If you are Tony Abbott the answer is simple, when the tax is “short term”, then the tax is not a tax, it’s a… I’m not sure what it is, but it’s defiantly not a tax. Abbott would have us believe, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its defiantly NOT a duck.
Before the election Abbott made great play about Gillard and her broken promise not to introduce a Carbon Tax, and continually promised that if elected he certainly would not introduce any new taxes. In fact Abbott declared he would abolish Labors taxes on billionaire miners and billionaire polluters. Unfortunately like his Liberal predecessor Little Johnny Howard it must be a case of core and non-core promises Abbott is about to do the dirty on Australia’s battlers and introduce a so called temporary Debt tax. Don’t forget Income Tax was also introduced as a temporary tax, as a war time measure, that was in 1915!
Hockey has claimed that the debt burden has to be shared by all, but that does not seem to include billionaire miners and polluters, or millionaire baby makers. If one is to believe these Liberal charlatans Australia is on its economic knees, but by the same token they are out to spend, spend, and spend billions on toys for the boys in the form of American military hardware, run up debt at an astronomical rate, and then transfer the whole burden on poor Aussie battlers, with a brand new mega tax. Fortunately The Greens rightly point out Abbott has no mandate to introduce a new tax, and should combine with Labor to defeat Abbott's grubby new tax.

How else is he s'posed to claw back the tax cuts and pension rises, to offset carbon pricing, that he said he wouldn't?

The chutzpah!

I'm sure Mr Abbott will gets loads of support around here from the usual suspects.

They think anything Peta programs Tony to do is just swell.

However, it seems that a few senior Libs aren't too keen on Tony's Deceit Tax.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/deficit-tax-tears-at-tony-abbotts-credibility-20140429-zr1as.html

I wonder why?

"Senior Liberals have described plans for a possible deficit tax in the budget as "electoral suicide". Some talked of a party-room revolt and one warned the Prime Minister Tony Abbott would wear the broken promise as "a crown of thorns" if the government decided to go through with it."

"It's just shock," the MP said. "There was no communication from the leader's office. We're all just scratching our heads. It's the biggest f----up we've had in a long time."

"I can't say anything on the record because it's just too stupid," he said. "If it's wrong, then it's bulls--t, because why would you scare the electorate? And if it's right, then it's even worse because we said before the election there'd be no new taxes."

Another branded Mr Abbott's attempts to recategorise the tax as a levy as "sophistry", calling it "an offence to voters" that was "worse than Gillard's claim that the carbon tax was not a tax"."

Oh....that's why.

Abbott = a bald faced LIAR. And of course a shameless hypocrite.

And Australia fell for the lies hook, line and sinker.

LIAR.

LIAR.

LIAR.

Well looky here...

"Under-pressure Tony Abbott drops parental leave cut-off to $100,000"

"TONY Abbott has dropped the controversial threshold for his paid parental leave scheme from $150,000 to $100,000 for the sake of “equity and simplicity’’, bringing his signature project in line with his new welfare limit."

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/underpressure-tony-abbott-drops-parental-leave-cutoff-to-100000/story-fn59niix-1226900259004#mm-premium

So much for his "signature" policy.

Wheels falling off.

Agreed, he is a liar, as are many politicians.

However, when in opposition, I don't remember ANY politician before him ranting and raving so loudly about Labor politician's lies than Abbott.

Now, when asked if his previous promise not to add to our taxes was now a broken promise, we get the shifty 'Yes, well, um, we really neeeeeed this tax though, um...

Mind you, he had to do something to raise the funds for his promised paid parental leave scheme, after telling us all how much debt we were in because of nasty Labor.

Suse, I'm not surprised at all at Abbott's deceit.

It's exactly as I expected, although maybe not to this extent of inanity.

I feel a bit for the gullible ones who actually believed the dribble he was exuding pre-election.

There are quite a few waking up to a bitter after taste.

It'll be quite some time before the LNP can garner some credibility again.

Well I have to say it's starting to get amusing now.

What do you reckon number 1 LNP cheerleader, Miranda Devine, has to say about our Tones?

Something along these lines?

"Abbott betraying our trust."

"NO wonder Tony Abbott fled to Melbourne straight after his pre-Budget speech to the Sydney Institute on Tuesday night. He would have been cold-shouldered if he’d stuck around.

The income tax hike he has proposed on workers earning over $80,000 cast a sour note in The Star casino ballroom. It was widely condemned as “moronic” by business people, journalists and politicians in heated discussions into the night."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/abbott-betraying-our-trust/story-fni0cwl5-1226900113842

In the Telegraph too....

Paul, I share your concerns.

Election promises need to be upheld.

The big end of town needs to pay considerably more tax.

But most importantly of all, as I keep saying; we need to consider what taxpayers’ dollars get spent on and not just how to increase the Federal budget.

We need to look at the demand for tax dollar expenditure, not just how to increase the supply of tax dollars!

By far the biggest factor here is immigration. The duplication of basic infrastructure and services in order to cater for the massive number of new Australian residents every year creates an enormous demand for taxpayer dollar expenditure.

If this demand could be reduced, which it very easily could by simply reducing the immigration rate, we could free up taxpayer dollars to a very significant extent.

This single move of significantly reducing immigration could be as significant as raising the retirement age to 70, increasing tax for the wealthy and for big business, reducing politicians’ perks, and every other money-saving and revenue-raising strategy that you could think of, all put together!

We absolutely need to be thinking about the demand side of the equation and not just the supply side when it comes to the federal budget, tax regime and entirely national fiscal strategy.

But of course Abbott is not going to do this.

He is shaping up as a deceitful PM, if not an outright liar. But his biggest fault by far is his abject lack of consideration of the demand side of the whole fiscal strategy.

Yep if they break pre-election committments in the way things look to be heading its lies. No more excusable for the LNP than it was for Labor.

Abbott has an alternative, back to the polls with a plan that will let the LNP do what they think needs doing.

Abbott was elected partly on the basis of people being utterly sick of the weasle words being used to excuse lies.

R0bert

I fully expect Abbott to capitulate to the 'Big End of Town' shortly and raise the GST to 15%. So far Big Business has got everything it has wanted (dreamed of) from this Tory Government, and Big Business is keen to see a hike in the GST. Add a GST rise to the new Battlers Tax and the sky's the limit, well as high as you can fly a F-35 on 24 billion dollars!
The economic thinking of this government is so skewed that I can see a return to Labor sooner, rather than later. Hockey mocks the ordinary Australian with his claim that "The burden must be shared by ALL!" Obviously ALL doesn't include their mates in Big Business!

If you had just lost your job, and are facing tough economic times, like thousands of Australians are, thanks to Tory mismanagement, what should you do with your redundancy pay? Judging by how this mob is performing I think the Abbott/Hockey economic advice would be. "Put a down payment on a new 'Lamborghini' and go down in style!"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-12/henry-warns-raising-gst-is-inevitable/5316816

It is hard to call it other than a tax.
He must have had a lot of detail about the debt and it was dopey to say
there would be no tax increases.

However, just like you might promise your wife an overseas trip and
then the bank puts pressure on you, you might have to break that promise.

It may well be he was expecting to have to go to a double dissolution.
So that would reset all promises. Don't know, but somehow this debt
will have to be wound back. If interest rates rise the situation will
become critical as it is feasible with the current very low rates it
could double the governments interest bill, which I think is $B12.

Many that have been claiming that taxes etc do not hit the rich and
now those very same people are rejecting this tax or levy although it
specifically hits those better off. Talk about hypocrites !

Anyway, how do we get rid of this b*^$y debt ?

How else to reduce the debt...simple, CUT SPENDING!

To use Tonys own analogy,
If the Government is like a big household that must live within its means then said household can not continue to demand a raise from the boss, the household needs to learn to tailor their spending to suit their income.

And this from someone who voted National

Ok Paul, let's cut to the chase.

Whether or not it is a tax is only debating whether or not TA is going to break a promise, but, no amount of he said she said will fix our problem.

It's my understanding that you don't want to see any pension age increased, yet you must agree that we are commencing work latter (paying less taxes) and living longer. It's a no brainer.

It's also my understanding that you object to the stopping of illegals from entering our shores and expending our welfare. Even though we have to borrow that welfare in the first place.

So in summing up, you and your labor mates have aided in us accumulating some $600 billion in debt, yet, you are pro illegals and against increasing the pension age, as well as being against increasing taxes in an effort to at least try to lessen some of this huge debt.

So, How do you propose we fix the massive debt problem you and your labor mates, through your unconditional support of those economic vandals created without cutting back, or increasing taxes?

Or, is this as I suspect, just another he said, she said rant.

Here's another cheer squad for the LNP

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/the-deficit-levy-is-just-a-new-tax-by-another-name/story-e6frg71x-1226900126241

The ‘deficit levy’ is just a new tax by another name"

".... So it is deeply troubling, and puzzling, that the Abbott government appears poised to announce a temporary deficit levy in its first, emblematic budget...."

".....Cutting spending and lifting taxes are not economically equivalent ways to engineer a budget surplus. Higher taxes hurt the incentive to work, offend individuals’ rights to the fruits of their labour, encourage costly avoidance and prop up distortionary and feckless government programs...."

Bec,

"To use Tonys own analogy,
If the Government is like a big household that must live within its means then said household can not continue to demand a raise from the boss, the household needs to learn to tailor their spending to suit their income."

You might like to explain in that case, why Hockey has ramped up borrowing, doubling Labor's rate to $68 billion in just 28 weeks?

He's a fake who has faked a budget emergency for one of the lowest debt ratio to GDP countries in the OECD.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg

When is a tax not a tax?

When it is used to pay for some ratbag Green/Labor scheme.

Like letting in tens of thousands of shonky boat people, or building bloody great bird munching wind mills, & pretending they can generate useful electricity, because then it is a rip off.

When are you chatterers going to admit that we are only in trouble because your lot were such bloody idiots with our money?

Poiret, I think I may have not explained clearly enough, TA said "Like households and like businesses, governments have to live within their means. Every dollar that government spends is a dollar taken from the people in taxes or in borrowings. Everything that government does has to be paid for either in today’s taxes or tomorrow’s taxes – with interest. And continuing a cycle of debt and deficits might briefly save a government from a bad headline, but it won’t help you, the people, to plan a stronger and better future."
His answer to that however was to load on another tax...(the pay rise) I was turning his own analogy back on him. If it were up to me I would be taking a big knife to a lot of spending. Ie, Medicare and paying $5 towards Dr's Appointments...at least then the people using it are the ones paying!

I can't understand why they want to get rid of the
mining tax and the carbon tax - and target the most
vulnerable in our society. Why the Paid Parental
Scheme - when free child-care would be cheaper.
Why pay polluters not to pollute - that's not logical.
And why continue giving tax concession to the rich?
Get rid of politicians perks - surely they also need
to be part of the "tightening our belts," scenario.
And look at how much it's costing us to continue to
support our former PMs. You can't continue to have
expensive office-fitouts, overseas travel for spouses
and family, private libraries, chaeuffer-driven cars,
et cetera - and then target pensioners.
Taxes? Great - as long as everyone pays their fair
share - and not just those who can least afford it.

You are right of course Bec, it has to be an attack on spending as well
as income.
I am beginning to suspect that these debts, not just our own, but the
debts of the US and the European countries as well, will never be repaid.

Sometime after 2017 there will be another crash, and the financial
collapse will be of such a magnitude, that will mean that all debts will be "forgiven".
To be fair, it would have to apply to all loans, housing loans, car
loans, credit card loans etc etc.
If all these debts are not forgiven the Financial Stability Board will
seize depositors funds to repay bank debts and cover bonds.

Whatever way it turns out we will all end up with no money and no debt.
Any paper money in your mattress will be useful for starting a fire.

Folks,
Stop calling it a TAX its correct name is the Tony Abbott X-factor! you may abbreviate it to TAX, but please do not refer to it as a TAX. Some of the 'Usual Suspects' are sensitive to broken promises. Remember how they banged on about Gillard and her broken promise. The 'Usual Suspects' would much prefer a "leave" on Battlers rather than see billionaire mining tycoons and big polluters pay their way. They would much prefer $75,000 welfare payments to millionaire mums to be spent on a new Range Rover or European holiday, than seeing batters getting a fair deal. The same mob see nothing wrong in blowing billions on 'toys for the boys' in the shape of billion dollar war machines, the only use would be to kill innocent people in the third world!

Hasbeen, Butch and anyone else, really the answer is plain to see, tax those who rip off our resources, tax those that pollute our sky's, stop the millionaire mums from doing a cash grab, cut the massive corporate welfare, dump the folly of outrageous military spending. And then and only then Abbott might stand half a chance of managing the economy, but I doubt it!

t's an interesting argument and I suppose it tends to come down to which side of the fence you are currently sitting.
There was an article in the Australian called " No the rich don't pay a fair share of tax …Just most of it"

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=iRepUruvLqeN8Qfly4DgBQ&gws_rd=cr#q=No+the+rich+don't+pay+a+fair+share+of+tax-+just+most+of+it

Which indicates just how many don't assess the benefit paid back to them indirectly by the ones that do pay tax. But to be fair in this debate, there is also a critique of this article which draws attention to some of the facts that people should also consider about the wealthy. Although I think, being more visible, they make an easier target.
.
http://paul-abbott.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-rich-dont-pay-fair-share-of-tax.html

Bec,

Tony's grab line is a false analogy.

This article pertains to the US, but explains how household/credit card debt is not like a govt's public debt.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/why-public-debt-is-not-like-credit-card-debt/

"That’s where government borrowing comes in. Unlike private credit-card debt, public borrowing can improve a depressed economy’s performance.

When government borrows, it invests in projects that cycle right back into the private economy. These are usually things the economy needs, anyway, that make it more productive or are necessary services curtailed by the recession, like schools and road repair. Superstorm Sandy, for example, made clear the need for massive public outlays to protect our coasts."

"In World War Two the government borrowed massive sums to win the war. By the end of the war the debt ratio was about 120 percent of gross domestic product, compared with 72 percent today. But the war turned out to be the greatest unintended economic stimulus of all time: GDP increased by about 50 percent during the war.

After the war, far from sandbagging the recovery, all that debt-financed prosperity propelled the postwar boom. The Fed kept interest rates low, so government could afford the interest payments. The economy grew so much faster than the debt that by 1978 the debt ratio was down to about 27 percent."

Austerity douses economic activity - when what you want is to keep economic activity trundling along. That's what Labor did and that's why we've had one of the fastest growing economies in the world with an AAA credit rating.

You don't receive an AAA credit rating if you are a credit risk or an economic basket case (as Eleventy Joe would have you believe)

Poirot

I agree with you to an extent, but nearly all the Labour debt went into consumption which is bad debt. What is needed is debt that provides investment long term and the only thing that the socialists did was to invest in the NBN (school halls was also a debacle) without a cost benefit analysis, and we have seen where that's going. We have mortgaged the future for nothing lasting, but a great big interest payment.

Most politician have short term vision (Liberals included) but the liberals do tend to spend their time paying off the debt the opposition ran up.

Paul, taxing the polluter is arse about, we should be taxing the user, because aftervall, the generator is only generating for our needs. If you tax the user you will see a huge decrease in emissions from day one. Of cause if the generator is an exporter, then that's different and requires a different approach.

