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 > Fuel excise indexation: is the key issue low incomes? > Comments

Fuel excise indexation: is the key issue low incomes? : Comments

By Alan Davies, published 19/8/2014

Joe Hockey's gaffe last week on the Government's plan to restore fuel excise indexation highlights the need to address the low incomes of many Australians rather than oppose a sound policy initiative.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The problem Joe has with this issue and the budget in general is that he is too flamboyant to be a Treasurer. Nobody likes a budget and particular one that involves a lot of pain for all.
My wife would make a good Treasurer. When we have to tighten the belt in many areas she does not try and do it all at once. Joe should have kept it so that we had to deal with two or three major changes this budget and left some of us on side.
By confronting all demographics across the board he has everyone offside and then we makes flippant statements to try and justify those changes because he cant believe we would challenge them. Look at Costello's budgets- he kept low key and did a few at a time. No cigar smoking for Pete- just numbers.
Posted by BOOMER, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 8:26:02 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The case for indexing fuel excise is undeniable as you have pointed out.
The complexity of tax system is a huge problem.

The Whitlam concept of rebates as against deductions, introduced complications which, with a regimen of taxing out and grants back, has created a mess, difficult to assess, while buying votes and fostering an entitlement mentality.

A taxpayer should pay tax on everything he earns after deducting everything he has to pay to earn that income.

An example is the child care issue. We do not allow the cost of childcare as a deduction but subsidise childcare.

It is quite probable that it is costing the government and the family more to get a mother to work than the net value to her and the community of what she is producing.

How much simpler to allow deductions for child support, reasonable cost of getting to work, reasonable cost of self education and education of dependants, reasonable cost of child care, medical expenses of self and dependants, life assurance, income insurance-- and tax families as one unit.

It would sort out mothers who should work from those who would be better looking after children.

Adjust rates of taxation may be necessary.

We should get the system someway back to the system in 1953 which allowed me as a kid fresh out of school was able to fill in a tax return in 20 minutes with no help from a H& R Block or ITP.

The battler with 3 kids who lives at Campbelltown and has to get to Alexandria to work in a factory would get tax justice and whole army of accountants and public servants would have to learn to make a productive living. That, alone, may even balance the budget.

The politics of envy and entitlement will send us down the path trodden by Argentina, Greece, Spain etc.

The general thrust of my argument is that our tax system should be re-aligned back to reality to bring us back to a productive society.
Posted by Old Man, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 9:23:59 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
The truth is that our current, often complex set of tax laws are obsolete and no amoumt of tweeting will result in a tax revenue system, capable of sustaining our future needs.

What's needed is a new, less complicated tax system, one that taxes fairly regardless of the amount of income and, much more simplified. My suggestion being a flat transaction tax, one that taxes money transactions, not people's or companies earnings.

By allowing earners the benefit of the additional income, (that being the tax they would usually loose), this money, billions each year woukd effectively be spent adding to the economy and, even if it's saved, not spent, or,if it leaves our shores, it woukd still be taxed.

A flat tax of just 2% on all purchases/transfers and say 0.2% on financial money trades would be affordable to all including the poor as they would not have the GST to contend with.

Either way, tweeting a broken system only makes it a little less broken, it doesn't fix it.
Posted by rehctub, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 10:58:23 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
And this bloke is an economist.

Alan low income earners, particularly welfare recipients are already compensated for any increase in the petrol price. Perhaps you didn't know welfare is indexed, just like fuel was & should be. They have been compensated by more than inflation until now, by the benchmarking that was in use.

If fuel goes up, so does the inflation which is used for that indexation.

Have you ever tried to learn a bit of math Alan?
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 11:31:14 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
Why not solve two big problems with one solution?

Restore the indexation of excise, but remove that same fuel excise completely for those below a specified income level.

This would benefit those lower income earners who depend on using their vehicles to get to work from outer areas where public transport is inadequate.

It would set their fuel cost as a legitimate expenditure in earning income, and give a small amount of extra disposable funding from their tighly-stretched household budgets.

As A.B.S. statistics show that existing fuel expenditure amount is proportionaly larger for those with higher discretionary spending capabilities, an indexed excise would make a worthwhile contribution to general revenue.
Posted by Ponder, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 12:25:47 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
Sorry Hasbeen, you're slightly in error there, welfare isn't completely indexed.
Those who need it the most, the unemployed, are NOT indexed.
If the Gov' were to raise the dole to a livable level, and then index it, you could have a point but as it stands it's just another barrier to getting as job, and/or keeping one.
Posted by G'dayBruce, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 1:31:06 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
Ponder says, "Restore the indexation of excise, but remove that same fuel excise completely for those below a specified income level".

