Mega Thread All things Tony Abbott

Who will be the next Prime Minister of Australia

  • Malcolm Turnbull

  • Julie Bishop

  • Scott Morrison

  • Andrew Robb

  • Someone from the LIberal Party other than those above

  • Bill Shorten

  • Someone from the Labor Party other than Shorten


Results are only viewable after voting.

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,663
Likes
50,419
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I would also like to know how mining for Uranium, copper, gold and silver at Olympic dam was affected by the carbon tax (and pretty sure unaffected by mining tax too)....
that's what it looks like on face value but BHP representation was:

1) the mining tax did not materially directly impact Olympic dam as it is an IOCG (iron ore, copper gold (with uranium and silver). the mining tax impact would only effect the iron. what the mining tax did do though was reduce the income on mines such as Pilbara iron ore and queensland coal. This reduced the capital available to be re-invested into Olympic Dam.

2) the carbon tax had a material impact on operations as mining is energy intensive. Especially Olympic Dam as it requires the running of desal plants.

The other major factor that prevented the expansion, worth mentioning, was the 7 year approval process to allow a big hole to get bigger. Unfortunately for South Australia, the combination of red and green tape has cost the state many jobs and much needed royalties.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Eagle87

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
19,942
Likes
4,067
Location
Bangkok
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subi, Celtics, Pats, Sox
Lets just see a government role back negative gearing. I'm yet to hear one valid argument why this is still in place, yet it costs the government in the vicinity of 3-4 billion a year, while driving up housing costs for now owners.
The argument for negative gearing is pretty straight forward, you are entitled to a tax deduction for the costs involved in deriving assessable income.

Interest on money borrowed to purchase a property used to derive assessable income is a cost incurred in deriving assessable income. As such it's just a normal tax deduction. Not a specific concession. You'd need to insert a new provision that specifically limits normal deductions when they are incurred in the deriving of certain types of rental income. This could be problematic and would inevitably result in unintended consequences.

Further, there is the legitimate argument that it encourages investment in property, including the construction of new property. Reducing the attractiveness of this investment class may result in reduction in property availability for those looking to rent.

Perhaps the other way to attack this area is to attack the 50% discount at time of Sale. This can be done without changing the law if you simply argue that the purchaser had at least an equal intention of Sale of the property for profit at time of purchase. This is supported by recent case law that assessed a commercial property owner on revenue account because he was found to have had a dual purpose at time of acquisition I.e deriving rent and selling for profit. By Assessing on revenue account instead of capital account you remove the 50% discount.

But worth remembering that prima facie "negative gearing" is not a concession, just a normal application of the law as it applies to deductions.
 
Last edited:

Eagle87

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
19,942
Likes
4,067
Location
Bangkok
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subi, Celtics, Pats, Sox
Note that documents such as the Henry review have long lives. While it was limited with respect to GST, it was otherwise comprehensive. Previous reports/reviews of similar scope have had their recommendations taken up years later by subsequent governments generally with better leaders than the current two options, as E87 said.

IMO, assuming no one will do anything comprehensive, the obvious short term easy target is superannuation. The limited tax proposed by the previous govt would have been a start.
Super is fraught. Henry found it fraught also.

There was a substantial winding back of the concession in deductions under Rudd and you've got to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think changes that remove the ability for large (100% is possible) lump sums are needed. It's stupid at the minute.

I think other changes have to be very carefully managed against the objective to have as many people as possible Self funded down the track.

Ensuring they can't double dip would also be smart and recent changes to the pension income test help in that regard. Sorry Dad but the days of living by the beach with a couple million in super while still drawing part age pension should be gone. :)
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,663
Likes
50,419
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Sorry PR but this is just not true. People can decide to put solar panels on their roof and in the space of a week have them generating power. Same with most energy saving devices like LED lighting.

The major changes around the time the carbon tax was implemented was growing solar installations, big uptake of energy efficient products and mothballing of coal-fired power plants. None of these take much time at all and it's exactly why we saw a down-swing in emissions from the time the carbon tax was announced through to when it was removed. It worked in giving a price signal (actually the scare campaign was the biggest impact meaning people thought it would be far more costly than it was ever going to be) and everyone, be it households, business or government, changed their energy behaviour accordingly.


