Do the Liberals have any good policies?

[Power Raid]

There is, of course, another thing that does not attract GST that no one is talking about expanding the base to include: housing.

Can I throw this one open to the masses: what would be the pros and cons of imposing a GST on existing houses that are sold for over 200% of the median house price in that city? Surely it would be a good little money raiser.

I'm no expert on GST but I thought GST is a little complicated on homes
- GST is applied on new homes (the inputs) but not the land (test apply) and then GST is placed on the final sale

then I thought GST was not applied to secondary sales to avoid double taxation


If we were going down the route of a property tax, I would favour an annualised tax rather than a transaction tax.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

If we were going down the route of a property tax, I would favour an annualised tax rather than a transaction tax.

Isn't that called rates?

 

[pazza]

Turnbull says everything is on the table.

Fine.

Let's have a net worth tax. 50% of net worth over $50million.

 

[The Punter]

That's not a tax - that's the government compulsorily acquiring an asset.

 

[Power Raid]

Isn't that called rates?

Rates are for services and yes there is a land tax and in WA its pretty cheap at $1,750 for a $1m parcel of land. this is too cheap.

On the other hand, if you buy a house with the land value of $1m you are probably outlaying $2.1m which would come with a $100k transaction tax.

I would like to see the inefficient transaction tax abolished and see land tax on a $1m parcel increased (and phased in to acknowledge the past transaction tax) to $10-20k pa.

 

[Power Raid]

Turnbull says everything is on the table.

Fine.

Let's have a net worth tax. 50% of net worth over $50million.

why? and how?

A person with $50m in assets in their name was probably on the top income bracket at close to 50% tax. Then you want an additional 50% of what they have over $50m? doing the sums, that's 75% tax plus a further 10% on what's left for GST.

sounds like an envy tax.

 

[Lebbo73]

why? and how?

A person with $50m in assets in their name was probably on the top income bracket at close to 50% tax. Then you want an additional 50% of what they have over $50m? doing the sums, that's 75% tax plus a further 10% on what's left for GST.

sounds like an envy tax.

Sounds like a dumb idea from a greedy individual!

 

[CbayT]

Rates are for services and yes there is a land tax and in WA its pretty cheap at $1,750 for a $1m parcel of land. this is too cheap.

On the other hand, if you buy a house with the land value of $1m you are probably outlaying $2.1m which would come with a $100k transaction tax.

I would like to see the inefficient transaction tax abolished and see land tax on a $1m parcel increased (and phased in to acknowledge the past transaction tax) to $10-20k pa.

This has been introduced in the act; victoria and nsw are looking at it. It has been modeled that it will have the added benefit of moving empty nesters out of their homes and increasing land utility

Like the GST it is also a tax the rich cant avoid mind you its a state base tax.

 

[pazza]

Sounds like a dumb idea from a greedy individual!

As opposed to a 15% tax on everything including food, that would see..wait for it..the low income earners having >100% (I think the figure is closer to 150%) expenditure on their current financial position whereas the rich under the same regime only has 75% maximum? How on earth is raising the GST at all any thing like fair and reasonable?

Here is the perfect tax system:

Income tax - only kicks in after a person earns $50K a year. Then between 50-100 its 15%, 100-200 20%, 200-500 25%, 500-1mil 35%..after a million it's 50%.
Carbon tax
Net worth tax.

If we are to believe that we need to fix the budget, surely getting more revenue in has to be a part of the equation, just as long as that grab for revenue is geared to the top end of the food chain and not the bottom.

 

[CbayT]

As opposed to a 15% tax on everything including food, that would see..wait for it..the low income earners having >100% (I think the figure is closer to 150%) expenditure on their current financial position whereas the rich under the same regime only has 75% maximum? How on earth is raising the GST at all any thing like fair and reasonable?

Here is the perfect tax system:

Income tax - only kicks in after a person earns $50K a year. Then between 50-100 its 15%, 100-200 20%, 200-500 25%, 500-1mil 35%..after a million it's 50%.
Carbon tax
Net worth tax.

If we are to believe that we need to fix the budget, surely getting more revenue in has to be a part of the equation, just as long as that grab for revenue is geared to the top end of the food chain and not the bottom.

That ain't enough by a long way.the first thing any rich person does is minimise income

 

[Lebbo73]

As opposed to a 15% tax on everything including food, that would see..wait for it..the low income earners having >100% (I think the figure is closer to 150%) expenditure on their current financial position whereas the rich under the same regime only has 75% maximum? How on earth is raising the GST at all any thing like fair and reasonable?

Here is the perfect tax system:

Income tax - only kicks in after a person earns $50K a year. Then between 50-100 its 15%, 100-200 20%, 200-500 25%, 500-1mil 35%..after a million it's 50%.
Carbon tax
Net worth tax.

If we are to believe that we need to fix the budget, surely getting more revenue in has to be a part of the equation, just as long as that grab for revenue is geared to the top end of the food chain and not the bottom.

I don't agree with a gst on food, health, water, rates, etc. I also don't see the need for an increase in income taxes. If anything, it should be slashed along with govt spending!

 

[rodney hoo]

I don't agree with a gst on food, health, water, rates, etc. I also don't see the need for an increase in income taxes. If anything, it should be slashed along with govt spending!

Where do we start healthcare, education, your man Abbott already cut the guts out that, maybe we should stop those 72 planes we are purchasing there lemons anyway, the new Canadian government just stopped their order. So maybe take all the farmers and mining subsidies and help outs away.

