The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Paying for the Queensland floods > Comments

Paying for the Queensland floods : Comments

By Saul Eslake, published 4/2/2011

The flood levy is something the government has chosen to do, not something which it had to do as an imperative of economic management.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Perhaps the Flood levy should be more aptly renamed the Labor surplus recovery levy.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 February 2011 7:27:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is hard to understand some of the moron responsis, or even to the poor outlook of the labor party in responding. We had a 66.6% top tax in the years 1950 to 1970. Our economy improved, life was much better for our working community, and nobody suffered. The too high salaries and other incomes were driven down and costs of goods and services reduced. There was no harm, the over paid community were still over paid but not so much. The whole country was better off. Unfortunately, Politicians are politicians, and can't keep their hands off anything that is running smoothly, I have had to work with similar people. The Liberal party's outlook is a bit draconian, I think that most people would like to see a permanent system set up in our high tax section to try to cover all future disasters, the biggest problem would be keeping pollies hands off of it.
Posted by merv09, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:11:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saul says
"The Government could have borrowed some or even all of the $5.6bn it estimates that it will spend on Queensland’s recovery and reconstruction."

What an interesting idea. I would love to see Saul Eslake's "declaration of Interest". I would be delighted to discover to my satisfaction that he is no-one's shill. And without diverting to Wikipedia, on the off-chance, I wonder idly what his opinion was, of the proposed "Khemlani Affair" overseas loan.

Taxes is the one of the favorite neo-con "four letter" words. I can understand that. Listed companies don't want to cut their shareholders' returns or prejudice their gambles by losing money to taxes, however well spent they may be.

And who pays the lowest taxes of all? I'd love to see an intelligent, articulate column written on that topic, here on Online Opinion.

My guess is that listed companies are taxed a significantly lower proportion of their discretionary income, however you might define that term with respect to listed companies, so as to fairly compare it to the discretionary incomes of wage-earners and small businesses.

I would say that all of the amount payed to shareholders as dividends is discretionary, to be decided by the oligarchy in control of the listed company.

My guess is that the listed company won't be telling its investors that "there won't be any dividends this year because we pitched in to pay for the catastrophic flood damage in Australia, instead of paying you so you can put marmalade on your breakfast table, along with this morning's Wall Street Journal". Well, of course they wouldn't say that.

My guess is that Saul, despite despite his acknowledgedged general expertise, won't be writing any expose-ays about who pays a fair tax rate toward our common wealth.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Friday, 4 February 2011 9:42:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Totally agree with that observation, Shadow Minister
Posted by briar rose, Friday, 4 February 2011 11:27:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks BR
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 4 February 2011 3:07:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have Gina Hancock named Australia's richest person. It appears they stopped counting at 6 billion this year. The same woman has set up a web site, I think it is called ANDRA ( I am not at home to check), The main aim of this website is to promote lower taxes in the North West of Australia. It has launched a petition to support the lowering of taxes. It is a very sophisticated web site that reminds me of the American TEA Party. She has also bought into channel 10, the reasonI can only guess. Maybe she sees it as a platform to promote lower taxes, but lower for whom?
Posted by Flo, Friday, 4 February 2011 3:08:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy