Separate names with a comma.
Ask your board moderators about joining up. Our friendly Fantasy Footy mods GOAUS! and Jiska can help you find a league that's right for you.
Medals awarded to top performers!
Discussion in 'Australian Politics' started by pjcrows, Apr 13, 2012.
FFS surely they're not talking about finance and budget's are they
(Log in to remove this ad.)
Pics or it didn't happen.......
Now I'm getting scared.......
Adam Bandt has said he'll release fully costed policies ahead of the next election, so we'll see what comes of that.
As far as I'm aware they seek to expand the mining tax, have a tax bracket of 50% for incomes over $1 million and increase the company tax from 30% to 33% which presumably would broaden the tax base to pay for expanded services, though that may lead to slower economic growth.
There's a broader list of economic measures here:
Our local businesses are already struggling to compete with cheaper imports. Raising their taxes is just plain madness.
There is no 'may' about it. It will slow economic growth, which of course lowers tax revenue. So you end up with little to no net gain in tax revenue, you lower our international competitiveness (which already woeful) and the increased spending ends up being sourced through debt.
Now I am not taking a shot at you but this is why no one takes the Greens seriously on economic matters. It's all pie in the sky bullshit but with very real consequences.
This is patently false. Spending cuts or spending savings that they've supported this term include:
Means testing private healthcare
Not cutting big business taxes
Introduction of community detention rather than central detention for some asylum seekers
You could go through and find a heap of other initiatives but they're just off the top of my head from recent stuff.
As for "very little explanation on how they will pay for it" well again that's patently false. At the last election their tax commitments included:
An increase in corporate tax rate to 33%
A significant increase in the mining tax
A new top marginal tax rate of 50%
Introduction of an estate tax
Family trusts to be taxed as companies
Removal of fringe benefit tax concessions on cars
Taxing foreign currency transactions
These are all measures to pay for what they plan to achieve. You may disagree with some of these things (I know I do) but you can't claim that they haven't suggested increased revenue to pay for their policies.
This is actually a key part in moving from a fringe party to a significant player. They can't any longer get away with just putting up suggestions without saying how they'll pay for it. Now we're seeing a broader more realistic policy target and a more reasonable range of measures to pay for that.
Your point about costings is reasonable and I hope both the Greens and coalition get access to treasury to have their policies properly modelled and costed prior to the next election. I think it's true that the Greens, who were never going to be in a position to put forward a budget, didn't have there policies costed. The far scarier thing though is that the coalition, who were within 1 seat of having the budget in their control, also didn't cost policies.
Reality and the right thing to do, and what SHY believes and wants, are generally separated by a vast distance.
My bad. Should of said good suggestions for paying for them. It's just to me "we will raise taxes to pay for it" isn't an answer due taxes often ending up being revenue neutral or even negative.
The Liberal party did have costings. They we not done through treasury and might well be of questionable accuracy (but then treasury hasn't exactly covered itself in glory in this regard either) but they were done.
I reckon she will. Obviously it is only one persons perception, but she seems to me to personify exactly what the Greens are about these days.
Are you arguing that they should soften their principles?
I think this is an overly simplistic view. Sure raising certain taxes, at certain times, can have a negative affect due to it hurting the economy. However the equation's a lot more complex than what you suggest.
There's no doubt whatsoever that most of those measures would increase revenue. I'm not saying they're automatically good or the benifits outweigh the costs but I struggle to see how you could make an argument that any of them, on their own wouldn't increase revenue. The company tax could definitely hurt the economy but if it's matched with certain write-offs that help some businesses under significant pressures then again it would increase revenue.
The question really isn't whether or not they'll increase revenue but whether they'll provide a net improvement for society. This really depends on how the money is spent.
Come on that's so generous it's not funny. They claimed they had audited costings. It was then revealed that they'd requested the company who did the review explicitly not to audit it. Tony Windsor said that it was a major reason why he didn't back Abbott, because treasury had found at least $7B (and up to $11B) of mistakes with dodgy accounting. There were double counting revenues and spending money out of funds that had been allocated to other projects.
For all intents and purposes this was not a costing exercise. Not only that, they completely misled the public by claiming it had been audited while the company has since been fined for not making it clear it wasn't an audit in any way. The coalition were a seat away from being in government and we would only then have found that their costings were far from accurate. That's deeply worrying. The Greens have said they'll get their policies costed this time and I hope they do because they're now at a situation where they've got to present what they'd do in power rather than merely represent a protest vote over a particular issue.
Have a look at the costings for the MRT or its previous incarnations. Far from convinced that will be revenue positive in the medium or long term. There is a reason big miners support it. Or do you support Ken Henry's view that you could increase the MRT to 70% with no effect on mining investment?
I think your the one overly simplifying by claiming "but I struggle to see how you could make an argument that any of them, on their own wouldn't increase revenue." If you ignore the costs associated with a tax of course it will be revenue positive but that's almost being willfully ignorant.
If only treasury was fined when they make glaring errors...
But I do hope all parties have fully transparent and costed policies come next election. Hopefully they will actually stick with them post election this time.
Treasury only overstated their revenue estimates by $110 billion according to Swan on 774 this morning. Any costing undertaken by them can't be taken seriously
So 3 new taxes, 3 taxes to be raised and 1 removal of a tax benefit. Wow what a economic powerhouse. Big government all the way.