The simple fact is that a tax on business is added on, plus some, where as a tax on the private user does not get inflated.

As for taxing the rich, for all those tall poppies out there, the next time either you, or someone you know, gets a reduced train ticket, a free prescription, a free visit to the doctor, a discountnon theirmrates, rent assistance, family supplements, in fact, any hand out, just remember, those GIFTS didn't come from the government, they came from the high income earners, the one you continually despise.

The very least you could do was show a little respect. You should all be ashamed of yourselves formbeing so disrespectful tomthenvery hands that provide the much needed support you receive FOR FREE!

Snake, very interesting, I have never looked at it that way before.
It does make a lot of the whingers look a bit silly.
We have a major problem ahead of us.

Piorot said;
we've had one of the fastest growing economies in the world with an AAA credit rating.

Didn't you watch an Inside Job ?
Do you really think a credit rating has any meaning ?
It has been well known for at least five years that their ratings are
not worth the paper they are written upon.
Don't you realise that nothing has changed on Wall Street ?
The same bunch of bank robbers are still running the show.

Poirot, credit card debt is just like governemnt debt.
Some is paid for maintenancem ie buying food to maintain our family
operations, buying fuel for our vehicles, paying electricity and water
rates etc etc.
Where are these different to government maintenance spending ?
Our problem is that the spending was largely on wasteful effort and
projects that do not have a productive return.
Worse the money is borrowed long time, not like our credit cards paid off each month.
Unless of course you are a labour party supporter then you just follow
the party example and just let it build up & up ---

Yes Snake, the one thing labor can't escape from, is history, and we are witnessing history repeating it's self once again, although of cause I understand they (labor supporters) will never accept that.

I would have thought that Paul would have answered my questions. But then again, if he has no answers, I guess it's a case of what's the point.

Rehctub, ummmm buddy unlike you, Paul is out there earning a living. When he gets back and has some free time from supporting you, I'm sure he'll find a few minutes to answer any question you may have asked. Just show some patience, as not all people have the free time to sit around playing on home computers like you.

Bazz,

Paying for fuel, electricity and water don't engender economic "growth" - they maintain the domestic status quo.

We live under a capitalist system and our economy requires "growth" in order to survive...otherwise it's termed recession if we have more than two quarters without growth - and Depression if longer.

(That's Capitalism, folks)

I really do wonder if in the remaining time I have left on this earth I'll E V E R find a politician that either doesn't lie, or isn't corrupt to the eyeballs ? I mean a politician of any political persuasion, federal, state, or local government ?

I sincerely and honestly believe, there are more honest, ethical and less corruptible individuals doing 'boob' out at Long Bay, than out loose running around somewhere ?

rehctub,

"As for taxing the rich, for all those tall poppies out there, the next time either you, or someone you know, gets a reduced train ticket, a free prescription, a free visit to the doctor, a discountnon theirmrates, rent assistance, family supplements, in fact, any hand out, just remember, those GIFTS didn't come from the government, they came from the high income earners, the one you continually despise.

The very least you could do was show a little respect. You should all be ashamed of yourselves formbeing so disrespectful tomthenvery hands that provide the much needed support you receive FOR FREE!"

What an absolute load of BS.

"...show a little respect..."

What are you, some ridiculous Dickens character?

THE most successful economies in modern times have all been generous social democracies....you know the sort that had you earning big bickies before the rich guy owners made it too expensive for the rents you wanted to pay...remember?

The likes of you never get it through your head that a healthy, industrious and equitable society is always going to out perform the austerity-driven Scrooge societies.

Take a peek at Scandinavian countries, who have generous social policies....entirely solvent and prosperous.

It's always been the case that lies and spin can get you into Government but they certainly won't keep you there.

Some pre-election commentators insisted that this series of back-downs and knee-jerk reactions was precisely what was going to happen, but even they are stunned by the frequency and extent.

These are ideological proposals and not economic ones and are creating new enemies every day.

For all those wondering about how the Direct Action plan to cut emissions will work -

Imagine that Greg Hunt is a Highway Patrol Officer.

He pulls over those people who are speeding the most and, instead of writing them a ticket he offers them a cash payment as an incentive to slow down.

Brilliant strategy. I wonder if he found it on Wikipedia?

How else to reduce the debt...simple, CUT SPENDING!

ABSOLUTELY Bec

As you say, Abbott’s own analogy is:

"Like households and like businesses, governments have to live within their means. Every dollar that government spends is a dollar taken from the people in taxes or in borrowings. Everything that government does has to be paid for either in today’s taxes or tomorrow’s taxes – with interest. And continuing a cycle of debt and deficits might briefly save a government from a bad headline, but it won’t help you, the people, to plan a stronger and better future."

So then, one has to wonder why he, Hockey and the whole sordid mob are so totally blind to the biggest factor of all in the cutting of expenditure.

Immigration!

With one fell swoop Abbott could halve immigration, and thus cut expenditure by about 40b$ per annum straight away, and then reap further savings by progressively reducing it over the next few years.

He’s the ‘infrastructure PM’. The biggest problem with the budget shortfall is that we don’t have the wherewithal to build and upgrade all the infrastructure we need. Well, a very large part of that infrastructure is needed to keep up with our enormous rate of population growth, of which immigration comprises about two thirds.

So, the OBVIOUS thing to do is to slash immigration.

Why then is this not even mentioned, ever, by Abbott, Hockey…. anyone in the Labor camp, or analysts anywhere?

<< I can't understand why they want to get rid of the mining tax and the carbon tax - and target the most vulnerable in our society >>

Simple Foxy. They are absolutely in bed (and in eternal coitus between the sheets) with big business!!

Butch, wants us to show more respect for our betters!

So, How do you (Paul1405) propose we fix the massive debt problem you and your labor mates, through your unconditional support of those economic vandals created without cutting back, or increasing taxes?

Firstly the debt problem is not massive as you Tory's would have everyone believe, it's brought about as a consequence of the cyclic boom and bust that is indicative of capitalism. I did post the following for your edification, can't you read.

<<Hasbeen, Butch and anyone else, really the answer is plain to see, tax those who rip off our resources, tax those that pollute our sky's, stop the millionaire mums from doing a cash grab, cut the massive corporate welfare, dump the folly of outrageous military spending. And then and only then Abbott might stand half a chance of managing the economy, but I doubt it!>>

Nhoj, thanks mate, as for the 'Usual Suspects' <<playing on home computers>>. The lads all share the one 'puter down at the nursing home, its an old 'Commodore 64' Nurse picked it up at the church jumble sale, she thought it would keep the lads amused! Makes a change for the "boys" from sitting there all day, mouth open catching fly's. Besides Wednesday is special, its 'jelly and custard' night at the home, you never know, Hassy might get seconds, and don't forget its lights out 7pm sharp for the lads! So goodnight Butch, goodnight Hasbeen, sleep well, don't forget, take your medication and sweet dreams.

Ludwig wonders why this Government won't 'slash/halve' immigration to our country in order to raise money so we don't need to raise taxes.

Can you imagine if Australia said to the rest of the world :
"Ok guys look, Australia is now SHUT to all immigration from any other country, because we only want to be populated by those who are born in Australia."

Yeah right!
I can just see how many countries would react to being told they now have to shoulder the burden of all the world's refugees without Australia taking it's share,
or that Australia did not feel that other cultures/races/colours/religions of people from other countries were 'suitable' to live in Australia.

We would lose trade left, right and centre, and business with other countries would suffer as a result of such a dreadful policy, not to mention outright war!

Ludwig, we are part of the world and we have to play nicely with everyone else if we don't want more trouble.
Think about it...

