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.