.
Your right, and its great that many household have made the easy and quick changes in lighting, tvs etc. I think I put that in my post above.

In regards to wind and solar that to has had some impact but you have to remember that coal or gas power stations still require boilers to be in operation even if solar and wind are delivering into the grid. As they can't just simply be turned on or off when wind and solar are not generating reliably. So we are in effect running at double the cost for a marginal saving. This issue will improve over time when we invent batteries than can store large volumes of energy. In the mean time it is largely just a feel good exercise.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,663
Likes
50,419
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Actually our energy intensive industries such as aluminium smelting are among the most highly polluting in the world because our energy production is among the dirtiest. Claiming that these went to even more heavily polluting places is laughable. Of course the fact that trade exposed industries were given excessive compensation and assistance in adapting meant many of them (ridiculously) actually came out on top with the carbon price in place. The fact that the $A spiked at the same time was what pushed export companies to the wall but it's politically expedient to blame something that had a fraction of the impact when you want to oppose it.
really? and I even question your example.

1) Many people believe Alumina smelting is highly energy intensive when it is actually more heat intensive (the Bayer Process). If an alumina plant is built sensibly it is actually built next to a power station and use the waste heat.

2) But I do question whether you really believe China and Indonesia have cleaner power and better environmental standards than Australia.

3) I faily sure that we don't have aluminium refinery in Australia, I thought we stopped at the alumina stage (Hall-Heroult process) which is energy intensive.

Longer term as China continues to build their nuclear fleet they will have abundance of cheap clean base load power and sufficient waste heat to run refineries like Alumina plants better than us.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,663
Likes
50,419
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Actually apart from Tasmania, SA was the state that gained the most from carbon pricing. Electricity prices in SA in the early 2000s used to be miles above the rest of the country. Since they've gone towards wind power electricity prices have dropped significantly compared to other states (note the spike for Adelaide from 2002-2005 when they were ~30% more expensive than the other capitals):



Yet now prices in SA are similar to everywhere else. Looking at Red Energy in you pay 10c/KWh more in Adelaide than Melbourne but the service charge is ~30c per day cheaper. Depending on the amount of electricity being used by the household it might be more or less expensive but at most it'll be a few % difference either way. Not the ~30% difference it was a decade ago.

So you're wrong when you say it's ripped the guts out of the SA economy. Compared to other states SA would be better off under a carbon price. You're also wrong to suggest our energy intensive industries will go to dirtier places when a) they're protected from the impacts and b) if they do move (likely for unrelated reasons like the previously high $A) they'll likely go to cleaner countries with Germany's much cleaner aluminium production exploding while ours dropped.

At some point you've just got to admit the carbon price worked. There was a drastic reduction in emissions for those areas covered and the economy was still growing. The fact that the only criticism you here is massive hyperbole ("ripped the guts out of the economy", "job-destroying", etc) rather than reasoned analysis shows what a joke most of the criticism is. It was imperfect as all policies of this size are but overall it was achieving its aim and having negligible negative impacts. That's exactly what good policy should do.

Claiming that something is a success because it is not as crap as it use to be is hardly a glowing endorsement.

1) the reduction in price occurred pre tax so I'm not sure how you see the correlation. In fact you could draw a correlation to the tax to dragging all states down to SA's level.

2) Let's look at world comparatives



We are a first world nation and should not seek to only look at price rather we need to consider reliability and pollution control. but to stay a first world nation, and to afford to carry burdensome states like SA, we need a strong economy. That requires to remain globally competitive in power generation.

We also have a duty to our less fortunate parts of our society to provide clean affordable power to households. I wonder how the US, Canada and France achieve it.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,663
Likes
50,419
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
This is not just about electricity, if it were, we should all have more money in our pockets. Not just from our own accounts but all the money business is saving.
your right it is more than electricity.

but the largest emitter by industry is power (+30% of CO2). the second is land clearing which of course you don't get to see a hip pocket saving. the next biggest is industry which is half that of electricity by %.


so electricity is a big focus because it represent over double that of industry and as a % of personal income is higher again. How much do you spend each month on electricity vs australian industry?
 