Suse, let's hope Ludwig never forms a political party and becomes PM .. Australia would be bankrupt within 6 months. Poor Ludwig, he doesn't understand politics, he doesn't understand finance, he doesn't understand nature, he doesn't understand immigration and he doesn't understand road rules. I wonder what his day job is?

Suse, you’re sounding a lot like that Nhoj character. Very shrill and polarised to say the least. Hey, you two aren’t one in the same person are you??

You wouldn’t want to completely contradict yourself in your first two paragraphs by any chance would you? …

You say:

<< Ludwig wonders why this Government won't 'slash/halve' immigration…. >>

And then:

<< Ok guys look, Australia is now SHUT to all immigration from any other country… >>

Erm… excuse me, but halving immigration is not shutting all immigration!

The rest of your post is based on this invention in your mind that I have espoused a shut-down of immigration!!

Dear o dear Suse, get with it!!

We could have an immigration program that is very much smaller than the current level, which would still allow for a quite considerable intake of refugees (about the same that we now bring in annually) as well as essential skills and associated family reunion.

We wouldn’t be offsiding any country if we did this. But we would be doing a fundamentally sensible thing given that we are faced with a quite critical national budgetary situation, which absolutely needs to be turned around from rapidly growing deficit and an enormous and rapidly increasing interest bill, to a steadily declining level of debt and a no-debt situation in a decade or so from now.

The level of immigration, whether you like it or not, is a HUGE factor in our national fiscal strategy.

Ahhhh, Suse and Nhoj are the same person. Ha ha ha. I love a good conspiracy theory.

Ludwig, oh paranoid one, you only have to look back at my fascinating post history to see that I have often stated similar comments re immigration and population growth.
So, no, I don't believe I know, nor remember as a poster before, the one called Nhoj.

And you can't deny that you would prefer NO immigration to Australia, except those from the 'Mother Country' maybe?

Never mind Ludwig.
I see good old 'Tones has now broken his major election promise of paid parental leave for Mothers earning up to $150,000 a year, so there will be some savings for our apparently 'stricken' economy there.

What next though?

Have you looked at the new Residential Care 'reforms' due to start from July 1st?
We won't need to worry about taxes any more, after we have to sell the family home in order to move into Aged Care facilities...

<< …you can't deny that you would prefer NO immigration to Australia… >>

Yes I can Suse. I’ve had always advocated net zero immigration, which would still give us a significant immigration program.

But we need to approach that level gently, over a period of several years, after making a big significant first cut.

<< …except those from the 'Mother Country' maybe? >>

It is not the composition of our immigration intake or their place of origin that is of concern to me; it is the numbers and how that affects our quality of life, environment, economy and the prospects of us achieving a sustainable society.

But then you know this don’t you.

So I take it that you can now see my point about immigration and the merit of considerably reducing it in a time of budgetary difficulty, yes?

Do you agree?

Or would you like us to continue with the current very high immigration rate, which is costing us in the order of 80b$ pa just to duplicate all the basic infrastructure like roads, hospitals, houses, and everything else in order to accommodate these new residents.

I take it that you can now see the utter absurdity of Abbott continuing to uphold this rate of immigration while at the same time expressing grave concerns about our ability to balance the books and pay for infrastructure.

You do of course realise that if high immigration is retained, with all the enormous costs associated with it, then there is a higher likelihood of cuts to all manner of other things like paid parental leave and the pension, and for an increase in GST, and in short; a general belt-tightening approach which will affect the ‘have-nots’ much more than the ‘haves’.

People here who are lamenting "the state of the books" should keep in mind the trickery-fakery of Joe Hockey.

His MYEFO was a state-of-the-art exercise in faking an economic emergency in order to restructure economic and social policy.

Fair enough, if you choose to believe him, but most economic commentators see right through the stunt.

This:
http://www.afr.com/f/free/business/companies/inconsistency_in_budget_priorities_8dg88SUBsc4JtcvBKdMlAM

"According to Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey, the MYEFO revealed a blow out in the projected cumulative underlying budget deficits over the four years to 2016-17 of $68 billion."

"Yet by my calculations, virtually all of this upward revision – around $60 billion – reflects deliberate decisions by the new government.

New costly policy decisions include $9.1 billion from the abolition of the carbon tax, $3.6 billion from the decision not to proceed with a raft of other already announced taxes, $8.8 billion to boost Reserve Bank of Australia reserves, and another $9 billion in spending on roads, border security and education.

There’s also the $4.9 billion cost in cutting the corporate tax rate to 28.5 per cent (as previously costed by the Coalition), which is conveniently buried in “parameter” rather than policy revenue changes as its details were “still being finalised”.

What’s more, the MYEFO contained a large $10 billion boost to the contingency reserve over the forward estimates, a good chunk of which appears to include even more election commitments (such as the net spending cost of the paid parental leave scheme)."

"But the biggest trick in the MYEFO, however, was the $36 billion in revenue reductions over the forward estimates period due to weaker economic growth and terms of trade assumptions.

There’s debate whether these ­revisions were justified or not, as ­Treasury’s own independent PEFO analysis a few months earlier came to a much more optimistic conclusion. We’ll know soon enough, however, if the government eventually needs to revise up its economic growth and revenue projections again."

Suze, Tony Abbott has made a major blunder with his toning down of his PPL policy, as all he had to do was table it and it would have been rejected. A foolish move on his part because as long as the sun continues to shine, he would never have got this policy through, in fact, I suspected all along it was a shame aimed at sucking in the gullible at the election.

Paul and that other insect,
To simplify our debt, imagine if you owned your home and had $20K in saving, and zero debt.

Then, six years later, through poor management you had not bought anything else, yet you now owe $600,000 on your home. This is what labor and your lot achieved.

Now try telling me that's not a serious debt problem.

I will come back to you two latter, damned work restriction.

Foxy, the carbon tax.

What I don't understand is why the power generators are charged the tax. I say this because one, they generate for us, and two, any impost to business is simply passed on.

A much better way to cut emissions, (the main aim of the tax) would have been to tax the users, us.

I say this because one, it wouldn't be passed on (apart from business users ) and two, consumers immediate reaction would have been to reduce their usage.

The result would have been less power used, less emissions omitted and no tax.

Now just back to Paul and that other insect, our kids never went without, simply because hard work paid off. No support form the government, but hey, we didn't need it.

They will be left in a very good place, where they can enjoy a holiday in their Whitsunday unit, or perhaps on the banks of the Brisbane river. Maybe they can just stay home and look over Moreton bay, or perhaps check out the gas cash cow Dad managed to secure for them through is hard efforts.

As for me, I love my job, on/off roster, working less than six months of the year and being paid near $80 grand for the privilege. The problem is, as there is rarely much to do, I like to keep in touch with OLO where you come across some interesting people, some lovely people like Foxy and the occasional insect.

Gee I hope you two don't have to work till your 70, then rely on crumbs. But then again, why would I care.

Yep, life's great a the nursing home.

BTW guys, I'm retiring at 57 or so, because after all, it would be silly to accumulate all these assets and not enjoy them. Cheers!

Ludwig, Susie & some others are hyperventilating over stopping
immigration without having a clue as to what is going on.
In a couple of years time when the penny drops in a few countries,
then migration by so called refugees will be reversed and countries
will have more to worry about than being politically correct.

Susie, you fall into the trap of thinking that the world gives a damn
what Australia does about anything let alone immigration.
Even if they did care they would probably want their government to
copy us and pull up the drawbridge.

There will not be any choice when the next GFC arrives sometime after 2017.

rehctub,

Since when do respected OLOer's refer to fellow posters as "that other insect"?

It appears you're no so refined as you would have us believe.

It's fascinating reading about your assets and your cash cow, etc...