This is exactly the wrong way of going about welfare, & it is just this type of extra add on to welfare that is giving us such a mess now.

All welfare should be just one top line payment. None of this extra for rent, petrol, medical, kids, & all the rest. It is this system what gives so many welfare recipients a higher tax free income, than some taxpayers who are providing the welfare.

Welfare should be just one payment for a single or family, with no hidden extras. It is either livable or it is not, & should be the same for all.

Unemployment support is not meant to be, & should not be a lifestyle support system. It is supposed to support people while they find a job, not for the rest of their natural lives.

This also should be one payment only. I see no reason to pay rent assistance, but not mortgage assistance with the dole.

Our welfare is very generous, I should know, I'm living on it, but it was never meant to be a peaches & cream lifestyle, & should never become so.

In fact the dole should become food stamps after a reasonable period. After year or 2 at the most that should happen to all unemployment payments.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 4:45:57 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
A taxpayer should pay tax on everything he earns after deducting everything he has to pay to earn that income.
Old Man,
Would a flat tax not do exactly that ? Only pay tax on what you earn ?
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 7:51:46 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
Hasbeen, when those that rule us start spreading your harsh attitude towards those on high incomes who have caused the shortage of money by their tax evasion/avoidance and the generous loopholes provided for them I just might give your approach some credence.
If we had a government of any ilk that focused on providing real jobs for the unemployed to chase instead of statistical chimeras and golden troughs for life for themselves and their friends then there might be some justification for that approach, but as things stand, there is NOT.
The welfare "problem" is a direct result of the actions of successive governments playing fast and free with our economy and laws and be damned to the common weal.
Posted by G'dayBruce, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 8:39:21 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
And that is your real mistake G'dayBruce, you & all the other lefties.

Governments don't provide jobs to anyone but the waste of space public servants, & it is the fact that they provide 5 times as many of those at twice the pay level that they should. This is a large chunk of our problem.

Their job is to provide law & order, plus defense, & should be little else.

States & local government should provide roads, sanitation, education, & perhaps water.

When they did this our wealth & welfare grew dramatically. Once they started in on health, welfare, & controlling all facets of our lives things started to go wrong. Now we have a totally unaffordable public sector which will fail. It is not if, but when.

Winding back this stupidity now, progressively, would be much better, & a damn sight less painful, than the result of the inevitable crash, when it comes.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 9:06:25 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
Ah Hasbeen, like many you mistake the description for the function.
Governments have a responsibility to run the country, not just provide services. That's why we have such things as Defence and Foreign Affairs.
When I and others say they are responsible for the provision of employment it is a given that we mean encouraging the conditions for that and defending against anything that detracts from it. Government mismanagement by all sides and their consistent blindness to business reality and/or willingness to always go for the short-term personally profitable solution has helped drive down employment and contributed to the state of affairs we now have. I won't even get into corruption or influence peddling.
With a fair tax system in place there would be more than enough to increase our welfare budget, and reduce the need for it at the same time. With more cash in the hands of the population there would be an inevitable upswing in the economy, increasing both profitability and employment, it ain't rocket science.
Posted by G'dayBruce, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 10:11:11 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
Bruce said;
With more cash in the hands of the population there would be an
inevitable upswing in the economy,

Too late, they tried that and they tried austerity and neither worked.
The economists do not understand why these normally successful methods no longer work.

Energy costs are eating our GDP and are pushing us into zero growth.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 11:42:29 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
Bruce I see we can agree about government only setting conditions for business to do the job supplying.

However than you go way wrong. It does not matter what tax system you have, the money it collects takes it out of the productive hands that generated & earned that money.

You can't get it from the dropkicks, the only money they have is what was taken from a productive person already.

You can't get it from mining, we are already killing that goose now. It was nice while it lasted, but the bludgers reckoned they should get more of the spoils. I wonder when they will realise a bigger percentage of nothing is nothing, where a small percentage of a lot is a fair bit. Our golden egg laying geese are fleeing as our costs speculate beyond anything viable for them.

We see the dreadful jealousy of Gina. All the bludgers want her money. But she is exactly where we need the money. She reinvests & reinvests in productive enterprise, employing thousands. Give it to the bludgers the academics & the public servants, & it will be pissed up against a wall, even if that piss smells of chardonnay, it will do no one any good.

We have to reduce welfare to those who really deserve it, no longer give it to those who want it, & they should have to do something for it.

We can see with our middle east disabled, that for so many it's a
scam. It is time to seriously prosecute the doctors who are helping these scams.

