The Forum > Article Comments > Currying favour: the Budget > Comments
Currying favour: the Budget : Comments
By Saul Eslake, published 12/5/2005Saul Eslake argues the 2005-06 Budget is a triumph of politics over economics and a pre-election budget but delivered post election.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Posted by Richard, Monday, 16 May 2005 11:54:39 AM
| |
SURELY THE INCOMPETENCE OF PETER COSTELLO SHINES THROUGH TO HAVE SUCH A SURPLUS, MEANING AUSTRALIANS WERE ROBBED MORE IN TAXES THEN WAS JUSTIFIED?
Lets makes something very clear, the powers to raise taxes is for one thing only, to provide monies for the budget passed by the parliament for that financial year. As the Framers of the constitution made clear, any surplus is to be returned to the States, as it was overburdening those citizens. It is not and never was constitutionally permissible for the Prime minister to have some political slash funds for elections. As for tax relieve, what a nonsense. Reality is that taxes can only be raised for the budget passed by the Parliament, and at the end of the financial year all tax laws technically seize to exist. On that basis, the Parliament must pass new tax laws and/or extend old tax laws year after year for them to remain applicable. People are simply conned about tax relief, as if they are getting something. Again, tax can only be justified upon the appropriation bills (budget) having been passed. If the budget is not passed no tax can be collected wither. See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com about these and other constitutional issues. Keep in mind it takes some time to download the page due to the extensive volume on the website. Posted by Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, Monday, 23 May 2005 9:18:33 PM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
I am interested in a more educated view of this "surplus"