Gillard has announced a levy of .5% to fund the NDIS scheme .


http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16957956/gillard-set-to-announce-0-5-levy/

I personally don't mind paying a little extra for this type of service, especially if it can help a lot of my opponents on this forum, who will most likely complain about it.

Regardless of the merits of the scheme Smithy as advised many times on this forum by me, Rudd and Gillard Labor's buy now and pay later spending sprees, would be, in effect, future income tax increases. >:(

This has now come to fruition. >:(

The levy is required because the Govt since taking office has irresponsibly overspent by $271 Billion and climbing and has consistently failed to balance the budget despite an unpresendented mining boom.

Ironically the interest on this climbing debt (around at least $8 Billion per annum) would come close to covering the cost of the NDIS.

Now the minority that pays the majority of tax has to reach into its pocket yet again to pay the lion's share of Labor's fiscal irresponsibiliy and broken promises.  It is a sad and broken record.   :( :( :( :(

IMO the fairest option should a tax increase be required would be to increase the GST to cover not only this scheme but the whole health and education funding shortfalls.  This has not been mentioned by any side of politics to my knowledge, not even discussed.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but the medicare levy is paid by individual income taxpayers and not companies?

Personal income tax payers are a declining breed as a percentage of the population.  The baby boomers are retiring in droves and dropping off the list of income tax payers and the compounding burden of payment of Govt is falling upon fewer tax payers. :o

One of the reasons the GST (broad based tax) was introduced was due to the aging of the population issue and the problems this would have for the budget. :-/

I predict that all taxes will rise no matter who gets into power
to pay for Labor's debt.

This 0.5% levy is just the first one.

no matter what you think of the worth you do have to be gobsmacked by another example of Gillards idiotic political strategy thinking.  a TAX increase is hardly something to garner votes.  Thats another 5 seats for the coalition.  Perhaps the prediction of a 100 seat majority is not that out of contention?

Bobby. wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 10:57am:

I predict that all taxes will rise no matter who gets into power to pay for Labor's debt.

The problem with increasing taxes especially in a fiscal downturn is the disincentive effect that it has on spending.  As the Laffer theory claims that increasing taxes can sometimes ironically lead to decreased tax revenues due to reduced economic activity and less profitability.

A GST increase would have the same impact.

That's why the Productivity Commission did not recommend increasing taxes to pay for the NDIS.

Swagman wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 11:22am:

Bobby. wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:57am: I predict that all taxes will rise no matter who gets into power to pay for Labor's debt. The problem with increasing taxes especially in a fiscal downturn is the disincentive effect that it has on spending.  As the Laffer theory claims that increasing taxes can sometimes ironically lead to decreased tax revenues due to reduced economic activity and less profitability. A GST increase would have the same impact. That's why the Productivity Commission did not recommend increasing taxes to pay for the NDIS.

but a GST increase that removed payroll tax and stamp duty and a few other govt charges and was effectively revenue neutral or near enough could increase economic activity in a small way as well as preserve govt revenues in the future. The GST was originally revenue neutral but has grown to be a notable supplier of funds

That's a drop in the bucket. If she was smart she should really have raised it more than double what it is now. That way the dental health scheme could have been funded with hopefully more productive outcomes for the broader community.

Take a larger burden off the general budget for health needs through a set tariff that everyone pays - no matter what your income is. then  there is no need to get state gov ratification to increase the GST - which is what we really need instead - a GST of around 15%. Let those with money to spend be the ones who pay the taxes..................... Those without are cared for...

It would have to be revenue positive or else there'd be no point.

I favour a GST increase because the funding burden is spread.

IMO GST (increases / decreases) would be a more effective means of monetary policy anyway and should be used in lieu of interest rate movements.  The downside is the admin of such policy would be difficult as systems are geared for a fixed percentage but the IT gurus should be able to work that out in this day and age.

Politicians of both sides are scared schitless about even talking about increasing the GST so I expect it will not happen and the minority that pay the majority of tax will continue to get shafted.... :(

Swagman wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 10:53am:

Regardless of the merits of the scheme Smithy as advised many times on this forum by me, Rudd and Gillard Labor's buy now and pay later spending sprees, would be, in effect, future income tax increases. >:( This has now come to fruition. >:( The levy is required because the Govt since taking office has irresponsibly overspent by $271 Billion and climbing and has consistently failed to balance the budget despite an unpresendented mining boom. Ironically the interest on this climbing debt (around at least $8 Billion per annum) would come close to covering the cost of the NDIS. Now the minority that pays the majority of tax has to reach into its pocket yet again to pay the lion's share of Labor's fiscal irresponsibiliy and broken promises.  It is a sad and broken record.   :( :( :( :( IMO the fairest option should a tax increase be required would be to increase the GST to cover not only this scheme but the whole health and education funding shortfalls.  This has not been mentioned by any side of politics to my knowledge, not even discussed. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but the medicare levy is paid by individual income taxpayers and not companies? Personal income tax payers are a declining breed as a percentage of the population.  The baby boomers are retiring in droves and dropping off the list of income tax payers and the compounding burden of payment of Govt is falling upon fewer tax payers. :o One of the reasons the GST (broad based tax) was introduced was due to the aging of the population issue and the problems this would have for the budget. :-/

Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed)

your right. but at least this way we get to actually predetermine through proxy anyway, where the levy raised is spent.   I'd like to see a future LIb gov try and turn this one into just another form of gov revenue raising......  :)

it's not just that they are poo scared of it though, it would be nigh on impossible to actually have alllt eh states agree to raising the GST percentage.  Political hari kari

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 3:02pm:

Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:53am: Regardless of the merits of the scheme Smithy as advised many times on this forum by me, Rudd and Gillard Labor's buy now and pay later spending sprees, would be, in effect, future income tax increases. >:( This has now come to fruition. >:( The levy is required because the Govt since taking office has irresponsibly overspent by $271 Billion and climbing and has consistently failed to balance the budget despite an unpresendented mining boom. Ironically the interest on this climbing debt (around at least $8 Billion per annum) would come close to covering the cost of the NDIS. Now the minority that pays the majority of tax has to reach into its pocket yet again to pay the lion's share of Labor's fiscal irresponsibiliy and broken promises.  It is a sad and broken record.   :( :( :( :( IMO the fairest option should a tax increase be required would be to increase the GST to cover not only this scheme but the whole health and education funding shortfalls.  This has not been mentioned by any side of politics to my knowledge, not even discussed. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but the medicare levy is paid by individual income taxpayers and not companies? Personal income tax payers are a declining breed as a percentage of the population.  The baby boomers are retiring in droves and dropping off the list of income tax payers and the compounding burden of payment of Govt is falling upon fewer tax payers. :o One of the reasons the GST (broad based tax) was introduced was due to the aging of the population issue and the problems this would have for the budget. :-/ Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed)

And that is just one of the many many many taxes that companies dont pay  __ but they still DEMAND and GET equal status before the LAW in this country.