My lady is a councilor, & was as big a bleeding heart as Foxy. However 2 years dealing with the long term unemployed had resulted in a huge change. She now knows most of them in this district are a waste of space, & money.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 2:56:38 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
Hasbeen,
I can't dispute a single word in your post and, you've inadvertently offered a solution for the likes of Foxy. They should get out of their cosy offices & become councillors. That would be a greater education for them then they could ever hope for from their Uni. Imagine getting at least some understanding from exposure to real life ? They could really surprise us with posts that make productive sense, why perhaps even with a whiff of responsibility thrown in.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:22:03 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
Unfortunately hasbeen, telling it as it is here on OLO, the truth, simply gets shot done by the do gooders.

I would go one further than you and say that all welfare should be quarantined and, if the recipients don't like it, tough sh1t, get a job.

The whole unemployment situation has been amplified by Ms Julia Gillard, while employment minister, when she went on her crusade to implement the highest minimum wage to low skilled workers, many of who are pretty much unemployable, especially now give our costs are so high.

As you quite rightly say, welfare should not be a way of life and, so many today adjust their lifestyles so as to make ends meet on welfare, with pumping out babies being one example, evidence being in the number of unwanted kids roaming our streets.

Welfare needs to return to basics whereby it's a 'hand up' not a 'hand out' because as long as it remains a hand out, there will always be exploiters.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 10:39:06 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
Bah humbug, can you honestly say that all those exec's on multi-million dollar packages are EARNING that much cash? BS!
They rarely even work, they delegate, and go to lunch to "network", for which you may read "conspire and gloat".
I was the son of one and Chef to many, I've listened in on their conversations many a time, with disgust!!
What of our esteemed pollies?
Why does our PM get MORE money than the president of the USA?
What justification is there for their golden benefits for LIFE, and their widows after?
When you give money to the poor it goes on the odd luxury, roses for the soul, but mostly on necessities, and it is in general circulation, NOT tied up in the stock-market or a Swiss/Caribbean tax-free account.
The Trickle Down Effect has been long discredited, making the rich richer only ensures the poor, us, get poorer, there's only so much actual money to go around, and it was and IS the wealthy playing games with it that has lead to all our financial collapses from the Great Depression onwards.
Cont':
Posted by G'dayBruce, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 12:22:12 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
Why does our PM get MORE money than the president of the USA?
G'day Bruce,
It was Rudd the dud who raised the PM salary by $200,000.- after he took over from Howard.
As I have said many times on OLO, public service pays should not be so high. We need a salary ceiling for that quick-smart.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 5:35:29 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
Cont':
As for this...
"However than you go way wrong. It does not matter what tax system you have, the money it collects takes it out of the productive hands that generated & earned that money."
When the wealthy accumulate large sums it isn't they that produce it, it's the workers, the consumers, they are basically parasites, not welfare recipients. Yes, there will always be cheats, the poor ones may get away with a few thousand and the Gov pursues them relentlessly, at high cost, yet when the wealthy cheat they get away with MILLIONS, and the Gov doesn't chase them at all, if they get sprung they either do a deal or the Gov' changes the rules to accommodate them.
Money gathered as tax is SPENT, returned to circulation, not hoarded as you apparently believe. It is the wealthy who tie up the money, us less well connected SPEND it, circulate it, and that pays for jobs and small businesses, a multi-million dollar stock portfolio pays for nothing, except a few dodgy lawyers and accountants, who usually take it out of circulation themselves too.
The simple fact is that with computerisation and modern technology there is NOT, and never WILL be, enough jobs for the whole population, the unemployed and disabled and seniors are with us permanently, blaming THEM for their position is ludicrous and totally unfair. Following your logic we'd do better just to execute the lot, that would be "fiscally rational", wouldn't it
Posted by G'dayBruce, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 6:04:07 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
better just to execute the lot, that would be "fiscally rational", wouldn't it
G'day Bruce,
Funny you say that because our Labor cronie boss would just jump at that proposal notwithstanding being a bleedin' churchie. He's already put working people out in the cold with no qualms to cover up his incompetence.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 21 August 2014 7:06:17 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
G'day Bruce,, this is why we need a tax on spending, not a tax on earnings, as a tax on spending, )financial transactions) is avoidable by no one and, at just 2%, it's affordable to everyone, perhaps with the exception of those who don't work, but, the sheer increase in cash injection into the economy will see plenty of jobs for those who want work, but can't find it.

As for those who just don't want to work, tough!
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 21 August 2014 7:46:29 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
Here is an opinion by Jeff Rubin one of the few economists who are
aware of our fuel problems.

http://tinyurl.com/l44u7y7

The IMF has suggested a rise in fuel taxes.
Geff Rubin's book or some of his writings on the intenet are interesting.

"Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller"
Posted by Bazz, Thursday, 21 August 2014 4:36:49 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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