And it's so typical of the petite bourgeois to list all their achievements thus. In the world of cringing lower-middle class shopkeepers of a certain ilk, they feel their worth as a human being is fundamentally tied to their material success. They raise themselves on self-constructed pillars of sham sensibilities and decency, congratulating themselves, showing disdain and lack of empathy for the "lower orders"...asking them to show respect", etc as if they are really some sort of modern aristocracy and we should be in awe of their outlook.

Here's a tip, you come across as a moderately educated middle-class butcher who seems to think he's a spokesman for the upper echelons of society.

Nothing more amusing that your ilk blow their own trumpet while repeatedly calling for society to take a huge step backwards to 18th century social policies.

The funniest thing is that if you had have been plying your trade back then without modern social prerogatives you would have only made a reasonable living and maybe afforded your business premises and your house....not much more for a moderately educated petite bourgeois butcher back then.

All these ranting and raving is amusing, and the budget isn't out yet.

For the 6 years of wild Labor spending you were told it had to be paid for. I wonder how many supported Labor when they got the $900 cheque and all the failed 'green' schemes, fuel watch, grocery watch, the school halls, pink bats and all the other things Labor wasted money on. Notice that nothing was implemented to generate income or build infrastructure. Well kids the time is now that it all has to be paid for. At least a start on repayments.

This government was elected to curb the excesses and stupid spending of the previous Labor mob and it appears they intend to do that. The money has to come from somewhere, so suck it up kids.

Except for Ludwig, no one is suggesting where savings can be made. Ludwig is right, but it won't happen, neither will a saving of $41 million on maulticulturalism.

I won't speculate, just wait until the budget is out, then evaluate.

Butch still banging on about carbon tax on power generators. The power generators do pay carbon tax but they can not pass it on. Electricity is market based and you have to bid to buy power from the pool. With declining power consumption over four years straight. All due to the take up of solar. Coal fired power stations are battling to pay for the cost of coal recovery to feed the boilers. They will move away from a market based buying of wholesale power and go to a set rate for wholesale electricity. That way they can pass on the carbon tax plus some more.

Banjo,

"For the 6 years of wild Labor spending you were told it had to be paid for. I wonder how many supported Labor when they got the $900 cheque and all the failed 'green' schemes, fuel watch, grocery watch, the school halls, pink bats and all the other things Labor wasted money on. Notice that nothing was implemented to generate income or build infrastructure. Well kids the time is now that it all has to be paid for. At least a start on repayments."

Abso-jolly-lutely!

It would have been much better to go into recession, just like all the countries that practiced austerity instead of stimulus.

And it would have dudded Eleventy Joe (he of the MYEFO fiction paper) of the chance to spin his craft of deceit and fiscal fairy tales.

You're been taken to the cleaners by this fake...and yet you defend it!

It's a bit of laugh to see all the business men up in arms because now Tony's mooted " debt tax" is creeping its miasma into the realms of the well-heeled...his support base.

Double Lol!

12 billion for airoplanes to be paid for. Plus Hockeys 68 billion in six months. They have been sitting on a piece of paper for months, apparently it is to shocking for us to see, or they are correcting a few mistakes. What ever way it is Joe will spin a line that no one can refuse.

It just keeps coming.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-editorial/tony-abbotts-deficit-levy-will-make-a-taxing-issue-even-worse-20140430-zr1va.html

"Let there be no bones about it. A levy, temporary or otherwise, is a tax, and if the Abbott government goes ahead with such a measure on middle- and high-income earners, it will be a shoddy way of trying to repair the budget, and will do little to improve the productivity of our economy.

The political hypocrisy of Prime Minister Tony Abbott contemplating such a tax, after explicit promises of no new taxes and three years of lashing Julia Gillard over her broken carbon tax pledge, is breathtaking. But it is more serious than this.

The Australian Industry Group and other business leaders are already warning that lifting tax rates will slow the economy."

"But to argue it is an urgent crisis is hyperbole. A comparison of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries with Australia shows we are in the relatively luxurious position of enjoying stable, if slightly below-trend, growth and relatively low net government debt to gross domestic product.

According to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook released this month, Australia's general government net debt as a percentage of GDP stood at 13 per cent last year, and will rise to just under 20 per cent by 2019 on a do-nothing basis. Compare this with Germany, which has net debt as a percentage of GDP of 53 per cent, the United Kingdom 84.5 per cent, the USA 82 per cent and Canada at 39 per cent. And Japan and many EU countries have net debt well over 100 per cent of GDP."

Do all you Chicken Littles get the idea?

Want to see loads of quotes of Abbott decrying tax increases?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-01/fact-file-what-has-tony-abbott-promised-on-tax/5420226

Sensible comment, Bazz

Perhaps Suzeonline would like to tell us why the rest of the world isn't penalising Japan, which really does have close to a zero immigration policy and doesn't take refugees. Currently, zero net immigration, which is what Ludwig is asking for, would mean around 80,000 immigrants a year from ABS figures.

The people who are ignorant are those who suppose that our mass migration program has big per capita economic benefits. The Productivity Commission says otherwise (see p. 6)

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf

Michael Reddell of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has written a paper showing that New Zealanders would have been better off without the high immigration of the past few decades, largely due to the high infrastructure costs mentioned by Ludwig.

"Internationally, there is no evidence over the last century that countries with faster population growth, or greater inward migration, have achieved faster income or productivity growth than other countries."

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/04/rbnz-slams-the-population-ponzi/

We are getting the enormous numbers, not because it is good for us, but because high immigration gives Big Business bigger domestic markets, rentier profits from ownership and financing of real estate and other necessities, and a cheap, compliant work force as the labour market is oversupplied.

Perhaps Graham should require that posters accusing other posters of racism to present evidence of such with reference to previous posts. I don't recall Ludwig ever calling for any sort of discrimination in our migrant intake.

the usual suspects venting their hatred. Just when I thought the abbott, abbott, abbott phobia was fading. Just spoilt kids throwing yet another tantren because Abbott has to clean up the mess of their heroes.

Piorot what do you suggest as an alternative?

I don't like the idea of a tax, esspecially given that I will be paying it, but seriously, what's the alternative.

The other point we have to remember, is that only about 58% of tax payers actually pay net taxes, as the remaining 42% draw more in welfa than they pay in taxes.

So to hit the high income earners again, considering they are the ones who provided the funds that were wasted in the first place seems a bit rich. Parden the pun.

But, as I say, what's the alternative and, if we have to have a tax increase it should be across the board as we would all benefit, so we should all pay.

My suggested alternative is to introduce a very small finacial transaction tax so we can at least test the water on this much avoided alternative that may be the answer to our woes.

Oh runner you are absolutely correct. We'll never forget that horrid liar Gillard will we. Because of her pre election lie and broken promise she deserved to be chucked out. At least Tony Abbott is 100% honest and true to his word. He would never make a pre election commitment/promise and not keep it. Also, he would never make a pre election promise, break it, then try to twist what the promise meant in the first place. Also, he would never say that a broken promise was not "really" a broken promise due to the fact that the changed promise would be in effect for only a "few" years.

No sireee, our Tony Abbott never lies, never misleads, never manipulates. After all he's an ex trainee Catholic Priest, and as we all know Catholic priests can always be trusted ... that's why none of them are pedophiles.

Yes, may the Lord bless our honest and truthful Tony Abbott.

Nhoj

'Oh runner you are absolutely correct. We'll never forget that horrid liar Gillard will we '

your shouting was deafening. Face it Abbott has an adamic nature just like you, Gillard and me.

Oh yes runner, Abbott is so "adamic". Such an honest man, who would never, ever lie to the voters. Aren't we so lucky to have such an honest, non lying man in politics.

