David Leyonhjelm watch...

[Maggie5]

I see you did a ninja edit. Ok, I'll respond to this.

Where did I say I would support increasing taxes?
Are you saying taxing is theft? Or only if it is from "the wealthy"?

The wealthy pay tax? I didn't know that.

PS Love the new photo, champion!

 

[Schache It Off]

I see you did a ninja edit. Ok, I'll respond to this.

Where did I say I would support increasing taxes?
Are you saying taxing is theft? Or only if it is from "the wealthy"?

Apologies on the ninja edit.

The mentality with the left is that the wealthy needs to be taxed nearly half their salary is just wrong, you wouldn't like it if half your working days were spent working for the government right? I brought up the wealthy because it seems that it's fine to give tax breaks to the lower and middle class (Which is good) But then target the people who make a six figure income.
I also do believe the income tax is wrong, and in support of a flat tax. The LDP plan on taxation while isn't everything I wanted, it certaintely is the step in the right direction.

 

[Schache It Off]

OK. First, sorry I was aggressive to begin with.


Now, does wealth change the cost of items?
If we had a flat tax of say, 10%, let's look at the math.
$40k salary = $4k tax
$300k salary = $30k tax

Money remaining
$36k
$270k

Everything costs the same for everyone. Medicine, dental, food, accommodation, basics.
Who do you think is really affected the most?

My fault also

If you look at the LDP plan, the tax free threshold will be lifted to $40,000 and anything above that will be taxed at 20 cents on every dollar. I see this as more beneficial to the poor and middle class.

Taxation in Australia is a problem as far as I am concerned, however I see the spending as a greater issue. Again, I don't know if we will agree on how Australia should spend money on what though.

 

[Floor Pie]

My fault also

If you look at the LDP plan, the tax free threshold will be lifted to $40,000 and anything above that will be taxed at 20 cents on every dollar. I see this as more beneficial to the poor and middle class.

Taxation in Australia is a problem as far as I am concerned, however I see the spending as a greater issue. Again, I don't know if we will agree on how Australia should spend money on what though.

Thanks.

Yeah, increasing the tax free threshold is good. But what do you think will happen to all of the services that have been subsidised for people in the tax free threshold, if a flat tax is implemented?
Costs will increase for everything.
That isn't beneficial for the poor in any form.
Do you know what I mean?

 

[Schache It Off]

Thanks.

Yeah, increasing the tax free threshold is good. But what do you think will happen to all of the services that have been subsidised for people in the tax free threshold, if a flat tax is implemented?
Costs will increase for everything.
That isn't beneficial for the poor in any form.
Do you know what I mean?

To be honest I haven't thought enough about the subsidies. Did you mean education subsidies? i.e loans for students?

 

[GWSP]

 

[pokerspiv]

Thanks.

Yeah, increasing the tax free threshold is good. But what do you think will happen to all of the services that have been subsidised for people in the tax free threshold, if a flat tax is implemented?
Costs will increase for everything.
That isn't beneficial for the poor in any form.
Do you know what I mean?

Very few people make us of every single service that is available to them. Everyone benefits from a reduction in tax, which allows them to spend their own money on the services of their own choosing.

 

[Pie eyed]

For those who follow or are interested in a more Libertarian view of the world and politics I thought it would be interesting fo follow his efforts while in the senate.



He seems to have formed a mini block with Bob Day of FF. Doesn't seem to keen on Clive Palmer.

I think his humility will be an asset for him going forward.

An alliance with Family First is a concern.
Already buddying up with the class nimrod.
Odds on he sleeps with that Lambie brain scientist before the end of this Parliament and gets crabs.

 

[Gus Poyet]

An alliance with Family First is a concern.
Already buddying up with the class nimrod.
Odds on he sleeps with that Lambie brain scientist before the end of this Parliament and gets crabs.

He thinks Lambie is a moron, he's said as much. I doubt he ends up doing anything with that woman.

 

[samFFC]

Voting against the new security laws, another point of differentiation from Coalition, and this time the PUP.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/senate-passes-security-laws-fears-press-freedom

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

My fault also

If you look at the LDP plan, the tax free threshold will be lifted to $40,000 and anything above that will be taxed at 20 cents on every dollar. I see this as more beneficial to the poor and middle class.

Taxation in Australia is a problem as far as I am concerned, however I see the spending as a greater issue. Again, I don't know if we will agree on how Australia should spend money on what though.

I'm sure they've done their maths on this, but my instinctive response would be that this wouldn't raise enough money. As right-wingers love pointing out, the top % pay a lot of the tax. You reduce their tax and you lose a lot of revenue. Perhaps that's why you've mentioned the important thing is what we spend money on, but Australia is not the US and even the US is moving towards govt spending more, not less. The chances of Australia truly becoming a small govt country are tiny. Howard made government much bigger. The current Coalition with things like the PPL or $200 marriage counselling vouchers have shown they love a tax-and-spend approach to govt too. You might look at the mining/Carbon tax fights and say it was a win for small govt, but you can cherry-pick either way. Labor did a lot of tightening of asset-testing for welfare or moved single mums onto new start (after 8 years) to reduce dependence on hand-outs. Yes, they were looking for cash to spend on Gonski and the NBN and the NDIS, but all those things are about creating more freedom - which is what libertarians are meant to fans of, right? Education increases social mobility, the NBN lets business compete more evenly with (or even ahead of) their global competitors; and the NDIS says that disability shouldn't stop you having a normal life.

