW of new and existing storage capacity."

No mention of cost.

BTW- "Prices of electricity from new renewable energy projects are already far cheaper than the likely price from the new-generation coal plants some Coalition MPs want to see built."

In your ref it is not in quotes. Something that the ABC just inserted with no attribution. it doesn't get a mention in the report -

https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/ISP/2018/Integrated-System-Plan-2018_final.pdf

So in reality NOWHERE is it stated what the cost will be.

Batteries are the future!!!

::) ::) ::)

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ugc/articles/2018/07/17/declining-battery-storage-costs-raise-questions-about-the-role-of-natural-gas.html

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 6:12pm:

Batteries are the future!!!

Of course they are. What is the system cost? maintenance cost? replacement cost? Remanufacture cost? Associated toxic metals disposal cost?

BTW - By 2040 they will have retired 18.5GW of coal power and replaced it with 43GW of renewables excluding the storage.

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 6:22pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 6:12pm: Batteries are the future!!! Of course they are. What is the system cost? maintenance cost? replacement cost? Remanufacture cost? Associated toxic metals disposal cost?

Do you propose a carbon tax???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 6:30pm:

Do you propose a carbon tax???

I thought batteries were carbon neutral. ;)

Apart from manufacture, remanufacture, disposal.

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 6:32pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 6:30pm: Do you propose a carbon tax??? I thought batteries were carbon neutral. ;) Apart from manufacture, remanufacture, disposal.

Do you propose a carbon tax???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 6:12pm:

Batteries are the future!!! ::) ::) ::) https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ugc/articles/2018/07/17/declining-battery-storage-costs-raise-questions-about-the-role-of-natural-gas.html

HVDC has a future. Goes a long way to helping with storage.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 6:37pm:

Do you propose a carbon tax???

A tax on carbon? No.

A tax on Carbon Dioxide? No?

Who wants to tax plant food? Who wants to tax human exhalations?

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 7:06pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 6:37pm: Do you propose a carbon tax??? A tax on carbon? No. A tax on Carbon Dioxide? No? Who wants to tax plant food? Who wants to tax human exhalations?

As long as it was revenue neutral I wouldn't object.

crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

As long as it was revenue neutral I wouldn't object.

So no one claims the cost of collection?

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 7:18pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 7:14pm: As long as it was revenue neutral I wouldn't object. So no one claims the cost of collection?

Being neutral, one cost replaces one removed.

crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 8:52pm:

Being neutral, one cost replaces one removed.

So if the cost of collection is foregone, the collecting party (Government) is losing money.

Renewable energy is cheaper and less polluting than fossil fuel....The only way Australia can meet it's greenhouse emissions targets into the future is through renewable energy???

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 5:24pm:

lee wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 5:12pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 4:30pm: There are two figures given for storage... There is only one set of figures. And there is no dollar cost. There are two figures for storage and the analysis clearly considered battery storage and pumped hydro in it's cost analysis!!! Quote: storage (17 GW and 90 GWh) philperth2010 wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 4:30pm: What is the difference between pumped storage and hydro Dickhead!!! Well you see phil not all hydro is pumped storage. That last one is for hydro whether pumped storage or simply free fall with no pumping back to the dam. Lee wrote.... [quote]That's talking about pumped storage and hydro, not batteries.

Continuous hydro is not storage....Pumped hydro is storage along with batteries as the article stated....You are a dickhead mate!!!

::) ::) ::)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-03/angus-taylor-energy-minister-power-price-solution-curious/10188496[/quote]

Still got nothing???

:-? :-? :-?

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 11:36pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 8:52pm: Being neutral, one cost replaces one removed. So if the cost of collection is foregone, the collecting party (Government) is losing money.

When did the gummint ever pay for collection.

crocodile wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 12:32pm:

When did the gummint ever pay for collection.

You mean Public Servants work for free?

Collection also includes compliance and audit.

lee wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 1:27pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 5th, 2019 at 12:32pm: When did the gummint ever pay for collection. You mean Public Servants work for free? Collection also includes compliance and audit.

Never mind. You missed the point.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 5^th, 2019 at 11:48am:

Renewable energy is cheaper and less polluting than fossil fuel....The only way Australia can meet it's greenhouse emissions targets into the future is through renewable energy??? ::) ::) ::)

Also easier to build and to scale up.

crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 11:26am: Income taxes from employment cannot be negative. Refunds for dividend imputation can be. It is a massive rort and shutting it down is needed to keep the Budget in check. If it isn't abolished how much will it cost the Budget in 20 years? Just how are they negative. You're confused yet again.

These people are paying no tax yet receive tax refunds for taxes that are not even paid. It is functionally a negative income tax.


crocodile wrote on Feb 4^th, 2019 at 12:02pm:

It's just a money grab because Bill can't fund his give aways. Self evident by the fact that taxes aren't being reduced elsewhere. What happens next time these wastrel idiots run out of money. Works well for the French. They tax their citizens almost double to us with an array of personal, inheritance and consumption taxes. They haven't had a budget in the black for over 45 years. There's a good lesson there.