It's time to tax the multi national and the Cayman island investors, what they do is not illegal (morally it is) but that's where Australia is missing out and you can add inn family trusts and re configure negative gearing.

 

[Lebbo73]

Where do we start healthcare, education, your man Abbott already cut the guts out that, maybe we should stop those 72 planes we are purchasing there lemons anyway, the new Canadian government just stopped their order. So maybe take all the farmers and mining subsidies and help outs away.

It's time to tax the multi national and the Cayman island investors, what they do is not illegal (morally it is) but that's where Australia is missing out and you can add inn family trusts and re configure negative gearing.

They didn't cut the guts out of healthcare and education. All they did was cancel the proposed extra spending that wasn't funded.
I agree with you about the planes. I don't know enough about multinationals to really comment.
Your Cayman Islands comment is just an excuse to steal other peoples money. Totally disagree on family trusts, refer to Cayman Islands.
As for negative gearing, this should probably only be restructured or scrapped if the housing market ever collapses. If you tackle it now, you might trigger a collapse that will take the economy with it. Not that this won't happen eventually anyway.

 

[Power Raid]

This has been introduced in the act; victoria and nsw are looking at it. It has been modeled that it will have the added benefit of moving empty nesters out of their homes and increasing land utility

Like the GST it is also a tax the rich cant avoid mind you its a state base tax.

I would prefer we strengthen the states and the money for better local solutions for local needs

 

[Power Raid]

As opposed to a 15% tax on everything including food, that would see..wait for it..the low income earners having >100% (I think the figure is closer to 150%) expenditure on their current financial position whereas the rich under the same regime only has 75% maximum? How on earth is raising the GST at all any thing like fair and reasonable?

Here is the perfect tax system:

Income tax - only kicks in after a person earns $50K a year. Then between 50-100 its 15%, 100-200 20%, 200-500 25%, 500-1mil 35%..after a million it's 50%.
Carbon tax
Net worth tax.

If we are to believe that we need to fix the budget, surely getting more revenue in has to be a part of the equation, just as long as that grab for revenue is geared to the top end of the food chain and not the bottom.

I still don't get the love affair with a carbon tax. anyone throwing that into the mix fails to understand the basics.

we need sensible tax solution that are design to raise revenue efficiently and effectively. a tax that kills industry and creates more pollution by exporting our pollution overseas along with industry and jobs does not make sense.

 

[Gough]

Emissions dropped, the economy continued to grow, and $$$ raised. It worked, what's hard to understand about that?

 

[pazza]

I don't agree with a gst on food, health, water, rates, etc. I also don't see the need for an increase in income taxes. If anything, it should be slashed along with govt spending!

Low taxes and low expenditure create a country going backwards on education, health and infrastructure!

 

[Power Raid]

Emissions dropped, the economy continued to grow, and $$$ raised. It worked, what's hard to understand about that?

higher power costs because of power investment allocation and uncertainty. Heavy industry and refineries closed down, shifting blue collar jobs and pollution overseas. supporting businesses supplying the car industry and jobs in the car industry are yet to be lost and felt.

BHPs decision not to proceed with Olympic Dam was in partdue to the carbon tax and the mining tax. $3b a year in the lost revenues for the state of SA and $350m a year lost to the state government.

the list goes on. what's not too like?

taxes should be designed to raise revenue for the government in an efficient manner. Killing jobs, increases net global pollution, lowering tax take and killing a state is not something to be proud about.



oh and where was that growth, the increase in production form mining. let's see how we go with lower commodity prices.

 

[Gough]

BHP said nothing of the sort, they were at pains to point out the contrary.

 

[Power Raid]

Low taxes and low expenditure create a country going backwards on education, health and infrastructure!

agree but that should be the responsibility of the states. the GST increase and income decrease should restore some of that balance, along with abolishing inefficient transaction taxes on property (replaced with annual taxes) and abolishing payroll tax which penalises employers for hiring people.

 

[Power Raid]

BHP said nothing of the sort, they were at pains to point out the contrary.

internal discussions and external representations are often very different.

oh and you can't hide costs in an NPV

 

[Gough]

So they misled the stock market in your view?

 

[Power Raid]

So they misled the stock market in your view?

no

the disclosure would have been the mine would not proceed.

internally the reasons were many fold including delays in the approval process (7 years) meaning the commodity price outlook was far less certain under a GFC, external funding was not desired and internal funding forecasts were uncertain under a carbon tax, a mining tax Mk 1 (which effected Olympic Dam direct) and Mk2 which ate into profits from the Pilbara earmarked for SA.


You do appreciate with infrastructure including factories that they don't just shut down on a policy change or increased taxes. As they are sunk costs they continue but further investment ceases. thus you have a long slow decline like detroit, South Africa and now Australia (especially SA). It is a shame some people look at the 5 minute window and simply say "nothing happened, all good". but can't join the dots as to the trajectory.

 

[Maggie5]

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...icies-made-half-a-million-australians-abandon

Found the following question interesting, especially in relation to smokers.



I found it interesting the age gaps they decided to give examples of, there was a bigger jump in the last age group.
Say for example an elderly person is a smoker but has a fall and injures their hip or needs a knee replacement, would they not have private medical cover?
Not sure what they intend to do with a question like this, what do they think the majority of respondents will answer?

 

[The Punter]

The problem here is you don't want a flood of people back into the public system. They are subsidizing their own health care and saving the taxpayer money, even if they take advantage of the 30% health rebate (which is not all private health insurance users).