 

[Richard Pryor]

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/...stleblowers-to-be-jailed-20140926-10m8ih.html

After concerns were raised by Labor and Senator Leyonhjelm, the government agreed to amend the legislation to specifically rule out ASIO using torture.
"The internet poses one of the greatest threats to our existence," Palmer United Party Senator Glen Lazarus said, speaking out against Senator Ludlam's amendment.

 

[pokerspiv]

I'm sure they've done their maths on this, but my instinctive response would be that this wouldn't raise enough money. As right-wingers love pointing out, the top % pay a lot of the tax. You reduce their tax and you lose a lot of revenue.

Not necessarily

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Not necessarily

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Meds has tried to use this in the past as some right-wing cure-all too. As shown by mines using loopholes to avoid paying 15% tax, or as celebrated by people like Kerry Packer or Kate Carnell who reckon its someone's obligation to minimise their tax as much as possible, there isn't some magic point where people happily pay tax. It's mythology.

After all, Labor and the Libs went into 2007 with income tax cuts. They were implemented. Revenue did not raise. It was reduced. Obviously.

 

[pokerspiv]

Higher taxes cause companies to relocate operations and assets in jurisdictions where taxes are lower.

 

[Floor Pie]

Higher taxes cause companies to relocate operations and assets in jurisdictions where taxes are lower.

Because companies don't avoid as much tax as possible already?

 

[pokerspiv]

Because companies don't avoid as much tax as possible already?

Do you have a point?

Everyone avoids as much tax as possible already. Or do you donate more to the tax office than what they ask for each year?

 

[Floor Pie]

Do you have a point?

Everyone avoids as much tax as possible already. Or do you donate more to the tax office than what they ask for each year?

If they could relocate, to avoid more tax... they would...

 

[pokerspiv]

If they could relocate, to avoid more tax... they would...

They can and do.

Increase the tax and more companies/individuals will leave. Reduce it and you reduce their incentive to leave, which means more companies and high-income earners remaining in Australia.

http://rt.com/usa/187480-burger-king-canada-move/

 

[Floor Pie]

They can and do.

Increase the tax and more companies/individuals will leave. Reduce it and you reduce their incentive to leave, which means more companies and high-income earners remaining in Australia.

http://rt.com/usa/187480-burger-king-canada-move/

Really? They can, and already do? No waaai? I thought they "donate more to the tax office than what they ask for each year"????...

Reduce it, and what company will decide to pay more in tax? What company won't still look for every possible way to avoid as much tax as possible?

Increase the tax, and suddenly businesses will decide to try and pay as little tax as possible? Bullshit, who doesn't try to pay as little as possible?

 

[pokerspiv]

Really? They can, and already do? No waaai? I thought they "donate more to the tax office than what they ask for each year"????...

Reduce it, and what company will decide to pay more in tax? What company won't still look for every possible way to avoid as much tax as possible?

Increase the tax, and suddenly businesses will decide to try and pay as little tax as possible? Bullshit, who doesn't try to pay as little as possible?

Sometimes I think you are being wilfully stupid to avoid getting the point.

You don't reduce tax so that people will volunteer to pay more. You reduce tax to attract and/or retain more taxpayers.

People and companies move to lower tax countries all the time, expressly so they can pay less tax. There have been numerous very famous examples (Pat Cash, Gerard Depardieu, U2, Eduardo Saverin etc, etc), I am not sure what you are trying to achieve with your pretend ignorance.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/mar/06/non-dom-refugees-ashcroft
http://www.nestmann.com/growing-numbers-of-tax-refugees-exit-usa-permanently

The upshot being that countries that lower their taxes experience higher rates of economic growth, and therefore total revenue increases despite the rate of taxation falling.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The upshot being that countries that lower their taxes experience higher rates of economic growth, and therefore total revenue increases despite the rate of taxation falling.

Mmm, Ireland is going great guns, innit?

 

[mottrain]

Mmm, Ireland is going great guns, innit?

I masybe wrong but isn't Ireland in better shape compared to the rest of Europe and actually doing quite well considering coming from its base ;levels 5 or vso years prior?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I masybe wrong but isn't Ireland in better shape compared to the rest of Europe and actually doing quite well considering coming from its base ;levels 5 or vso years prior?

Yes, you are wrong.

 

[mottrain]

Yes, you are wrong.

This doesn't answer the question? I'm pretty sure evidence showed steady and solid improvements as were reported on the ABC last week over this time frame.