Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,232
- 24,283
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Yes, exactly. And there would be a big funding hole in these fully costed expenditure policies if that is the case.
Nah.
They will actually tax them.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, exactly. And there would be a big funding hole in these fully costed expenditure policies if that is the case.
As De Nero said in Taxi Driver "You talking to me"
Within the Greens there is a cadre of far left members.
We used to be called "The Industrial Left" (although we also had a piss taking name of "The Tomato Left") when we were all in the ALP
do you support the stage 3 tax cuts?Understanding how tax works does not mean I support the reality of taxation. IF we want to spend it, we need to get it from somewhere OR simply borrow it as we have since Howard/Costello were shown the door.*
Try understanding what you are talking about before leaping on that soap box & telling us how virtuous you are, protected by that cloak of ignorance.
* I bought the Rudd/Swann dream too.
Tax the current residents for tax purposes when they are no longer residents for tax purposes?Nah.
They will actually tax them.
Because the environmental damage would far outweigh what would be received in royalties and taxes at the current levels.Luckily eh. Lucky for the taxpayer?
Lucky the LNG was discovred, aka found, lucky the business case stacked up, lucky there was a potential customer prepared to sign up for a multi million take or pay contract for stuff still in ground .... etc.
But you know all that, its the easily lead you are selling that line tooo ..... Vic has locked up its gas reserves, $0 royalties. Thats a choice.
Haha, Howard and Costello set the scene for future borrowing. They cut recurrent taxes and replaced them with short-term revenues (like the sale of Telstra and other assets). They structurally decimated the budget.Understanding how tax works does not mean I support the reality of taxation. IF we want to spend it, we need to get it from somewhere OR simply borrow it as we have since Howard/Costello were shown the door.*
Try understanding what you are talking about before leaping on that soap box & telling us how virtuous you are, protected by that cloak of ignorance.
* I bought the Rudd/Swann dream too.
It depends by what you mean by 'worked'. It's a bit like medicare, there will always be claims that medicare is costly and we need to make cuts to keep it going. But the reality is that health care has a cost, and you either fund it collectively through government, or you push those costs back to your citizens -- some of who can't afford it.
Education is exactly the same. If we want a skilled, educated population - it is going to cost us money. Do we fund it through taxation? Or do we push the costs down to the students? If we do, then we have to accept that there will be people that miss out... and they will typically kids from low-income families. You can put a system like HECS/HELP to try and mitigate the situation... but that doesn't fix the problem. We have created a society where post-secondary education is more or less mandatory if you want to build financial stability, but we charge an arm-and-a-leg to acquire it.
The claim that we can't afford to make tertiary education free is completely wrong. Of course we can. It's just a matter of choices. I mean, apparently the Coalition have committed ~$25b in pork barrelling in this election alone. WTF does all that money come from? They spent half a billion dollars on their car park rorts. They overpayed Jobkeeper by $20b. The Stage 3 tax cuts are worth $18b. Heck, the total tax cuts are worth more than $35b.
European countries manage to fund tertiary education... so it's definitely not impossible. And it doesn't cause economic calamities.
It's a choice.
Because the environmental damage would far outweigh what would be received in royalties and taxes at the current levels.
How hard is it to find coal-seam gas in coal-seams which have been known for over a hundred years and found and initially exploited by the Govt?
They didn't find anything, they bought the rights to discovered resources. The Business Cases would still have stacked up, even if the royalties were increased by 50%.
Have you ever worked on these business cases? I have, and these ones are the ones where you're just going through the motions because everyone knows it already stacks up. The bulk of effort is working out how much of it can be claimed as "research" or as a co-contribution and tax deduction.
Globally, they weren't far off. It's $6 trillion a year.
Fossil fuel industry gets subsidies of $11m a minute, IMF finds
Trillions of dollars a year are ‘adding fuel to the fire’ of the climate crisis, experts saywww.theguardian.com
do you support the stage 3 tax cuts?
Tax the current residents for tax purposes when they are no longer residents for tax purposes?
How exactly will that happen?
How does that work with the proposed plan to tax 122 Billionaires global wealth? It isn't possible if they are not Australian residents for tax purposes.Taxing on residency is one way to tax.
Another way to tax is on source.
Hey Doofus try this:How does that work with the proposed plan to tax 122 Billionaires global wealth? It isn't possible if they are not Australian residents for tax purposes.
Not a lot of those billionaires can just move overseas and pay tax in a tax haven. Some of the ownerships of these companies would then be subject to FIRB. They'd only need to set one example. Sorry, Gina, it's not in Australia's national interests to have our biggest iron ore deposits owned by a lady who domiciles in the Cayman Islands. You can either be an Australian for tax purposes and own the company or move overseas and sell the company.How does that work with the proposed plan to tax 122 Billionaires global wealth? It isn't possible if they are not Australian residents for tax purposes.
Haha, Howard and Costello set the scene for future borrowing. They cut recurrent taxes and replaced them with short-term revenues (like the sale of Telstra and other assets). They structurally decimated the budget.
How does that work with the proposed plan to tax 122 Billionaires global wealth? It isn't possible if they are not Australian residents for tax purposes.
Howard and Costello could have invested the money from Telstra into the NBN and not into unsustainable tax cuts.Howard/Costello dealt with the economy they had. That doesnt mean I supported everything they did, see my vote for Kev07/time for a change.
The GFC changed that & the EVERY Government since then havent had the guts/integrity to face up to their own party room & admit 'things have changed.'
You appear to blame Howard/Costello in preference to Rudd/Swan or any other of the conga line of politicians of both sides, unprepared to deliver the bad news that its not 2002, its 2022, & accept the consequences.
Its lazy (politically preferable?) to be blaming a Government of 20 years ago in preference to looking at those who have failed to deliver when given the opportunity.
Trust you dont claim Mrs Rinehart is a Cayman resident, or can support that claim.Not a lot of those billionaires can just move overseas and pay tax in a tax haven. Some of the ownerships of these companies would then be subject to FIRB. They'd only need to set one example. Sorry, Gina, it's not in Australia's national interests to have our biggest iron ore deposits owned by a lady who domiciles in the Cayman Islands. You can either be an Australian for tax purposes and own the company or move overseas and sell the company.
I'm saying Billionaire Australians can't escape the taxman as easily as Murdoch can.Trust you dont claim Mrs Rinehart is a Cayman resident, or can support that claim.
I'm not sure how much more clearly I can spell this out. This is directly from the Greens website.
Telstra fyiHoward and Costello could have invested the money from Telstra into the NBN and not into unsustainable tax cuts.
I'm not sure how much more clearly I can spell this out. This is directly from the Greens website.
The Greens plan includes:
That is simply not possible, in any way, shape or form, if a person is not an Australian resident for tax purposes. If any of these people move themselves to another jurisdiction for tax purposes (which would be highly likely if such a plan became reality) there would be no mechanism for applying this tax.
- A 6% annual tax on the global net wealth of Australia’s 122 billionaires.
Kwality calling others ignorant now I've heard it allUnderstanding how tax works does not mean I support the reality of taxation. IF we want to spend it, we need to get it from somewhere OR simply borrow it as we have since Howard/Costello were shown the door.*
Try understanding what you are talking about before leaping on that soap box & telling us how virtuous you are, protected by that cloak of ignorance.
* I bought the Rudd/Swann dream too.
I'm saying Billionaire Australians can't escape the taxman as easily as Murdoch can.