I say if the (not they, corps aren't a "they") corps want equal representation before the LAW then they should have to take up the same amount of taxation burden. ie pay the same rates of tax a human wage slave does..... and comply with the same moral and ethical obligations - not just the legal obligations that are reluctantly foisted upon them in a crippled half-arsed way so they don't really do anything....... eg the mining tax

Dooley wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 3:07pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:53am: Regardless of the merits of the scheme Smithy as advised many times on this forum by me, Rudd and Gillard Labor's buy now and pay later spending sprees, would be, in effect, future income tax increases. >:( This has now come to fruition. >:( The levy is required because the Govt since taking office has irresponsibly overspent by $271 Billion and climbing and has consistently failed to balance the budget despite an unpresendented mining boom. Ironically the interest on this climbing debt (around at least $8 Billion per annum) would come close to covering the cost of the NDIS. Now the minority that pays the majority of tax has to reach into its pocket yet again to pay the lion's share of Labor's fiscal irresponsibiliy and broken promises.  It is a sad and broken record.   :( :( :( :( IMO the fairest option should a tax increase be required would be to increase the GST to cover not only this scheme but the whole health and education funding shortfalls.  This has not been mentioned by any side of politics to my knowledge, not even discussed. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but the medicare levy is paid by individual income taxpayers and not companies? Personal income tax payers are a declining breed as a percentage of the population.  The baby boomers are retiring in droves and dropping off the list of income tax payers and the compounding burden of payment of Govt is falling upon fewer tax payers. :o One of the reasons the GST (broad based tax) was introduced was due to the aging of the population issue and the problems this would have for the budget. :-/ Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) And that is just one of the many many many taxes that companies dont pay  __ but they still DEMAND and GET equal status before the LAW in this country. I say if the (not they, corps aren't a "they") corps want equal representation before the LAW then they should have to take up the same amount of taxation burden. ie pay the same rates of tax a human wage slave does..... and comply with the same moral and ethical obligations - not just the legal obligations that are reluctantly foisted upon them in a crippled half-arsed way so they don't really do anything....... eg the mining tax

I think there should be no difference between companies and a private individual, tax rates should be the same for both, and any liability of the company should fall onto it's board of directors. I'm sick of hearing of companies going bust, subbies and suppliers going broke, and the directors get to start another company in another name from the luxury of his waterfront mansion.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 3:02pm:

Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed)

Yes there is that but they won't pay Gillard's levy either.

Don't forget pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists pay the GST too.... :)

Swagman wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 4:19pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) Yes there is that but they won't pay Gillard's levy either. Don't forget pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists pay the GST too.... :)

you will never cover everybody .. there is always an element that misses out ... Pre GST , if I quoted $3000 to paint a house (an example that does not reflect any deals I may or may not have made), I would offer a discount of $300 for cash (off the books), after GST was introduced, I still charged $3000 , but this time I would offer to forget the GST for a cash deal.  Thanks Howard for giving me an option to discounting. I got to pretend I was offering a discount, without really offering one. Increasing the GST only makes it more appealing to make more off the book deals.  And the people most likely to take advantage of the off the book deals are pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists .

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 4:56pm:

Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 4:19pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) Yes there is that but they won't pay Gillard's levy either. Don't forget pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists pay the GST too.... :) you will never cover everybody .. there is always an element that misses out ... Pre GST , if I quoted $3000 to paint a house (an example that does not reflect any deals I may or may not have made), I would offer a discount of $300 for cash (off the books), after GST was introduced, I still charged $3000 , but this time I would offer to forget the GST for a cash deal.  Thanks Howard for giving me an option to discounting. I got to pretend I was offering a discount, without really offering one. Increasing the GST only makes it more appealing to make more off the book deals.  And the people most likely to take advantage of the off the book deals are pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists .

the point was that you still ahve to buy paint and other items and GST is captured at that point. There will always be maggots like you seeking to rip off the system but GST reduces your options.

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 5:01pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 4:56pm: Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 4:19pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) Yes there is that but they won't pay Gillard's levy either. Don't forget pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists pay the GST too.... :) you will never cover everybody .. there is always an element that misses out ... Pre GST , if I quoted $3000 to paint a house (an example that does not reflect any deals I may or may not have made), I would offer a discount of $300 for cash (off the books), after GST was introduced, I still charged $3000 , but this time I would offer to forget the GST for a cash deal.  Thanks Howard for giving me an option to discounting. I got to pretend I was offering a discount, without really offering one. Increasing the GST only makes it more appealing to make more off the book deals.  And the people most likely to take advantage of the off the book deals are pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists . the point was that you still ahve to buy paint and other items and GST is captured at that point. There will always be maggots like you seeking to rip off the system but GST reduces your options.

no it is not, the GST payed on that paint will be written off for another job and the GST claimed back anyway.

By the way, what makes you think I give a bugger what you think??

Swagman wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 1:12pm:

It would have to be revenue positive or else there'd be no point. I favour a GST increase because the funding burden is spread. IMO GST (increases / decreases) would be a more effective means of monetary policy anyway and should be used in lieu of interest rate movements.  The downside is the admin of such policy would be difficult as systems are geared for a fixed percentage but the IT gurus should be able to work that out in this day and age. Politicians of both sides are scared schitless about even talking about increasing the GST so I expect it will not happen and the minority that pay the majority of tax will continue to get shafted.... :(

why shoudl the tax burden increase? spending is the problem not revenue. the GST taking the place of iniquitous taxes such as payroll tax and stamp duty would be a stimulus to industry and have a flowon effect in productivity instead of via tax increases.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 3:02pm:

Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:53am: Regardless of the merits of the scheme Smithy as advised many times on this forum by me, Rudd and Gillard Labor's buy now and pay later spending sprees, would be, in effect, future income tax increases. >:( This has now come to fruition. >:( The levy is required because the Govt since taking office has irresponsibly overspent by $271 Billion and climbing and has consistently failed to balance the budget despite an unpresendented mining boom. Ironically the interest on this climbing debt (around at least $8 Billion per annum) would come close to covering the cost of the NDIS. Now the minority that pays the majority of tax has to reach into its pocket yet again to pay the lion's share of Labor's fiscal irresponsibiliy and broken promises.  It is a sad and broken record.   :( :( :( :( IMO the fairest option should a tax increase be required would be to increase the GST to cover not only this scheme but the whole health and education funding shortfalls.  This has not been mentioned by any side of politics to my knowledge, not even discussed. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but the medicare levy is paid by individual income taxpayers and not companies? Personal income tax payers are a declining breed as a percentage of the population.  The baby boomers are retiring in droves and dropping off the list of income tax payers and the compounding burden of payment of Govt is falling upon fewer tax payers. :o One of the reasons the GST (broad based tax) was introduced was due to the aging of the population issue and the problems this would have for the budget. :-/ Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed)

that is to avoid the add-on effect. without this, any single product could have GST added on at every stage of manufacture marketing and sale therefore making some products more tax that any other component. GST is the tax that companies dont pay but every owner or employee of said company does.

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 6:02pm:

Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 1:12pm: It would have to be revenue positive or else there'd be no point. I favour a GST increase because the funding burden is spread. IMO GST (increases / decreases) would be a more effective means of monetary policy anyway and should be used in lieu of interest rate movements.  The downside is the admin of such policy would be difficult as systems are geared for a fixed percentage but the IT gurus should be able to work that out in this day and age. Politicians of both sides are scared schitless about even talking about increasing the GST so I expect it will not happen and the minority that pay the majority of tax will continue to get shafted.... :( why shoudl the tax burden increase? spending is the problem not revenue. the GST taking the place of iniquitous taxes such as payroll tax and stamp duty would be a stimulus to industry and have a flowon effect in productivity instead of via tax increases.

I agree, stop wasting money propping up private corporations and we'd have plenty of money ..

no more money for private schools, private hospitals, no subsidising the mining industry, no giving tax breaks to millionaires .

Dooley wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 3:07pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:53am: Regardless of the merits of the scheme Smithy as advised many times on this forum by me, Rudd and Gillard Labor's buy now and pay later spending sprees, would be, in effect, future income tax increases. >:( This has now come to fruition. >:( The levy is required because the Govt since taking office has irresponsibly overspent by $271 Billion and climbing and has consistently failed to balance the budget despite an unpresendented mining boom. Ironically the interest on this climbing debt (around at least $8 Billion per annum) would come close to covering the cost of the NDIS. Now the minority that pays the majority of tax has to reach into its pocket yet again to pay the lion's share of Labor's fiscal irresponsibiliy and broken promises.  It is a sad and broken record.   :( :( :( :( IMO the fairest option should a tax increase be required would be to increase the GST to cover not only this scheme but the whole health and education funding shortfalls.  This has not been mentioned by any side of politics to my knowledge, not even discussed. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but the medicare levy is paid by individual income taxpayers and not companies? Personal income tax payers are a declining breed as a percentage of the population.  The baby boomers are retiring in droves and dropping off the list of income tax payers and the compounding burden of payment of Govt is falling upon fewer tax payers. :o One of the reasons the GST (broad based tax) was introduced was due to the aging of the population issue and the problems this would have for the budget. :-/ Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) And that is just one of the many many many taxes that companies dont pay  __ but they still DEMAND and GET equal status before the LAW in this country. I say if the (not they, corps aren't a "they") corps want equal representation before the LAW then they should have to take up the same amount of taxation burden. ie pay the same rates of tax a human wage slave does..... and comply with the same moral and ethical obligations - not just the legal obligations that are reluctantly foisted upon them in a crippled half-arsed way so they don't really do anything....... eg the mining tax

lefty wank... nothing new here.

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 6:05pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:53am: Regardless of the merits of the scheme Smithy as advised many times on this forum by me, Rudd and Gillard Labor's buy now and pay later spending sprees, would be, in effect, future income tax increases. >:( This has now come to fruition. >:( The levy is required because the Govt since taking office has irresponsibly overspent by $271 Billion and climbing and has consistently failed to balance the budget despite an unpresendented mining boom. Ironically the interest on this climbing debt (around at least $8 Billion per annum) would come close to covering the cost of the NDIS. Now the minority that pays the majority of tax has to reach into its pocket yet again to pay the lion's share of Labor's fiscal irresponsibiliy and broken promises.  It is a sad and broken record.   :( :( :( :( IMO the fairest option should a tax increase be required would be to increase the GST to cover not only this scheme but the whole health and education funding shortfalls.  This has not been mentioned by any side of politics to my knowledge, not even discussed. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but the medicare levy is paid by individual income taxpayers and not companies? Personal income tax payers are a declining breed as a percentage of the population.  The baby boomers are retiring in droves and dropping off the list of income tax payers and the compounding burden of payment of Govt is falling upon fewer tax payers. :o One of the reasons the GST (broad based tax) was introduced was due to the aging of the population issue and the problems this would have for the budget. :-/ Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) that is to avoid the add-on effect. without this, any single product could have GST added on at every stage of manufacture marketing and sale therefore making some products more tax that any other component. GST is the tax that companies dont pay but every owner or employee of said company does.

wrong, GST is the tax that the consumer pays.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 4:05pm:

Dooley wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:07pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:53am: Regardless of the merits of the scheme Smithy as advised many times on this forum by me, Rudd and Gillard Labor's buy now and pay later spending sprees, would be, in effect, future income tax increases. >:( This has now come to fruition. >:( The levy is required because the Govt since taking office has irresponsibly overspent by $271 Billion and climbing and has consistently failed to balance the budget despite an unpresendented mining boom. Ironically the interest on this climbing debt (around at least $8 Billion per annum) would come close to covering the cost of the NDIS. Now the minority that pays the majority of tax has to reach into its pocket yet again to pay the lion's share of Labor's fiscal irresponsibiliy and broken promises.  It is a sad and broken record.   :( :( :( :( IMO the fairest option should a tax increase be required would be to increase the GST to cover not only this scheme but the whole health and education funding shortfalls.  This has not been mentioned by any side of politics to my knowledge, not even discussed. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but the medicare levy is paid by individual income taxpayers and not companies? Personal income tax payers are a declining breed as a percentage of the population.  The baby boomers are retiring in droves and dropping off the list of income tax payers and the compounding burden of payment of Govt is falling upon fewer tax payers. :o One of the reasons the GST (broad based tax) was introduced was due to the aging of the population issue and the problems this would have for the budget. :-/ Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) And that is just one of the many many many taxes that companies dont pay  __ but they still DEMAND and GET equal status before the LAW in this country. I say if the (not they, corps aren't a "they") corps want equal representation before the LAW then they should have to take up the same amount of taxation burden. ie pay the same rates of tax a human wage slave does..... and comply with the same moral and ethical obligations - not just the legal obligations that are reluctantly foisted upon them in a crippled half-arsed way so they don't really do anything....... eg the mining tax I think there should be no difference between companies and a private individual, tax rates should be the same for both, and any liability of the company should fall onto it's board of directors. I'm sick of hearing of companies going bust, subbies and suppliers going broke, and the directors get to start another company in another name from the luxury of his waterfront mansion.