Maggie5

Spec Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
35,148
Likes
31,827
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
Moderator #1,811
your right it is more than electricity.

but the largest emitter by industry is power (+30% of CO2). the second is land clearing which of course you don't get to see a hip pocket saving. the next biggest is industry which is half that of electricity by %.


so electricity is a big focus because it represent over double that of industry and as a % of personal income is higher again. How much do you spend each month on electricity vs australian industry?
So if industry is saving all that money, when does it flow on to the consumer from the products/services they make?
Methinks it was one almighty scare campaign but they miss out on the $$$$
So the environment and Joe/Jo Public misses out again.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
14,039
Likes
13,789
AFL Club
Sydney
At this point I have to assume you're just deliberately arguing with no actual point other than hearing your own voice.

You are selecting random quotes from me and asserting random quotes from the most comprehensive tax review ever undertaken and you are then fitting them around your preconceived ideas about both me and about Henry.


For you to assert that Henry merely proposed simplifying income tax and transfer payments to no real effect and then attacking tax minimization and tax avoidance is to be disingenuous or downright idiotic. It's one of the two. He went way beyond that and many of his suggestions were very good ideas BUT they require an open, logical reasoned discussion and unfortunately the world is full of folk who think like you .... Us and them, narrow minded and full of pre-judgement
LOLZ again.
It is academic dishonesty to quote someone elses work then make unsubstantiated conclusions.
Other than creating efficiencies there are no tangible benefits in 'taxing the middle more.' Hence the Henry recommendations. Point 1.
It stands to reason that if there were any benefits Dr Henry would have found them? Yeah? Point 2.
So, Dr Henry found no benefit to taxing the middle more. Please demonstrate how your idea of 'taxing the middle more' would work, as you obviously know more than him, working for 20 years at not one but two professional accounting bodies? Point 3.
 

Eagle87

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
19,942
Likes
4,067
Location
Bangkok
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subi, Celtics, Pats, Sox
LOLZ again.
It is academic dishonesty to quote someone elses work then make unsubstantiated conclusions.
Other than creating efficiencies there are no tangible benefits in 'taxing the middle more.' Hence the Henry recommendations. Point 1.
It stands to reason that if there were any benefits Dr Henry would have found them? Yeah? Point 2.
So, Dr Henry found no benefit to taxing the middle more. Please demonstrate how your idea of 'taxing the middle more' would work, as you obviously know more than him, working for 20 years at not one but two professional accounting bodies? Point 3.
Yawn. Have you got anything coherent to offer the discussion at all?

Or are attempts at wit your only offering?

Oh, and I don't work at those accounting bodies. I helped write their submissions. Think it through, you should be able to figure that out.
 

Eagle87

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
19,942
Likes
4,067
Location
Bangkok
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subi, Celtics, Pats, Sox
So you can't explain how taxing the middle more would be of any benefit to anyone, or you don't want to?
I've explained it about 6 times. It's your inability to grasp it that's disturbing.

The middle currently aren't making any net contribution (see above). There is a deep deficit which is structural caused in part by us not raising enough tax.

If part of the solution is increasing revenue or reducing transfer payments, a good chunk of that will fall on average families.

There is no benefit to anyone from them paying more tax if you believe our current & projected budget position can be solved without substantial increases in tax raised.

Most, including Henry, agreed that our tax system is currently not great. His reforms would have increased the tax on the middle (see above) and they would have increased the cost of home ownership for existing property owners (see his land value tax). Which would have hurt a chunk of the middle. His policies were also intended to reduce the price of housing (various proposals around the land value tax section of the report). Which would have cost those some Wealth.

But you keep rabbitting on about stuff you think you understand if it helps.
 
Last edited:

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
14,039
Likes
13,789
AFL Club
Sydney
I've explained it about 6 times. It's your inability to grasp it that's disturbing.

The middle currently aren't making any net contribution (see above). There is a deep deficit which is structural caused in part by us not raising enough tax.

If part of the solution is increasing revenue or reducing transfer payments, a good chunk of that will fall on average families.

There is no benefit to anyone from them paying more tax if you believe our current & projected budget position can be solved without substantial increases in tax raised.