An estate tax? Yeah the public LOVE that. Labor nearly got run out of town for even suggesting that one in WA about 5 years ago.
The question wasn't whether they'd be popular.
The poster suggested that "every economic idea the Greens have suggested involves spending more money while opposing any spending cuts". I was merely pointing out that this isn't true.
You're free to disagree with the Greens policies (I know I do on a number of things) but I was pointing out that the particular criticism was factually incorrect.
I don't agree with Henry on that although I do think the effect of certain tax increases are overstated. For example under George W Bush taxes of all kinds were slashed. Yet this resulted in one of the slowest periods of growth for any president and led to massive deficits. The growth was significantly slower than under Clinton with much higher taxes.
As for the MRRT I think it's incredibly naive to suggest it won't increase income to the government. The big miners realise when they've got away with one in that the income will be far less than under the initial super profits tax. That doesn't mean it won't increase the overall government revenue.
I could see an argument for the business tax causing the economy to slow leading to an overall drop in revenue. I think that depends on a huge number of factors but there's an argument for it.
But taxing high income earners (which the bottom 5 on that list basically are)? History's shown this is economically one of the least damaging ways to increase government revenue. Historically most growth has been driven by middle class spending. The upper classes spend far less as a % of their income and that's why taxing them causes less to be taken out of the economy.
If you did that there wouldn't be an economist left. Probably wouldn't be the worst result
The company wasn't fined for making mistakes in their predictions but for effectively lying about the type of review they carried out.
Agreed on all counts.
Honestly any predictions undertaken by anybody can't be taken seriously. Economic projections are notoriously difficult due to the incredible complexities of the system. I mean almost nobody saw the global financial crisis coming. Whoops!
In my opinion the reason for costings is to ensure parties haven't completely fudged figures by double counting revenue or using seriously low estimates of what various policies will cost. At least we get an independent body to tick off on them and say the numbers are somewhat reasonable and everything adds up. Even that wasn't done on the coalition's costings.
but all those costings are additions. They are spending more and taxing more to make up the short fall.
Sorry I got my responses the wrong way around. These taxes were examples to show that the following comment,
is wrong. You can argue that these explanations are poor but they've provided ways that they plan to raise the funds.
The other comment that I addressed,
is also clearly wrong. They have policies or have supported legislation like means testing the private healthcare rebate, opposing the big-business tax cuts (which was effectively just a spending hand-out measure), suggesting cuts to funding for elite private schools, cutting the deisel fuel rebate. Say what you like about whether they're good or bad but they are spending cuts.
My only comment was that if you're going to disagree with the Greens (and you're more than welcome to) at least disagree with their actual policies as opposed to incorrect assumptions about their policies. Max zero's done that by recognising that his initial comments weren't entirely correct.
Not cutting (or raising) taxes is NOT a spending cut.
As for most economists not supporting Swan not returning the budget to surplus in a hurry? Colebatch and the Keynesian ivory tower dwellers, that is about it.
Do you not recall Bob Brown's alternative economic model, one that didnt involve growth?
The MRT is based on record prices for minerals being maintained. Guess what happens when they come down? Short term it will raise revenue, after that...
There is no such thing as taking less out of the economy. It that money is not being spend then it is being saved (which is then used towards investment). It hurts just as much it's just less obvious.
It's all part of the idea that the government knows how to spend our money better then we do. It fits in very well with the Greens totalitarian leanings (ie we know whats best do what we say).
Richo: why Gillard is doomed and Milne wedged
The ALP would see an epic collapse in support just like when Rudd dropped the ETS, and the Green vote would rise. If Gillard actually did that I wouldn't be surprised if the Greens get within 10% of an ALP that would be lucky to get into the high 20's. Milne would have no real option other then to rip up the deal and cause an election.
I doubt Brown leaving will have any real effect on the current political scene, or on the Greens support. I doubt Gillard and co will experience any great difference having to negotiate with Milne - after all, she is from the moderate faction of her party, as was Brown. Her agenda will be much the same as Browns.
I guess it is possible the Greens might see a small percentage - say, 2 or 3 % - of their support slip away in the immediate future. Brown had a very strong brand, so they might lose some votes without him there. Other Green voters might now reassess the Party under her leadership. But all will be ex-Left Labor voters anyway, so it will not have any effect on 2PP.
I think Milne would have to take the Greens in a very new direction, or badly mis-manage the party, to lose any sizable amount of votes.
Many are wondering what 'the dirt' is on his resignation/retirement. It is possible there is none. Agree or disagree with their beliefs and policy, they are a party with much less of the intrigue, ego, and back stabbing of our major parties. That said, I am a little surprised he didn't retire after the next election; after consolidating their recent wins. Still, doing it this way gives Milne a good 12-16 months to forge her 'brand' before the election.
Your quoting an opinion piece on the Greens and the ALP from The Australian. Seriously, why bother? You might as well just quote the agenda circulated in the Coalitions own party room.
If Gillard was to actually do as the article suggests, she would most likely be branded by the same paper as performing yet another back-flip, as inconsistent, and as incapable of real leadership by sticking to her guns.
News Ltd is just a daily troll on the government. Richo, for reasons only he comprehends, has joined that predictable troll.