despite the rhetoric, most company failures are nothing at all like that. small business owners lose their house, car and future and have to start again from scratch. Yes, there are som scum that rort the law but thats a different issue.

the real problem with taxing companies the same as individuals is that the tax scales are puny. virtual every company would be paying the top marginal rate. not a lot of point in haveing a marginal system then. you might as well just increase company tax to 47%

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 6:08pm:

you might as well just increase company tax to 47%

nothing wrong with that. ...


longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 6:08pm:

most company failures are nothing at all like that.

i guess that depends on if you ever worked in the building Industry or not  ... do you know it is expected that you will work for a builder who will go bust at some point during your career as a tradie .... and yet the builder rarely loses anything, keeps his money (usually all in his wifes name at this point) and starts again down the road.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 10:05am:

Gillard has announced a levy of .5% to fund the NDIS scheme . http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16957956/gillard-set-to-announce-0-5-levy/ I personally don't mind paying a little extra for this type of service, especially if it can help a lot of my opponents on this forum, who will most likely complain about it.

How about ALP repairing the MMRT so not only individual will pay, our ore can also fund the disabled.

And while we are at it, lets decrease future Australians with disabilities by closing down Labor's concentration camp on Manus.

____ wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 6:13pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:05am: Gillard has announced a levy of .5% to fund the NDIS scheme . http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16957956/gillard-set-to-announce-0-5-levy/ I personally don't mind paying a little extra for this type of service, especially if it can help a lot of my opponents on this forum, who will most likely complain about it. How about ALP repairing the MMRT so not only individual will pay, our ore can also fund the disabled. And while we are at it, lets decrease future Australians with disabilities by closing down Labor's concentration camp on Manus.

Sure, I'd be in that,

by the way, I wasn't paying attention at the time, so maybe you can provide an answer, did the greens support the original propsal for the MMRT put forward by labor?

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 6:18pm:

____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:05am: Gillard has announced a levy of .5% to fund the NDIS scheme . http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16957956/gillard-set-to-announce-0-5-levy/ I personally don't mind paying a little extra for this type of service, especially if it can help a lot of my opponents on this forum, who will most likely complain about it. How about ALP repairing the MMRT so not only individual will pay, our ore can also fund the disabled. And while we are at it, lets decrease future Australians with disabilities by closing down Labor's concentration camp on Manus. Sure, I'd be in that, by the way, I wasn't paying attention at the time, so maybe you can provide an answer, did the greens support the original propsal for the MMRT put forward by labor?

The Australian Greens made a last ditch bid have the tax rate increased to 40 per cent.

Another Greens amendment to apply the tax to gold, uranium and rare earth minerals.

Yes we passed an inferior MRRT, yet we haven't given up on fixing Labor's mistakes.

If Labor had listened to the Greens, Labor's black hole would not be so so deep and the NDIS would not have been such a hard sell.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 5:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 5:01pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 4:56pm: Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 4:19pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) Yes there is that but they won't pay Gillard's levy either. Don't forget pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists pay the GST too.... :) you will never cover everybody .. there is always an element that misses out ... Pre GST , if I quoted $3000 to paint a house (an example that does not reflect any deals I may or may not have made), I would offer a discount of $300 for cash (off the books), after GST was introduced, I still charged $3000 , but this time I would offer to forget the GST for a cash deal.  Thanks Howard for giving me an option to discounting. I got to pretend I was offering a discount, without really offering one. Increasing the GST only makes it more appealing to make more off the book deals.  And the people most likely to take advantage of the off the book deals are pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists . the point was that you still ahve to buy paint and other items and GST is captured at that point. There will always be maggots like you seeking to rip off the system but GST reduces your options. no it is not, the GST payed on that paint will be written off for another job and the GST claimed back anyway. By the way, what makes you think I give a bugger what you think??

When you spend your cash you will pay the GST though like everyone else.  On those items that are not exempt that is. 

____ wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 6:26pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:18pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:05am: Gillard has announced a levy of .5% to fund the NDIS scheme . http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16957956/gillard-set-to-announce-0-5-levy/ I personally don't mind paying a little extra for this type of service, especially if it can help a lot of my opponents on this forum, who will most likely complain about it. How about ALP repairing the MMRT so not only individual will pay, our ore can also fund the disabled. And while we are at it, lets decrease future Australians with disabilities by closing down Labor's concentration camp on Manus. Sure, I'd be in that, by the way, I wasn't paying attention at the time, so maybe you can provide an answer, did the greens support the original propsal for the MMRT put forward by labor? The Australian Greens made a last ditch bid have the tax rate increased to 40 per cent. Another Greens amendment to apply the tax to gold, uranium and rare earth minerals. Yes we passed an inferior MRRT, yet we haven't given up on fixing Labor's mistakes. If Labor had listened to the Greens, Labor's black hole would not be so so deep and the NDIS would not have been such a hard sell.

you didn't answer the question .... I don't care about what the greens wanted, I asked if they supported labors original bill?