When is a Tax not a Tax?
When it's a red herring.
I have seen a few in my adult years, far to many actually and no matter the government of the day, it's all about staying the top dog as long as you can.
That means the rest of the tax paying population will have to pay for the, 'what ever it takes', billion dollar promises each and every political party can come up with while, they try to keep lodge keys in hand.
The frustrastion of it all is, call me sinnical but, on the state level who is responsible for employing 14,500 staff whom were sack when the Newman government in QLD took office how could this happen and or how could the government run productively if these staff were really required.
Similarly on the federal level the 26,500 staff that are fore-shadowed the iron fist of Abbott, how is this massive waste of tax payer dollars just swept under the lodge rug, only to be brought out when the jobs for mates is reintroduced, after the next election.
Who is responsible and what are the punishments, anybody in all platforms of government please.
A quick calculation total staff 41,000 ball park average wage with no real info on wages, I'II use $80,000, conservative I feel.
41,000 x $80,000 = $3,280,000,000.
Unacceptable, is this a good enough figure for the debate to disband all state governments, and move into local councils working in tandem with the federal governments, lets talk about it, please.

Paul,

A tax is defined as a non voluntary payment to the government.

This includes all Levies, royalties, the carbon tax, the planned ETS, etc. The differences in names refer to the nature of the taxes.

Notably, only a couple of years ago, the left whingers on this site were strenuously arguing that the carbon tax, and ETSs were not taxes. How the worm has turned.

I personally am not in favour of any deficit levy, but can well see the point of a short term tax that expires before Labor can quietly extend it into eternity, plus it focuses on the cause of the problem, i.e. Labor's incompetent spending, as did the flood levy.

Shadow Minister, thanks for supporting lies in politics. It's good to see you'd support Toneliar's election promise lie. Remember ... "under no government I lead will there be an increase in tax unless we take it to an election beforehand".

Well he is an ex trainee for the Catholic priesthood, and those priests have been well trained in lying for when they eventually get investigated by the authorities. So Toneliar has merely used those skills by transferring them to the political arena. God bless Toneliar.

I think its fair to assume you are all suggesting these speculated tax increases are to be introduced here and now. what if they are planned for the first year of the new term of the next government.

also, what if we get a DD election, and say the Libs get back in, then introduce new taxes/levies. Would that still be a lie.

Perhaps we should wait a week or two and here what is proposed. Don't ya think!

I also suggest a far better exercise would be to come up with a solution to our debt problem, with no apparent way out, because no amount of he said she said will fix our debt problem, unless of cause you are one who is gullible enough to think our debt is not a problem.

Gee, if only something was achieved with all that debt.

Well I hope that the government does not have to go back on any promises.
However if they do they can use Gillards excuses which the dementia
sufferers amongst us will have forgotten.

Poirot, has lost the plot since Labour lost the election.
She said;
It would have been much better to go into recession, just like all the
countries that practiced austerity instead of stimulus.

No, I am afraid that you have not noticed that economists are quite
bewildered that neither austerity or stimulus is having any effect.
That is because they do not understand what caused the GFC.

You seem to be worried about the billions and percentages of GDP.
Well what about our oil purchases, Approx $41,000,000,000 each and every year.
With no hope of a reduction and a certainty of an increase.
That is more than Labours NBN price !
Except it is every year.

Now that is a figure that needs work done on it.

Bazz,

"Poirot, has lost the plot since Labour lost the election.
She said;
It would have been much better to go into recession, just like all the
countries that practiced austerity instead of stimulus."

Lol!...you obviously don't get sarcasm.

"No, I am afraid that you have not noticed that economists are quite
bewildered that neither austerity or stimulus is having any effect.
That is because they do not understand what caused the GFC."

Ahem, "stimulus" had a very good effect on Australia's economy, that's why we have one of the best economies in the world.

But when all is said and done, we have a capitalist system. As I mentioned before, if you exist under a capitalist system, then you have to keep the economy growing. If you don't keep the economy growing you go into recession. That's the way it is. Labor did keep the economy growing in the wake of the GFC, and managed to keep unemployment and interest rates down, which is much much more than most other advanced industrial economies in the world.

Most Treasurers in other advanced countries would be doing backflips if they had an economy as healthy as Australia's in the wake of the GFC.

Ours happens to have an IPA agenda to live up to and has done nothing but concentrate on debt to get itself elected to govt. It's now setting about screwing half the voters who fell for the blarney and who put it in office

As far as the causes of the GFC, I think you're right and there will be another crash....because our system is flawed (and we appear to have learned very little from recent experience) ...but it is the system we operate under.

You might be interested in this on Thomas Piketty and Capitalism.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/28/thomas-piketty-capital-surprise-bestseller?CMP=twt_gu

Poirot said;
will be another crash....because our system is flawed (and we appear
to have learned very little from recent experience)

The reason for the crash cycle is not like I suspect you believe.
Colin Campbell & Kenneth Deffreeys forcast it quite accurately.
Oil supplies get tight and the price rises.
Eventually oil purchases eat into the GDP and reduce available capital.
Finally growth slows and a recession occurs.
The recession causes a collapse of oil consumption and the price falls.
The lower cost of oil causes recovery in the economy.
The recovery increases demand for oil and prices start rising again.

This is a feedback loop that is unstable because one term of the feed
back loop, maximum oil supply is limited but the gain of the loop is high.

This sets up an oscillation that is peak limited and the cycle period
will get shorter each time around the loop.
The next GFC is expected around 2017 to 2020.
It is thought by some that 2017 could be the last cycle, but if it
isn't it could be about 2024.
There will be no recovery from the last cycle and growth will become
zero and may well go into contraction.
There is graph that illustrates the recessions occurring after every
spike in oil prices. (except one, the dot com)

A lot depends on whether great amounts of alternative energy can be
organised or by some miracle someone finds a new Saudi Arabia every
three years from now till eternity.

A tax is not a tax when your dollar doesn't get wasted by being given to a bureaucrat.

SM welcome back, I see your time away has not improved you mental capacity. <<I personally am not in favour of any deficit levy>> How cute, deficit levy indeed, call it for what it is a Great Big TAX! Well do something about it, vote Green. <<but can well see the point of a short term tax>> hang on, a moment ago it was a levy, now its a tax, make up your mind. What point, if the economy is in such dire circumstance why is the Mad Monk and Co spending like drunken sailors? $24 billion on toys for the boys alone, running up debt at an astronomical rate.
Do you seriously believe these mugs have a clue? I don't recall ever claiming the Carbon Tax was not a tax, then again I'm not a left winger, I'm a progressive. The only one who claims a tax is not a tax is you man Tax'em Tony!

The 'Inquisition' aka 'Commission of Audit' with their idea on who should be forced to pay the price, for Abbott's folly. With Tax'em Tony going full steam ahead with plans to bash the battlers. Here's what you can expect, courtesy of Abbott's Tory business mates.

1. The big one, STATE INCOME TAX.
2. A whack over the head for Pensioners.
3. A kick in the backside for the sick.
4. A punch in the mouth for the young.
5. A poke in the eye for welfare recipients.
5. A uppercut for battling families.
and so on, and so on.

Before the 'Usual Suspects' get all upset. Big Business is in the clear, billionaires are safe, Millionaires will be well looked after.

As Hockey said, the burden must be shared around (amongst the poor and needy).

I see your time away has not improved you mental capacity
Paul1405,
and you are digging the rocky bottom to get yours to no capacity at all. Typical public servant or similar hanger-on industry.
Although I agree with your assertion that those who can least afford it will be hit hard as per usual you don't seem to understand why all this is happening in the first place. It's because of people like you-lefties who have run this country into the ground by way of idealistic ignorance & economic & social ineptitude & selfishness. If you want things to improve YOU need to change mentality not those who have supported you to this day.

individual,

"..... you don't seem to understand why all this is happening in the first place. It's because of people like you-lefties who have run this country into the ground by way of idealistic ignorance & economic & social ineptitude & selfishness."

