"The Left"

Remove this Banner Ad

Your comment on international tax is very important. Our tax laws actually promote Australians and Australian businesses to become non-tax residents.

So much so, it is difficult to gain foreign investment in some industries here in Oz unless you restructure overseas.

It would take 15 minutes to fix the tax laws and simply tax residents and non tax residents the same on interest, CGT, royalties etc.
Now, I don't want to jump to conclusions.
And I'm sure you know better...
But I have to ask, do you think a flat tax/gst would be the best option for Australia?
 
What about franking?

Excellent point:

A tax specialist will probably rip through this but as I understand it:

there is no WHT on fully franked dividends but there is on unfranked dividends. Currently no further tax is payable or WHT tax required for the franking credits but no claim or offset can be made for those credits.

Where unfranked dividends are received, a WHT (30% no tax treaty and 15% with tax treaty) is applied but as I understand it the foreign investor can see-through the profits for the amount that is foreign income so the WHT is only applicable to the australian income component in the dividend.



This is a very convoluted way to deal with something that should be simple.....and simply treat it like tax residents.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

This is a very convoluted way to deal with something that should be simple.....and simply treat it like tax residents.

I think The Passenger is a bookie

Convoluted yes, but it's express purpose is to keep Australian companies in Australia as tax residents, no? Australia will never win a race to the bottom on taxation. Nor should it aim to.
 
I think The Passenger is a bookie

Convoluted yes, but it's express purpose is to keep Australian companies in Australia as tax residents, no? Australia will never win a race to the bottom on taxation. Nor should it aim to.

I think you are missing the point.

Our tax system benefits non-tax residents and encourages Australian companies to re-domicile their tax affairs.
 
Rosie Batty is a crazy lefty. Her idea of 'education' in schools for respectful relationships just sounds like political re-programming for boys, or has the potential to be.

I genuinely feel sorry for the death of her child but the father who killed him was a man dealing with obvious psychological mental health issues. This tragedy isn't too dissimilar to the half white/asian male from California who went on a killing spree. The guy was a nutjob who used the sexual rejection he experienced to justify the murders he committed. So putting their criminal actions down to misogyny is disingenuous, simplistic and quite frankly daft.

Those 2 males do in no shape or form represent the vast majority of men in the community, nor do their violent actions suggest that there's something inherently wrong permeating through current day 'masculinity'. I can't help but feel that she's taking advantage of her tragedy to push her own seriously flawed bigoted extremist agenda.

There are many cases where mothers/females kill their off-spring (African mother driving car into the lake drowning children on board, Aboriginal mother killing 8 of her children in Queensland, an Anglo Western Australian mother murdering her own 5 month old baby girl,etc...) But I can't recall people making the same sweeping generalizations about men and blaming it on some deep-seated homicidal tendencies found specifically in women or influenced by toxic feminism. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Wahey, things about to get interesting here.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

randyzany - who said the murder of Rosie Batty's son was down to misogyny? What does it have to do with the topic?

The murder of Luke Batty has definitely been wound into the wider conversation on family violence when really, it is about mental health.
 
The murder of Luke Batty has definitely been wound into the wider conversation on family violence when really, it is about mental health.
Is there any such thing as family violence then?

And how is that issue 'misogyny' anyway?
 
Is there any such thing as family violence then?

And how is that issue 'misogyny' anyway?

There certainly is such a thing as family violence ...
 
The could have built a real NBN for half the price Tony the Al Swearengen has wasted on the shitpile he has failed to deliver.

#deportthecult******
This swear filter is getting ridiculous
 
Those lazy homeless won't shop at his stores.
But he is a Rich Person and as such must be Ready To Take His Millions Overseas Because Of Our Oppressive Tax Regime (TM)

So, just how rich do you need to be to make it worthwhile to take your money to a tax haven?
 
This a term thrown about like confetti in Australia, and I've come to the conclusion that many who hurl it about have no clue what they mean by it. I think there is a very strong case for an argument of minds/ideology over future economic direction, but to many, "the left", often accompanied by an synonym of crazy seems to be a catch all term coined by conservatives in the media, and enthusiastically adopted by their acolytes to mean anybody opposing this government, and it's policies.
So what does left wing mean to you? Is it Maoism, socialism, communism, Marxism, it's never exactly been a united movement, which is why I find this sweeping generalisation odd.

I've always regarded myself as of the left (some of my friends believe I am radically so and may have a point on some issues). I agree that it's used a lot by conservatives as a synonym for "loony" and to be honest, I can see where they are coming from in some respects. It's like when "leftists" use the term "right-winger" as though it means fascist/bigot. It's an accurate description in many cases as both sides have their share of idiots and self-serving pricks.
 
I find it strange that we all know what left and right is as a high level concept but some posts above seem to try and over complicate things. With any high level term you have to consider it is not specific and may mean things in different context.

As a personal consideration I would consider myself quite "left" (of centre) in thinking when it comes to social issues like be pro-gay marriage, pro the dole, pro minimum standards in health and education. I am how "right" (of centre) in economics as I believe we have rights and responsibilities (no free lunch for those that should be contributing).

So for me left or right is offensive, its just a preference. but with a little twist of language in the right context and it can easily be turned in a derogatory remark.

That is a well-balanced comment and reflects my own views (altho I have major reservations about pro-gay marriage for reasons I can explain if asked).

To answer slightly obliquely OP's post, most folk are centrists (a little Left and a little Right, and that sweet spot is where elections are won, usually). However, the Left/Right viewpoints have become highly polarized through the partisan politics of extremists on both sides, which drives a percentage of the Left more left, and the Right more right.

Some of the comments on this thread illustrate this current zeitgeist (no offense).

What has occurred is that the original distinctions between the political Left and the Right, from a philosophical viewpoint, have been hijacked by the activists as part of the ongoing culture wars (I commented on this in another context elsewhere in the SRP forum). As part of their strategy the partisan extremists demonize folk not perceived to be on their side (e.g. in a US context Republicans are red-necks not interested in the Arts and will drive their Cadillacs over the homeless etc, and Democrats are touchy/feely emoters always in search of a battle to fight or a victim to champion).

Alan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind analyzes this context (culture wars) which had their roots in the '60's revolutionary student politics and liberation movements (my era as it happened) and casts them as a contest over the meaning not only of truth, but in classical Derrida deconstruction logic — the very concept of truth. This is pure Marxist deconstruction and the battle is between those views held by the sixties and post-sixties moral and cultural relativists (who are all on the Left) , and on the other hand the more traditional rationalists who believe, as Bloom wrote: “ truth is universal, no matter the circumstances.” So did Descartes and Spinoza, for that matter.

This struggle has resulted in a significant transformation (Obama's mantra) of what has been described as "normative" America and its traditional values, and produced the Left's cultural identity movements of feminism, gay liberation, and a new "progressive" more secular counterculture. This is one reason why some sections of the Right are now perceived as far Right (gay marriage is a good example of this, especially disliked by religious conservatives - not exclusively Christian).

These sorts of issues are now driving the political debate as to what it means to be Left (or Right).
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top