Am I suggesting that my Super Fund should be robbed of GST
money, so that you have less to spend in retirement?

No, I am suggesting that if the fund don't pay it, its just more tax you and I pay when we retire because the tax (interest we pay on money govts borrow from banks)will simply be extended to other areas of the economy that are already taxed.

I'm also suggesting that if we don't tax share trades then the GST will simply get extended further through its existing base and not spread wider across the economy.

If we are to accept the premise of the above post, then it sounds to me like a certain mindset is making the argument that some others have made, i,e. that nothing that generates wealth should be taxed at all.

I can understand someone who has double digit millions making this argument because they win big time them but for small time insignificant little nobodies like the rest of us 99% are, its a ludicrous argument to make.

Such a mind set might just as well make an argument that all taxes should only ever be paid by wage and salary earners.

If that is what you think feel free to say so.

Shadow, good morning and salutations

Typical Liberal, getting it wrong as per usual... how can you say;

"Tony Pasin has achieved"... sleeping through parliament like the taxpayer funded Rip Van Winkle he is, is hardly an achievement. I ask again please list the parliamentary achievements of this 'Million Dollar Man' Tony Baloney since he was booted from the Human Rights Committee, 22nd October 2015. and none of that hog wash "I don't follow SA politics" he's not in the SA Parliament, he's in Canberra. You being a Liberal insider should know this.

I await your answer, with bated breath.

Paul,

I struggle to see why you should be proud of your deep and mindless ignorance of politics yet alone want to flaunt it.

TP was elected as a representative of Barker which is still in South Australia, and as a first term novice MP on the backbench, who has moved from local government, his prime responsibility is to represent the interests of Barker. In doing so he has done more for the local economy than the harpy Pissy Waters with her incoherent whining has done for Queensland.

And while I understand that greens having no actual policies of their own get their information from twitter's quips and gotcha photos, (I admit I enjoyed Juliar's face plant) I would recommend more reliable sources such as:

http://www.tonypasin.com/
and
https://www.facebook.com/TonyPasinMP/

Shadow, thank you for your prompt response, I opened your first link, to the Tony Baloney propaganda site, I didn't bother with the "Facebook" thing, I don't want Tony as a Facebook friend, given Tone's propaganda site he seems to be rather boring. About those achievements, other than managing to get out of bed most mornings what has Tone actually achieved to justify a million bucks worth of taxpayer funds being blow'n on offices for the log,
You say Tone was a local government man, I'm sure a return to LG by Tone would be welcomed by the gold folk of Barker SA, maybe you can swing him a job on Matraville Council, the gardens in the local park sure could do with a weeding. Tone could achieve something there, he's not achieving anything in Canberra.

Shadow, it was a simple question, which so far you have failed to answer. What has Tony Pasin achieved in parliament to justify the extra expenditure of $500,000 to give him a second office?

Paul,

http://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/sa/files/2011/2011-aec-a4-map-sa-barker.pdf

The 3nd and 4th largest cities in SA are Mt Gambier and Murray Bridge which are nearly 400 km apart and nearly at opposite ends of Barker. The point of having an office in each city should be obvious to everyone other than the most small minded twit. I applaud your first time looking stuff up, and look forward to you actually reading it.

I also notice that you have abjectly failed to justify why Pissy Waters needed to spend $414 000 redecorating an existing office especially after a career of zero achievement.

Sorry Referundemdrivensocienty but this discussion is stupid.
(And you're all welcome to say the same thing about me and my ideas when its deserved).

If anything maybe increase the tax the capital gains made from profits on shares, but don't tax the purchase.
Sometimes if you hold shares as an asset for more than a year I'm not sure its even taxed at all, (but I can't remember exactly)

Shares are not goods or services, they are a financial thing no different to money, just as you can buy other nations currency and profit from FOREX trading. it's really no different at all.

Taxing share purchases is moronic.
It will destroy access to investment capital, halting projects, costing jobs and ultimately destroying whats left of our economy.

Not only that ITS JUST PLAIN DUMB, because after making policies that would undermine business, jobs and the economy, there's no way of guaranteeing that your idea will amount to even 1 CENT EXTRA in government coffers.

Why?
Because not even a FOOL would buy shares if they had to lose 10% off the top on an investment product.
This is a 'cut your nose off to spite your face' kind of idea.
Nice try, but it won't work the way you hope it might.

The problem isn't tax, its the way they spend it.
Do you actually work for the government?
What side are you on?