Ad you don't seem to understand that you are a gullible bunny who swallows Hockey's fakery without question. All they had to do with the help of the media is constantly cry "crisis" and folks like you "who even now" can't glean the monster sitting at the table merrily accept it.

If you can't see by now this lying mob of rogue pollies are out to turn Oz society upside down, starting by squashing the least able underfoot, then there's not much we can do for you.

You have to admit in the least, that they misrepresented themselves and their intentions in order get their foot in the door.
(and don't give me guff that they didn't know the fiscal situation - they did with PEFO)

They dressed up as Granny...and turned out to be the Big Bad Wolf.

Paul,

My absence has allowed YOU mental acuity and memory to slip. Your comment "The only one who claims a tax is not a tax is you man Tax'em Tony!" is wrong in so many ways. Firstly I haven't seen TA nor any liberal claim it was not a tax, and secondly just about every left whinger on this site tried to claim that the carbon tax and ETS were not taxes. So please shelve your BS.

Then just for laughs you and other left whingers appoint yourselves the pompous title of "progressives", which incidentally no one else calls you since your tax and spend policies are legacies from the 60s.

Poirot,

Krudd's stimulus is acknowledged to have been mostly wasted, as the $900 cash splash had little to no stimulus effect, and the spending of the BER fiasco mostly occurred after the GFC peak. The stimulus package was simply an excuse for Labor to ditch any pretence of fiscal responsibility that it promised in 2007.

Shadow Minister,

The stimulus got us here:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg

And here:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/aussies-the-worlds-richest-people-credit-suisse-20131009-2v7qy.html

"Australians remain the richest people in the world, by one measure at least.

The median wealth of adult Australians stands at $US219,505 ($233,504) - the highest level in the world, according to the Credit Suisse 2013 Global Wealth Report, released on Wednesday."

Hockey's confected crisis was merely a battering ram to obtain govt and unleash mayhem on our society.

He and his cohorts are spivs.

You may be interested in Michael Pascoe's take on the CoA

http://m.canberratimes.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/why-the-audit-commission-is-wrong-on-its-biggest-call-20140502-37laq.html

Paul, I don't understand !
The Greens have been calling for taxes on the rich and now you have
one coming you are protesting !

The mind boggles.

Poirot's rhetoric is amazing.

the highest level in the world
Poirot,
That automatically puts australian debt as the highest also. Great figures indeed.

individual,

"That automatically puts australian debt as the highest also. Great figures indeed."

I see you went to the same school as Eleventy Joe.

Private wealth is "not" public debt.

I like this one.

"Australia Considers Cuts to Rein in Second-Smallest Debt"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-01/australia-considers-cuts-to-rein-in-second-smallest-debt.html

"Sean Keane, an Auckland-based analyst at Triple T Consulting and the former head of Asia-Pacific rates trading at Credit Suisse Group AG, wrote in a note yesterday. “The fiscal impact of government activity on the Australian economy is likely to be more contractionary than expected for the next couple of years, further reducing the need for the RBA to move interest rates higher.” "

"Australia is one of just nine countries with a AAA credit score from all three major ratings companies and its fiscal position remains stronger than most other developed nations."

.......

individual,

"That automatically puts australian debt as the highest also.."

Second smallest of developed counties with a fiscal position remaining stronger than most other developed nations.".

Lol!

Poirot, please show him some sympathy. He's not too bright, and we don't want him gaining an inferiority complex.

Nhoj,

Quite so.

Bazz,

"Poirot's rhetoric is amazing."

Why, thank you!

Private wealth is "not" public debt.
Poirot,
Isn't it ? What happens when people go broke then ? How do they get pulled out of the crap ? Tax return, welfare etc. but that's not public in your mind now is it.
Lol!
Don't lol to early. If the australian income is so high in comparison to other currencies then anything owed is on the same value be it private or otherwise. Unless of course you are a supporter of the sweatshop countries & owe them a few dollars.
Stuff you jack I'm alright is an out-dated term but very much the mentality of Poirot et al.

individual,

When you've done with talking gobbledygook let me know.

: )

Individual has just shown why nobody has put him in control of the country's finances.

The call by Hockey that the "burden must be shared by all" has a hollow ring when you pick up the paper and read how much one multinational pays in Tax. I'm talking about Google and how little it pays in Australian company tax, despite its local profit ballooning to $46 million. Google was initially presented with a tax bill of $7.1 million, but is now set to pay just $466,802. You don't need to be a mathematical wizard to calculate that is a negligible one percent of profit.
This is the sort or wroughting by big business, that Tax'em Tony should be cracking down on! Its not an isolated example of the tax rip off by big business.

It would be interesting to see Hockey's personal tax return. I bet that over the years he's minimised his tax liability in every legal (??) way that's humanly possible.

Nhoj,
I'm not sure, but I think before politics Lying Joe was a garbage collector, come to think of it, he still is!

.....It would be interesting to see Hockey's personal tax return. I bet that over the years he's minimised his tax liability in every legal (??) way that's humanly possible.

Yep, worked for me.

I adopted the philosophy that for every dollar I gave to support the bludgers, I would take one for myself.

After all, there have to be some perks for taking the risks.

My favorite was when Kerry Packer was asked if he minimized his taxes, he relied, of cause I do, because after all, you fools will only waste them. Not a truer word spoken.

Rehctub, thanks for finally admitting that you contribute as little as you possibly can to our defence forces, our hospitals, our roads, our health system, our education system, government private business assistance, government funded scientific research etc etc etc etc ... the list is almost endless. No point in giving your tax dollars to rubbish like that eh Rehctub. Tax minimisation is the name of the game.

I see you're one of life's takers, not givers.

Nhoj,

rehctub's attitude sums up the Conservative ethos perfectly.

Self-obsession and greed rule hands down.

Butch, I recall you supporting criminal tax avoidance, and saying it way okay for small business to pocket the GST. Am I wrong, or was not that your stated opinion on here. If so would you support armed hold up of butcher shops by those wanting more meat without paying for it? I, and I'm sure the other fair minded posters on here like Nhoj and Poirot do not support any such activity either, not sure about the other 'usual suspects' can't vouch for them on anything good or bad. What about you?

Butcher,

John is the epitamy of a Labor voter. I would guess that he is in a dead end job paying little tax and enjoying far more benefits and hand outs, while those that actually do productive work, pay far more tax and receive little to nothing in benefits. Yet John, Parrot, and Paul simply look at achievers with envy and greed and wonder what more they can take.

The top 25% of earners pay about 2/3rds of the total income tax and receive about 5% of the benefits. The bottom 25% pay about 1% of income tax and receive about 2/3rds of the benefits.

Lol!, SM,

Sorry to pop your bubble, but I don't envy people like yourself or butcher. Why would I envy people who are cringing, grasping and avaricious, forever watchful and fearful of someone taking their spoils?

People like that deserve our pity, not our envy - for they have a limited measure of their own humanity usually parenthesized inside $ signs.

.....and the jumped-up middle-class attempting to promote itself to glorious Aristocracy always leaves one with a snort of embarrassed laughter.

SM,

Those figures of your can be considered quite rubbery. take for example, military spending, if Tax'em Tony blows $24 billion on purchasing new planes who benefits most from that purchase? The down and out who's got nothing to defend, or the rich who have everything to defend. Government expenditure is not always of equal benefit to all.

"Government expenditure is not always of equal benefit to all."