Most, including Henry, agreed that our tax system is currently not great. His reforms would have increased the tax on the middle (see above) and they would have increased the cost of home ownership for existing property owners (see his land value tax). Which would have hurt a chunk of the middle. His policies were also intended to reduce the price of housing (various proposals around the land value tax section of the report). Which would have cost those some Wealth.

But you keep rabbitting on about stuff you think you understand if it helps.
More of the same.
Taxing the middle does not solve anything, certainly not the structural deficit. At best it MIGHT contribute to a much broader solution.
No sh!t the middle will get affected with changes to taxes and transfer payments. All taxpayers would be affected.
The suggestion that the Henry review was about making the middle pay more is completely unfounded.

Furthermore, Dr Henry's recommendations imply that it is not the 'tax neutral' middle that is the major cause of the structural deficit. Contrary to what you you and Joe Hockey would posit. The problem is much deeper than that. You have recognised as much, yet your political ideology prevents you from separating fact from fiction.
 

Eagle87

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
19,942
Likes
4,067
Location
Bangkok
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subi, Celtics, Pats, Sox
More of the same.
Taxing the middle does not solve anything, certainly not the structural deficit. At best it MIGHT contribute to a much broader solution.
No sh!t the middle will get affected with changes to taxes and transfer payments. All taxpayers would be affected.
The suggestion that the Henry review was about making the middle pay more is completely unfounded.

Furthermore, Dr Henry's recommendations imply that it is not the 'tax neutral' middle that is the major cause of the structural deficit. Contrary to what you you and Joe Hockey would posit. The problem is much deeper than that. You have recognised as much, yet your political ideology prevents you from separating fact from fiction.
See now you're just spouting gibberish and nonsense.

I have NEVER asserted that "the Henry Review was about making the middle pay more". Similarly your implication that it is I who can't see past political ideology is nonsense. It's you that is driving an argument, essentially with yourself, that is politically and ideologically driven. You are the type of people that cause Australian political debate to be all about picking a team and sticking with said team.

The middle were given amounts that are now unaffordable based on the same reasons Costello gave for them previously being affordable.

Of course the problem is deeper than taxing the middle. But my response, on which you weighed in hamfistedly, was top the notion that we just need to tax the rich. That won't solve anything on its own either.

But political ideology is your issue in this debate
 

Eagle87

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
19,942
Likes
4,067
Location
Bangkok
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subi, Celtics, Pats, Sox
LOLZ.
Ken Henry would have had a good laugh with your submission.






Tell us, in your professional opinion, what exactly you would be taxing the 'middle' for?

Ken Henry said:


On what you have written, it is pretty obvious you have no clue about the tax system.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1420185919.018877.jpg
Just having re read this, it's apparent you don't really know what you're talking about.

In a discussion about income tax and changes in income tax referring to Henry talking about "specific taxes" and "user charges" and the elimination of existing taxes in those areas is missing the point by about 2 million miles.

It's a discussion about income taxes not inefficient specific taxes & user charges.

Look them up. Learn. Come back. :)
 

Grin

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Posts
11,996
Likes
12,223
Location
Port Adelaide
AFL Club
Richmond
So much spin and bollocks in a single line.

I believe we currently have "the most effective" tax and transfer system in the world. Which is to say we do more than other countries in dragging everyone to the middle.

Of course we do this by taxing those above the middle disproportionately. And we do this by ensuring those below the middle, and frankly even at the middle pay buggar all after all tax & transfers are taken into account (particularly aimed at families). It's socialist nirvana.

But yes, those thieving rich just want to get away with everything. Despite being the cash cows of our entire system.

Balance folks ...

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/co.../attachment_02S_Peter_Whiteford_slideshow.pdf
Well, Tony Abbott sure is setting out to redress the multiple injustices Australia has committed against multinational companies and the very rich.
 

Play by Numbers

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Posts
7,590
Likes
3,479
Location
All up in Jock's icecream
AFL Club
West Coast
I've already answered the question


market forces will work their magic


It seems unless its free shit, some people aren't ineterested
Electricity prices rose due to gold plating, the carbon price was a small factor.

Commodity prices have caused a slowdown and the current government has undercut business confidence, neither are related to the tax.
 
Top Bottom