That's nothing but a pile of petulant whining.

This idea that taxes shouldn't be raised is right-wing neoliberal nonsense. That's the right-wing ratchet: cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes, then when that inevitably destroys the Budget by racking up massive deficits, cut services. Then repeat the cycle. If taxes have been cut too much, why shouldn't they be raised to repair the Budget?

Budget repair is needed to fix the Howard government's legacy of irresponsible profligacy. Why shouldn't the rich be targeted with some budget repair measures? They have hardly been touched by any permanent Budget cuts for over 20 years and it's about time they took their turn. This country urgently needs a Budget of cuts to inflict as much pain on the rich as the 2014 Budget inflicted on everyone else.

That doesn't mean Labor can't find places to cut the Coalition's wasteful spending. If they can't find $10 billion in cuts to the Coalition's most wasteful measures in the first Budget, they're not trying hard enough.
* Private health insurance rebate - this needs to be cut and capped to rein in unsustainable spending growth here.
* $440 million to GBR Foundation - this was a blatant handout to the Coalition's mates.
* $30 million to Foxtel. Really?
* $7 billion a year to job services networks. This can be cut by half or more due to massive waste, duplication and blatant rorting. Reinstate the CES with the remaining money.
* Indue card "trials". More waste that can go with no loss of amenity.
* Outsourcing government jobs to Serco and other for-profit corporations for more than it would cost to employ the workers directly.

All of these have one thing in common: corporate welfare. We shouldn't be paying so much taxpayers' money to private corporations. Cuts can easily be made here with no loss of services.

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 8:59am:

These people are paying no tax yet receive tax refunds for taxes that are not even paid. It is functionally a negative income tax.

Can you define "these people"?

Mum's and Dad's with a few hundred shares? The top end of town with hundreds of thousands of shares?

If the person receiving the dividend has a top rate of 42%, and the imputation is 30%, so that they pay an extra 12% on top; how does that become a "negative income tax"?

Bam wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 8:59am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 12:02pm: Bam wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 11:26am: Income taxes from employment cannot be negative. Refunds for dividend imputation can be. It is a massive rort and shutting it down is needed to keep the Budget in check. If it isn't abolished how much will it cost the Budget in 20 years? Just how are they negative. You're confused yet again. These people are paying no tax yet receive tax refunds for taxes that are not even paid. It is functionally a negative income tax. crocodile wrote on Feb 4th, 2019 at 12:02pm: It's just a money grab because Bill can't fund his give aways. Self evident by the fact that taxes aren't being reduced elsewhere. What happens next time these wastrel idiots run out of money. Works well for the French. They tax their citizens almost double to us with an array of personal, inheritance and consumption taxes. They haven't had a budget in the black for over 45 years. There's a good lesson there. That's nothing but a pile of petulant whining. This idea that taxes shouldn't be raised is right-wing neoliberal nonsense. That's the right-wing ratchet: cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes, then when that inevitably destroys the Budget by racking up massive deficits, cut services. Then repeat the cycle. If taxes have been cut too much, why shouldn't they be raised to repair the Budget? Budget repair is needed to fix the Howard government's legacy of irresponsible profligacy. Why shouldn't the rich be targeted with some budget repair measures? They have hardly been touched by any permanent Budget cuts for over 20 years and it's about time they took their turn. This country urgently needs a Budget of cuts to inflict as much pain on the rich as the 2014 Budget inflicted on everyone else. That doesn't mean Labor can't find places to cut the Coalition's wasteful spending. If they can't find $10 billion in cuts to the Coalition's most wasteful measures in the first Budget, they're not trying hard enough. * Private health insurance rebate - this needs to be cut and capped to rein in unsustainable spending growth here. * $440 million to GBR Foundation - this was a blatant handout to the Coalition's mates. * $30 million to Foxtel. Really? * $7 billion a year to job services networks. This can be cut by half or more due to massive waste, duplication and blatant rorting. Reinstate the CES with the remaining money. * Indue card "trials". More waste that can go with no loss of amenity. * Outsourcing government jobs to Serco and other for-profit corporations for more than it would cost to employ the workers directly. All of these have one thing in common: corporate welfare. We shouldn't be paying so much taxpayers' money to private corporations. Cuts can easily be made here with no loss of services.

Like I said. You're confused. They have paid tax. The company witheld it before passing on the earnings. No different from the company witholding tax on wages and then passing the rest on to Joe worker.


Don't forget the child care rebate while you're at it.

lee wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 1:18pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 8:59am: These people are paying no tax yet receive tax refunds for taxes that are not even paid. It is functionally a negative income tax. Can you define "these people"? Mum's and Dad's with a few hundred shares? The top end of town with hundreds of thousands of shares? If the person receiving the dividend has a top rate of 42%, and the imputation is 30%, so that they pay an extra 12% on top; how does that become a "negative income tax"?

Poor ol' Bam is confused. He doesn't seem to realise that the company has already paid tax on the earnings before distributing the profits. The idiocy of the plan is if the company passes on the dividend unfranked leaving the shareholder to sort out their own obligations, no tax to pay for those under the TFF. What a genius.