Is obviously true, Paul1405... as it is also, that government income (like personal income) is never equally obtained.

https://www.ato.gov.au/About-ATO/Research-and-statistics/In-detail/Tax-statistics/Taxation-statistics-2011-12/?anchor=Individualstables#Table15

[if you copy and paste the link it takes you straight to the table]

People with the top 2.3 taxable incomes paid 26.2% of all net tax.
The next 14.4 paid 37.4% of all net tax.
The next 37.3 paid 32.8% of all net tax.
The next 38.2 paid 3.7% of all net tax.
The last 7.7 didn't pay any tax.

I find it amusing to think that wealth has its costs. Still, it isn't as though anyone is forced to be a gazillionaire.

Nor is any politician forced to make election promises which they break... they seem to do that on their own volition.

John Howard's middle class welfare has been a mechanism to aid in the redistribution of wealth. A family has a churn of money going out in tax then coming in as benefits.

It does look like the levy and churn-reduction proposals leaked so far are going to leave many out of pocket. I think this it is a veiled approach to clawing back the income tax cuts and pension rises that compensated the introduction of carbon pricing.

Parrot,

Unless you have never taken a tax rebate, family benefit, car allowance or any form of legal tax minimisation, you are a hypocrite. And yes you are envious of what we have and that what we do matters. You and your ilk consider it sinful that we earn more than you, and that the only way we can redeem ourselves is to hand over our earnings to dullards and bludgers.

Paul,

If you used your brain, the 50% or so of the population that get hand outs and services far in excess of the taxes they pay have a lot to lose. If they lose the 25% that pay for just about everything, they will soon find out what real poverty is.

Well, I adopted the theory that it was far better to donate my money to what I considered 'worth while causes, mostly within the communities that supported me, hence my generous donations over the decades of butchery. Besides, at least this way I was able to draw comfort in the fact that my taxes didn't support the dole bludgers, nor the single mums with multiple fathered kids, nor the stay home dads who found it more appealing to suck off the public tit than contribute. In fact, at least my path gave me what I considered value for money.

As for pocketing the GST, gee I hate to educate some, but meat is.a basic food and as such does not attract GST.

I also, for my customers sake, never sold another bag of 'dog bones' since the year 2000. I sold leg bones, neck bones, brisket bones, even mixed bones, but never dog bones.

So yep, I did contribute, but in what I considered to be a much fairer way, because after all, rather than provide smokes for some single mum, I provided a free lunch fior her kids. It was about the only way I could do my bit to control welfare waste.

Also, unlike many small business operators, I drew a fair wage as well as a wage fir my wife, both if which were taxed via the PAYG system and it's predecessor. We also paid super to ourselves at the applicable rate.

Cheers.

Yes I have worked for businesses where the wife is on the books, never seen in the business, does it all from home.
Butch you once claimed it was okay for small business to pocket the GST on the grounds they were just getting some back, so they could survive, did you not? I don't know about you, and your bags of bones. I understand as a purveyor of rotting flesh (all meat once dead is rotting) you are exempt from GST. But give Tax'em Tony time and 15% on everything will be the go. Small Business can then rip off even more!
What about small business which is pocketing GST to the tune of $7 billion p/a, is it okay or not? Simple question.

Paul, I dont support any form of tax evasion, which includes collecting and not passing on the GST. I do however have no problem with tax minimization, for two reasons, one being the risks now involved in small business, as most stand a better chance of failure, than success, and two, because governments can't be trusted to spend our taxes wisely or efficiently, that's why I feel donations, which are tax deductible, hit the spot.

Now while many may disapprove of that, there is nothing more frustrating than to know you can loose everything at any time in business and, that your taxes are helping bludgers to enjoy their sleep in, or illegals placing a drain on the system.

As for my share of taxes, I paid my share from my wage, which by the way was generally set at around the national average. Not too much to ask for 70 to 80 hour weeks. My wife was my book keeper and earned a bit less. I even got charged for what was known as good for own use. So call me right or wrong, but I did pay my fair share of tax.

GST. Rather than raise the tax, they should broaden it to cover everything (except health and education) then allow pensioners and low income earners, nit gift recipients, to claim back their tax from Medicare or centerlink.

I say this because high income earners can afford the tax as they don't require 100% of their income for essentials.

Of cause any of this comes a distant second in my view to a true finacial transaction tax, but no government wants to go there.

SM,

".....You and your ilk consider it sinful that we earn more than you..."

Well, Lol!...(I find that kinda funny)...SM is so sure he earns more than my family.

Okay Bwana, whatever you say.

: )

So I see the tought of a levy has gone down like a lead balloon with the high income earners.

Quite understandable considering they are the ones who provided the taxes that were wasted by labor that caused this mess.

Everyone should be shouldering this burden.

Poirot,

I take your evasion of my first comment to mean that you also take advantage of tax rebates to avoid paying excess tax, making you (according to you) a pitiful greedy capitalist.

If you are earning more than us, good for you. I had assumed that from the poverty of logic in your posts that you were a low ranking bureaucrat.

Seven months in office, and the coalition has *DOUBLED* the deficit. They are financially inept. Till then, Australia's financial books were close to the best in the world, and this was duly recognised the world over (but of course not by the uninformed, politically correct far right wingers on this forum, who have their barrow to push).

A tax is not a tax when the voters believe it is not a tax. "Voters and votes can take my job but names will never do so" pollies could say. Take your complaint into parliament by votergram to all MPs.Leverage on them. If that does not achieve the desired result, campaign in marginal electorates to change local MPs. That is how to get more acceptable government if you don't like what is there. Try a Residents Roundtable.

Fairgo, none of those things even remotely work. Here's why...

(1)"Take your complaint into parliament". A worthless suggestion. They won't pay one second's attention to you unless -- you say something they agree with, or offer their party a few thousand $$$$ for a "meeting". Also, petitions are 99.999999999999% destined to be 100% ignored.

(2) "Campaign in marginal electorates". Useless. Nobody will pay attention to "your" campaign. For them to pay attention you'll need to align yourself with a political party, and be subject to all the controls, corruption and double talk of the party (and if you say one wrong thing, they'll eject you from the party).

(3)"Residents roundtable". Completely worthless. The pollie in an electorate will only listen to residents if they support him/her. Then, 2 weeks out from the next election the pollie will "pretend" to listen to everyone.

Fairgo, the other problem is that a large percentage of voters don't even know who thier local member is, let alone how to contact them. They usually vote for who represents the PM/party they want in power.

In all seriousness though, this topic comes back to the core problem we face, that being, how do we fix the budget without raising a tax/levy.

Nhoj, Now as for Tony Abbott increasing the debt, has he wasted any money, if so, how and where? Remembering that servicing labors massive debt is not waste of his doing, nor is running the illegals camps, a nessecity created and left behind by labors incompetence.

I can think of a minor issue, that being that stupid dames rubbish, which amounts to pocket money waste.

Nhoj,

Not true!

(1)"Take your complaint into parliament". A worthless suggestion. They won't pay one second's attention to you unless -- you say something they agree with, or offer their party a few thousand $$$$ for a "meeting". Also, petitions are 99.999999999999% destined to be 100% ignored.
I'm Gina Rinehart, I've got billions.

(2) "Campaign in marginal electorates". Useless. Nobody will pay attention to "your" campaign. For them to pay attention you'll need to align yourself with a political party, and be subject to all the controls, corruption and double talk of the party (and if you say one wrong thing, they'll eject you from the party).
I'm Clive Palmer, I've got billions.

(3)"Residents roundtable". Completely worthless. The pollie in an electorate will only listen to residents if they support him/her. Then, 2 weeks out from the next election the pollie will "pretend" to listen to everyone.
I'm Uncle Sam, I haven't got billions, but i've got a bloody big gun.

See, it easy to get politicians to listen to you.