Swagman wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 7:23pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 5:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 5:01pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 4:56pm: Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 4:19pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) Yes there is that but they won't pay Gillard's levy either. Don't forget pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists pay the GST too.... :) you will never cover everybody .. there is always an element that misses out ... Pre GST , if I quoted $3000 to paint a house (an example that does not reflect any deals I may or may not have made), I would offer a discount of $300 for cash (off the books), after GST was introduced, I still charged $3000 , but this time I would offer to forget the GST for a cash deal.  Thanks Howard for giving me an option to discounting. I got to pretend I was offering a discount, without really offering one. Increasing the GST only makes it more appealing to make more off the book deals.  And the people most likely to take advantage of the off the book deals are pros, pimps, drug dealers, hawkers, buskers, O/S tourists . the point was that you still ahve to buy paint and other items and GST is captured at that point. There will always be maggots like you seeking to rip off the system but GST reduces your options. no it is not, the GST payed on that paint will be written off for another job and the GST claimed back anyway. By the way, what makes you think I give a bugger what you think?? When you spend your cash you will pay the GST though like everyone else.  On those items that are not exempt that is.

yes but thats me personally, not the company.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 7:39pm:

____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:26pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:18pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:05am: Gillard has announced a levy of .5% to fund the NDIS scheme . http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16957956/gillard-set-to-announce-0-5-levy/ I personally don't mind paying a little extra for this type of service, especially if it can help a lot of my opponents on this forum, who will most likely complain about it. How about ALP repairing the MMRT so not only individual will pay, our ore can also fund the disabled. And while we are at it, lets decrease future Australians with disabilities by closing down Labor's concentration camp on Manus. Sure, I'd be in that, by the way, I wasn't paying attention at the time, so maybe you can provide an answer, did the greens support the original propsal for the MMRT put forward by labor? The Australian Greens made a last ditch bid have the tax rate increased to 40 per cent. Another Greens amendment to apply the tax to gold, uranium and rare earth minerals. Yes we passed an inferior MRRT, yet we haven't given up on fixing Labor's mistakes. If Labor had listened to the Greens, Labor's black hole would not be so so deep and the NDIS would not have been such a hard sell. you didn't answer the question .... I don't care about what the greens wanted, I asked if they supported labors original bill?

We voted for it in it's weak ALP form so it can be fixed afterwards.


Why is Labor refusing to bring NDIS to parliament now since it will be passed before the election.

Is Labor hiding behind the disabled, hoping the election whack against them may not be so hard.

If so, Labor is gutless.

The point being that it would not have been collected pre-GST.

At least 10c in the dollar is scooped up where otherwise it would not.

Perhaps everything in the budget should be paid for by individual levies.

Then give the public the right to choose which funds they will pay into until their tax debt is paid.

That would be a pretty democratic system.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 6:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:02pm: Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 1:12pm: It would have to be revenue positive or else there'd be no point. I favour a GST increase because the funding burden is spread. IMO GST (increases / decreases) would be a more effective means of monetary policy anyway and should be used in lieu of interest rate movements.  The downside is the admin of such policy would be difficult as systems are geared for a fixed percentage but the IT gurus should be able to work that out in this day and age. Politicians of both sides are scared schitless about even talking about increasing the GST so I expect it will not happen and the minority that pay the majority of tax will continue to get shafted.... :( why shoudl the tax burden increase? spending is the problem not revenue. the GST taking the place of iniquitous taxes such as payroll tax and stamp duty would be a stimulus to industry and have a flowon effect in productivity instead of via tax increases. I agree, stop wasting money propping up private corporations and we'd have plenty of money .. no more money for private schools, private hospitals, no subsidising the mining industry, no giving tax breaks to millionaires .

an extra $10B per year needed to fund the ex-private schools... and extra $20B to build new public hospitals and lose $40B a year in mining taxes ar royalties from miners who largely move elsewhere.  and thos millionaires will just move to other countries and take their businesses with them.

terrific idea, numbskull

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 6:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:05pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:53am: Regardless of the merits of the scheme Smithy as advised many times on this forum by me, Rudd and Gillard Labor's buy now and pay later spending sprees, would be, in effect, future income tax increases. >:( This has now come to fruition. >:( The levy is required because the Govt since taking office has irresponsibly overspent by $271 Billion and climbing and has consistently failed to balance the budget despite an unpresendented mining boom. Ironically the interest on this climbing debt (around at least $8 Billion per annum) would come close to covering the cost of the NDIS. Now the minority that pays the majority of tax has to reach into its pocket yet again to pay the lion's share of Labor's fiscal irresponsibiliy and broken promises.  It is a sad and broken record.   :( :( :( :( IMO the fairest option should a tax increase be required would be to increase the GST to cover not only this scheme but the whole health and education funding shortfalls.  This has not been mentioned by any side of politics to my knowledge, not even discussed. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but the medicare levy is paid by individual income taxpayers and not companies? Personal income tax payers are a declining breed as a percentage of the population.  The baby boomers are retiring in droves and dropping off the list of income tax payers and the compounding burden of payment of Govt is falling upon fewer tax payers. :o One of the reasons the GST (broad based tax) was introduced was due to the aging of the population issue and the problems this would have for the budget. :-/ Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) that is to avoid the add-on effect. without this, any single product could have GST added on at every stage of manufacture marketing and sale therefore making some products more tax that any other component. GST is the tax that companies dont pay but every owner or employee of said company does. wrong, GST is the tax that the consumer pays.

no I was right. every owner and employee is a CONSUMER and therefore pays GST at the end of the chain.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 6:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:08pm: you might as well just increase company tax to 47% nothing wrong with that. ... longweekend58 wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:08pm: most company failures are nothing at all like that. i guess that depends on if you ever worked in the building Industry or not  ... do you know it is expected that you will work for a builder who will go bust at some point during your career as a tradie .... and yet the builder rarely loses anything, keeps his money (usually all in his wifes name at this point) and starts again down the road.

yeah im sure that will really bolster the economy and employment. where do you get your stupid ideas from?

miketrees wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 7:54pm:

Perhaps everything in the budget should be paid for by individual levies. Then give the public the right to choose which funds they will pay into until their tax debt is paid. That would be a pretty democratic system.

Except that the top 25% of tax payers pay for around 65% of Govt.

longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 8:43pm:

terrific idea, numbskull

please provide links to your figures or go away, you moron ....


longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 8:44pm:

no I was right. every owner and employee is a CONSUMER and therefore pays GST at the end of the chain.

no you were wrong ....  just admit it you loser (ever wonder why everyone calls you longloser?)


longweekend58 wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 8:45pm:

yeah im sure that will really bolster the economy and employment. where do you get your stupid ideas from?

Except that when the building industry thrives, so does the rest of the economy .... wherever I get my ideas from you can guarantee one thing,  unlike yours my ideas are based on reality.

____ wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 7:52pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 7:39pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:26pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:18pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:05am: Gillard has announced a levy of .5% to fund the NDIS scheme . http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16957956/gillard-set-to-announce-0-5-levy/ I personally don't mind paying a little extra for this type of service, especially if it can help a lot of my opponents on this forum, who will most likely complain about it. How about ALP repairing the MMRT so not only individual will pay, our ore can also fund the disabled. And while we are at it, lets decrease future Australians with disabilities by closing down Labor's concentration camp on Manus. Sure, I'd be in that, by the way, I wasn't paying attention at the time, so maybe you can provide an answer, did the greens support the original propsal for the MMRT put forward by labor? The Australian Greens made a last ditch bid have the tax rate increased to 40 per cent. Another Greens amendment to apply the tax to gold, uranium and rare earth minerals. Yes we passed an inferior MRRT, yet we haven't given up on fixing Labor's mistakes. If Labor had listened to the Greens, Labor's black hole would not be so so deep and the NDIS would not have been such a hard sell. you didn't answer the question .... I don't care about what the greens wanted, I asked if they supported labors original bill? We voted for it in it's weak ALP form so it can be fixed afterwards. Why is Labor refusing to bring NDIS to parliament now since it will be passed before the election. Is Labor hiding behind the disabled, hoping the election whack against them may not be so hard. If so, Labor is gutless.

no they didn't. The mining tax in it's original form was the mining super profits tax, the greens failure to support it led to Rudds demise (in some part) and the watered down MRRT version that exists today,  ... don't come crying now that it hasn't raised enough money.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 9:29pm:

____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 7:52pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 7:39pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:26pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:18pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:05am: Gillard has announced a levy of .5% to fund the NDIS scheme . http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16957956/gillard-set-to-announce-0-5-levy/ I personally don't mind paying a little extra for this type of service, especially if it can help a lot of my opponents on this forum, who will most likely complain about it. How about ALP repairing the MMRT so not only individual will pay, our ore can also fund the disabled. And while we are at it, lets decrease future Australians with disabilities by closing down Labor's concentration camp on Manus. Sure, I'd be in that, by the way, I wasn't paying attention at the time, so maybe you can provide an answer, did the greens support the original propsal for the MMRT put forward by labor? The Australian Greens made a last ditch bid have the tax rate increased to 40 per cent. Another Greens amendment to apply the tax to gold, uranium and rare earth minerals. Yes we passed an inferior MRRT, yet we haven't given up on fixing Labor's mistakes. If Labor had listened to the Greens, Labor's black hole would not be so so deep and the NDIS would not have been such a hard sell. you didn't answer the question .... I don't care about what the greens wanted, I asked if they supported labors original bill? We voted for it in it's weak ALP form so it can be fixed afterwards. Why is Labor refusing to bring NDIS to parliament now since it will be passed before the election. Is Labor hiding behind the disabled, hoping the election whack against them may not be so hard. If so, Labor is gutless. no they didn't. The mining tax in it's original form was the mining super profits tax, the greens failure to support it led to Rudds demise (in some part) and the watered down MRRT version that exists today,  ... don't come crying now that it hasn't raised enough money.

If you were talking about the super profit tax, then why didn't you say that.

Labor should be congratulating Greens for saving them from a even deeper ALP black hole.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/original-mining-tax-would-cost-billions-20130220-2erqk.html

''People are screaming that the revised tax is a disaster because it has hardly raised any money. But they would have been screaming more if we had the original tax - it would have cost the government money,'' Mr Richardson said. ''Much of the bad press about the revised tax has been overdone. Yes, it was a hurried compromise, but any super profits tax would be struggling to make money at the moment because the miners aren't making super profits.''

...

''Over the long term the original tax would have raised more than the redesigned one, there's no doubt about that. For one thing, it had a higher rate,'' he said. ''But the revenue would have been more variable. Right now, the government would have been helping miners out.''



Now why isn't Labor bringing the NDIS to parliament before the election ... trying to hide behind the disabled?

Swagy we can still have different tax scales, just be able to choose where our tax goes.

We can actually do this to a point now.
Gifts to charity are tax deductible so we can direct tax money a bit.

Why mess with a Disability pension system that wasn't Broke.

Why so they can claim more tax into the Governments coffers, and stick more people on Disbility Pension, and destroy more peoples Lives.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 9:29pm:

____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 7:52pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 7:39pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:26pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:18pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:05am: Gillard has announced a levy of .5% to fund the NDIS scheme . http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16957956/gillard-set-to-announce-0-5-levy/ I personally don't mind paying a little extra for this type of service, especially if it can help a lot of my opponents on this forum, who will most likely complain about it. How about ALP repairing the MMRT so not only individual will pay, our ore can also fund the disabled. And while we are at it, lets decrease future Australians with disabilities by closing down Labor's concentration camp on Manus. Sure, I'd be in that, by the way, I wasn't paying attention at the time, so maybe you can provide an answer, did the greens support the original propsal for the MMRT put forward by labor? The Australian Greens made a last ditch bid have the tax rate increased to 40 per cent. Another Greens amendment to apply the tax to gold, uranium and rare earth minerals. Yes we passed an inferior MRRT, yet we haven't given up on fixing Labor's mistakes. If Labor had listened to the Greens, Labor's black hole would not be so so deep and the NDIS would not have been such a hard sell. you didn't answer the question .... I don't care about what the greens wanted, I asked if they supported labors original bill? We voted for it in it's weak ALP form so it can be fixed afterwards. Why is Labor refusing to bring NDIS to parliament now since it will be passed before the election. Is Labor hiding behind the disabled, hoping the election whack against them may not be so hard. If so, Labor is gutless. no they didn't. The mining tax in it's original form was the mining super profits tax, the greens failure to support it led to Rudds demise (in some part) and the watered down MRRT version that exists today,  ... don't come crying now that it hasn't raised enough money.

Well John Smith it clearly hasn't raised enough money for this country, if it did we wouldn't have a 10 billion dolar black hole.

And services that are no able to be funded.

____ wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 9:54pm:

John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 9:29pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 7:52pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 7:39pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:26pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:18pm: ____ wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 6:13pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:05am: Gillard has announced a levy of .5% to fund the NDIS scheme . http://au.news.yahoo.com/queensland/a/-/latest/16957956/gillard-set-to-announce-0-5-levy/ I personally don't mind paying a little extra for this type of service, especially if it can help a lot of my opponents on this forum, who will most likely complain about it. How about ALP repairing the MMRT so not only individual will pay, our ore can also fund the disabled. And while we are at it, lets decrease future Australians with disabilities by closing down Labor's concentration camp on Manus. Sure, I'd be in that, by the way, I wasn't paying attention at the time, so maybe you can provide an answer, did the greens support the original propsal for the MMRT put forward by labor? The Australian Greens made a last ditch bid have the tax rate increased to 40 per cent. Another Greens amendment to apply the tax to gold, uranium and rare earth minerals. Yes we passed an inferior MRRT, yet we haven't given up on fixing Labor's mistakes. If Labor had listened to the Greens, Labor's black hole would not be so so deep and the NDIS would not have been such a hard sell. you didn't answer the question .... I don't care about what the greens wanted, I asked if they supported labors original bill? We voted for it in it's weak ALP form so it can be fixed afterwards. Why is Labor refusing to bring NDIS to parliament now since it will be passed before the election. Is Labor hiding behind the disabled, hoping the election whack against them may not be so hard. If so, Labor is gutless. no they didn't. The mining tax in it's original form was the mining super profits tax, the greens failure to support it led to Rudds demise (in some part) and the watered down MRRT version that exists today,  ... don't come crying now that it hasn't raised enough money. If you were talking about the super profit tax, then why didn't you say that. Labor should be congratulating Greens for saving them from a even deeper ALP black hole. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/original-mining-tax-would-cost-billions-20130220-2erqk.html ''People are screaming that the revised tax is a disaster because it has hardly raised any money. But they would have been screaming more if we had the original tax - it would have cost the government money,'' Mr Richardson said. ''Much of the bad press about the revised tax has been overdone. Yes, it was a hurried compromise, but any super profits tax would be struggling to make money at the moment because the miners aren't making super profits.'' ... ''Over the long term the original tax would have raised more than the redesigned one, there's no doubt about that. For one thing, it had a higher rate,'' he said. ''But the revenue would have been more variable. Right now, the government would have been helping miners out.'' Now why isn't Labor bringing the NDIS to parliament before the election ... trying to hide behind the disabled?

I did say in it's original form ... call it whatever acronym you like .... opinion pieces are just that, opinion pieces ... not necessarily based on any reality.

The Greens are like the farmer who neuters his dog, and then complains it can't have pups.

You have had your little vent, now back on topic John.

Why are labor wanting to use the disabled as human shields at the election.


Just another piece of evidence Labor has no moral compass?

Because the disabled have been asking for this issue to be bought to the forefront, you don't think it's should be an election issue?  ... I think it's the best time ... you want people to pay for it, let them vote for it.

if you wanted a higher mining tax, maybe the greens should have made that the deal breaker when negotiating for the minority govt, and left Gillard to pursue the ETS as she had originally planned ... the greens are slime who never offer real support and never provide real alternatives .. all they do is force watered down versions of other parties policies and then complain when the policies don't work. Whatever the result of this election, I'll be glad when the Greens go the way of the democrats ....

John Smith wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 10:36am:

Because the disabled have been asking for this issue to be bought to the forefront, you don't think it's should be an election issue?  ... I think it's the best time ... you want people to pay for it, let them vote for it. if you wanted a higher mining tax, maybe the greens should have made that the deal breaker when negotiating for the minority govt, and left Gillard to pursue the ETS as she had originally planned ... the greens are slime who never offer real support and never provide real alternatives .. all they do is force watered down versions of other parties policies and then complain when the policies don't work. Whatever the result of this election, I'll be glad when the Greens go the way of the democrats ....

So Labor wants to hide behind the disabled and are saying if you don't vote ALP, you are anti the disabled.

Rather than putting it to parliament now and having passed as law and giving the disabled, their families and their carers peace of mind.


Now what if someone thinks Labor is morally bankrupt, and like the carbon levy can't be trusted on their election promises after the election.



What do these voters do?


Is there any guarantee Gillard will stay as leader, or that Labor will break their track record and actually keep their word.

I don't see how you can claim labor is hiding behind anything ...it's all out there in the open, are you afraid that somehow you can't use it to try blackmail labor into giving you concessions on another of the greens crazy schemes?  ... it must be nice for the Greens to be hiding behind their irrelevance ... they can make whatever claims they like because they know they will never be called upon to deliver .....

John Smith wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 11:10am:

I don't see how you can claim labor is hiding behind anything ...it's all out there in the open, are you afraid that somehow you can't use it to try blackmail labor into giving you concessions on another of the greens crazy schemes?  ... it must be nice for the Greens to be hiding behind their irrelevance ... they can make whatever claims they like because they know they will never be called upon to deliver .....

o.k, one more time.

Labor can pass the NDIS through this parliament.
Labor is looking at an election landslide against them and likely either a slow death or a very long time in opposition
Labor now wants to use the disabled as a human shield at the next election so to decrease the damage.

Along side this they have broken promises across the board.

They have retreated from a humane position on refugees to one where they are torturing children on Manus.

The faceless men of Labor choose the leader so could dump Gillard five minutes after the election and select some puppet who could reverse the NDIS scheme.

I and most of Australia don't trust Labor so why should anyone trust them with the security of the disabled.

Now if you choose to deflect, thats your choice. If you plan to do that perhaps the best path is ignore this post.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2013 at 4:05pm:

Dooley wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:07pm: John Smith wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 3:02pm: Swagman wrote on May 1st, 2013 at 10:53am: Regardless of the merits of the scheme Smithy as advised many times on this forum by me, Rudd and Gillard Labor's buy now and pay later spending sprees, would be, in effect, future income tax increases. >:( This has now come to fruition. >:( The levy is required because the Govt since taking office has irresponsibly overspent by $271 Billion and climbing and has consistently failed to balance the budget despite an unpresendented mining boom. Ironically the interest on this climbing debt (around at least $8 Billion per annum) would come close to covering the cost of the NDIS. Now the minority that pays the majority of tax has to reach into its pocket yet again to pay the lion's share of Labor's fiscal irresponsibiliy and broken promises.  It is a sad and broken record.   :( :( :( :( IMO the fairest option should a tax increase be required would be to increase the GST to cover not only this scheme but the whole health and education funding shortfalls.  This has not been mentioned by any side of politics to my knowledge, not even discussed. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will) but the medicare levy is paid by individual income taxpayers and not companies? Personal income tax payers are a declining breed as a percentage of the population.  The baby boomers are retiring in droves and dropping off the list of income tax payers and the compounding burden of payment of Govt is falling upon fewer tax payers. :o One of the reasons the GST (broad based tax) was introduced was due to the aging of the population issue and the problems this would have for the budget. :-/ Companies don't pay GST either, or at least not in the long run ... they claim it back. It is the individuals or consumers that pay the GST (ie, taxpayers and pensioners and unemployed) And that is just one of the many many many taxes that companies dont pay  __ but they still DEMAND and GET equal status before the LAW in this country. I say if the (not they, corps aren't a "they") corps want equal representation before the LAW then they should have to take up the same amount of taxation burden. ie pay the same rates of tax a human wage slave does..... and comply with the same moral and ethical obligations - not just the legal obligations that are reluctantly foisted upon them in a crippled half-arsed way so they don't really do anything....... eg the mining tax I think there should be no difference between companies and a private individual, tax rates should be the same for both, and any liability of the company should fall onto it's board of directors. I'm sick of hearing of companies going bust, subbies and suppliers going broke, and the directors get to start another company in another name from the luxury of his waterfront mansion.

what about negative gearing rorts for people who hoard properties and which costs the tax payer 13 billion a year in lost tax revenue ?

I noticed that gullard didn't want to talk about it with John Fane this morning. She said she didn't want to play games. What a f.cked attitude. No wonder they are scraping the bottom of barrel for money since they have given most of it away to scammers over the years  :(

____ wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 11:49am:

John Smith wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 11:10am: I don't see how you can claim labor is hiding behind anything ...it's all out there in the open, are you afraid that somehow you can't use it to try blackmail labor into giving you concessions on another of the greens crazy schemes?  ... it must be nice for the Greens to be hiding behind their irrelevance ... they can make whatever claims they like because they know they will never be called upon to deliver ..... o.k, one more time. Labor can pass the NDIS through this parliament. Labor is looking at an election landslide against them and likely either a slow death or a very long time in opposition Labor now wants to use the disabled as a human shield at the next election so to decrease the damage. Along side this they have broken promises across the board. They have retreated from a humane position on refugees to one where they are torturing children on Manus. The faceless men of Labor choose the leader so could dump Gillard five minutes after the election and select some puppet who could reverse the NDIS scheme. I and most of Australia don't trust Labor so why should anyone trust them with the security of the disabled. Now if you choose to deflect, thats your choice. If you plan to do that perhaps the best path is ignore this post.

She didn't need bi-partizan's support for all of the other policies she wanted to get through parliament !! The disabled are just another political football designed to wedge the opposition. It's pathetic :(

____ wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 11:49am:

John Smith wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 11:10am: I don't see how you can claim labor is hiding behind anything ...it's all out there in the open, are you afraid that somehow you can't use it to try blackmail labor into giving you concessions on another of the greens crazy schemes?  ... it must be nice for the Greens to be hiding behind their irrelevance ... they can make whatever claims they like because they know they will never be called upon to deliver ..... o.k, one more time. Labor can pass the NDIS through this parliament. Labor is looking at an election landslide against them and likely either a slow death or a very long time in opposition Labor now wants to use the disabled as a human shield at the next election so to decrease the damage. Along side this they have broken promises across the board. They have retreated from a humane position on refugees to one where they are torturing children on Manus. The faceless men of Labor choose the leader so could dump Gillard five minutes after the election and select some puppet who could reverse the NDIS scheme. I and most of Australia don't trust Labor so why should anyone trust them with the security of the disabled. Now if you choose to deflect, thats your choice. If you plan to do that perhaps the best path is ignore this post.

I notice the greens didn't support the Malaysia solution ... that makes the greens just as guilty of torturing children (your words, not mine) ... you guys are like the kid who if he doesn't get his way takes his bat and ball and goes home .  Even the greens would have to recognise that whilst not ideal, it would be better than doing nothing ... which is what we have now.

As far as your other rubbish, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, I'd hardly think anyone would be concerned with what you have to say ..   the democrats used to think the were the answer too ... look where they are now. Greens are just another FAD.

John Smith wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 12:44pm:

____ wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 11:49am: John Smith wrote on May 2nd, 2013 at 11:10am: I don't see how you can claim labor is hiding behind anything ...it's all out there in the open, are you afraid that somehow you can't use it to try blackmail labor into giving you concessions on another of the greens crazy schemes?  ... it must be nice for the Greens to be hiding behind their irrelevance ... they can make whatever claims they like because they know they will never be called upon to deliver ..... o.k, one more time. Labor can pass the NDIS through this parliament. Labor is looking at an election landslide against them and likely either a slow death or a very long time in opposition Labor now wants to use the disabled as a human shield at the next election so to decrease the damage. Along side this they have broken promises across the board. They have retreated from a humane position on refugees to one where they are torturing children on Manus. The faceless men of Labor choose the leader so could dump Gillard five minutes after the election and select some puppet who could reverse the NDIS scheme. I and most of Australia don't trust Labor so why should anyone trust them with the security of the disabled. Now if you choose to deflect, thats your choice. If you plan to do that perhaps the best path is ignore this post. I notice the greens didn't support the Malaysia solution ... that makes the greens just as guilty of torturing children (your words, not mine) ... you guys are like the kid who if he doesn't get his way takes his bat and ball and goes home .  Even the greens would have to recognise that whilst not ideal, it would be better than doing nothing ... which is what we have now. As far as your other rubbish, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, I'd hardly think anyone would be concerned with what you have to say ..   the democrats used to think the were the answer too ... look where they are now. Greens are just another FAD.

Dont tell that to FD. He is convince the Greens are the next big thing despite no evidence to suggest they are any different to any other short-term third party that no longer exists.

____ wrote on May 2^nd, 2013 at 10:30am:

You have had your little vent, now back on topic John. Why are labor wanting to use the disabled as human shields at the election. Just another piece of evidence Labor has no moral compass?

KEEP your Labor Friends close and your new disabiled Friends even closer.

After all they could win just on the disabiled person vote just because the promise to make things better.

I'm just surprised Milne didn't try and claime she was the one who suggested the idea of the NDIS.

And as far as pointing the political bone at Labour and accusing it of Actually playing politics while the ferals do not, is just way too much hypocrisy for me....  and prolly anybody else that's actually follows political discourse in this country..............

So far as I can tell this is just a case of green envy as they weren't invited to the press conference at the announcement and were (once again) left floundering in a sea of experimentalist social deconstrucntionismalisticism discoursarianismistism.

:D