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.

Todman

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Posts
6,310
Likes
3,873
AFL Club
Hawthorn
http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2794783/dying-man-still-must-job-hunt/

What an absurdity.

I am sure employers will be lining up to take on someone who lists as one of his medical conditions "rare stage 3 malignant brain tumour".

As for this statement:
‘‘I hope Scott Morrison in his new capacity [as social services minister] can perhaps rework some empathy into the DSP requirements for the terminally ill,’’ Mr Grayson said.

There is more chance of me being a shock callup to the Australian 4th test team than Morrison ever displaying empathy.
Everybody is terminal. We will all die eventually.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
14,039
Likes
13,789
AFL Club
Sydney
Sums it up perfectly. You apparently have no expertise or professional experience whatever in taxation and yet you make definitive and categorical statements about the |Henry Review and what it means.
Eagle caught you out.

And so you end up with a burst of juvenile asinine personal abuse when your ignorance has been exposed. What a baby.
Waa waa waaa.

Seriously ...

It's unfortunate that you didn't take the opportunity to get outside your ideological bubble and try and learn something. Such is life.

Have a great day :)
So other than trying to sound smart you don't have anything that supports your silly idea.
You did work on submissions (plural) surely you would know how much money can be reaped from taxing the middle. How hard could it be to tell us (a) how much the government could reap (b) how far that would go to fixing the structural deficit.
 

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
Waa waa waaa.



So other than trying to sound smart you don't have anything that supports your silly idea.
You did work on submissions (plural) surely you would know how much money can be reaped from taxing the middle. How hard could it be to tell us (a) how much the government could reap (b) how far that would go to fixing the structural deficit.
Create strawman. Attack. Rinse repeat. Political Hack 101

Mate engagement is a 2 way street. You're just being a complete child at this point.

``Awards trite response - "you got nothing" or similar

My the middle have to wear some tax because they currently don't had been explained. Some is a key word.

You came back with a grab bag of nonsense.. I called you on it and now you are deflecting. You go through an answer my questions in that long post particularly the ones that call into question every pint you've raised and I'll respond'. You answer then rationally and logically and I'll answer your on topic questions.

But if this is all you've got left, well frankly you're a waste of my time and more importantly this boards time.

Up to you. Cheers.
 

Contra Mundum

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Posts
21,910
Likes
8,701
Location
North Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
NMFC
Doing the same.

I'm still living overseas but when I see the politics in our country at present I get somewhat scared. I thought the previous government might have been a one off low water mark. I'm now concerned we have found a new bottom... at least I hope this is the bottom.
Yeh I know - I was always smug about our politics relative to Seppos but we may not be far off them
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,665
Likes
50,424
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Good call. What was that guy thinking getting a brain tumor? Distinct lack of personal responsibility.
I thought the issue was he was on the wrong social security scheme. He needs to be on a pension rather than Newstart.

What is the NDIS achieving if they are reducing the effectiveness of state based DSC? Surely they need to take responsibility for this ridiculous issue. They need to remedy it, or hand the funds over to the states who have been doing this job properly for decades.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,665
Likes
50,424
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Australia has one of the best life expectancy figures in the world. The countries where you have to pay for your own medical care have a lot worse.
I tend to agree we should continue to have a universal healthcare system and a good one at that. That doesn't mean changes can't be made to ensure a greater good is achieved or maintained.

We shouldn't let ideology get in the way of such an important service.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

RUNVS

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Posts
32,987
Likes
29,270
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
I tend to agree we should continue to have a universal healthcare system and a good one at that. That doesn't mean changes can't be made to ensure a greater good is achieved or maintained.

We shouldn't let ideology get in the way of such an important service.
I am fine with changes and tweaks to the system but that is all they should be. In the USA for instance their government spend double what the Australian government spend per person and their outcomes are considerably worse. The reason for this is they have let too many for profit companies into the healthcare system.
 

Number37

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Joined
Oct 5, 2013
Posts
14,039
Likes
13,789
AFL Club
Sydney
Create strawman. Attack. Rinse repeat. Political Hack 101

Mate engagement is a 2 way street. You're just being a complete child at this point.

``Awards trite response - "you got nothing" or similar

My the middle have to wear some tax because they currently don't had been explained. Some is a key word.

You came back with a grab bag of nonsense.. I called you on it and now you are deflecting. You go through an answer my questions in that long post particularly the ones that call into question every pint you've raised and I'll respond'. You answer then rationally and logically and I'll answer your on topic questions.

But if this is all you've got left, well frankly you're a waste of my time and more importantly this boards time.

Up to you. Cheers.
Cool.
You did not call me out on anything.
You put up a whole lot insigificant nonsense trying to sound smart.
It was YOU that suggested taxing the middle more. Now you want to qualify your proposition because you know it was nothing more than political ideology.
I suggested repeatedly that Dr Henry would laugh at (your) submissions to tax the middle more, because as I have also repeatedly stated, the tax neutrals are only a small part of the problem. I have yet to see anything from you which would indicate otherwise.
Although you seem to coming to your senses and qualifying your position.
I have no interest in responding to all the other nonsense you posted. It has zero academic merit. You make a whole lot of unsubstantiated conclusions.

You are the one that makes out that the tax neutrals are the biggest problem in relation to the structural deficit. I simply pointed out, based purely on the numbers, that is as far from the truth as you can get.
By FAR the biggest single contributor to the structural deficit is the terms of trade. As Wayne Swan found out the hard way. As Joe Hockey has now also come to learn.
To give you an indication:
structural budget.jpg

The structural deficit is an issue, nobody is disputing that. Your contention (LNP 3 word slogans) that the tax neutral ( by implication leaners or recipients of the Age of entitlement) are the root cause is plain nonsense. It is you that started this discussion with reference to the tax neutrals. Using that statistic is NOTHING more than political ideology.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,665
Likes
50,424
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Agreed.

Which is why the $7 tax on sick people's GP visits was such a disgraceful idea.
well that's one view but it ignores the problem that the payment is trying to resolve which include medicare fraud, inefficient processes and over use. All of which would be reduced under a scheme where patients would question GPs.

Hopefully the government can think of another way to address the issue as I would prefer as many dollars going toward health care rather than lining the pockets of the elite.
 

RUNVS

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Posts
32,987
Likes
29,270
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
well that's one view but it ignores the problem that the payment is trying to resolve which include medicare fraud, inefficient processes and over use. All of which would be reduced under a scheme where patients would question GPs.

Hopefully the government can think of another way to address the issue as I would prefer as many dollars going toward health care rather than lining the pockets of the elite.
If the government was serious about stopping people going to the doctor needlessly then they would force employers to only require a doctors note on the 3rd day of being sick. That would be far more useful than anything a $7 tax would do.
 

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
Cool.
You did not call me out on anything.
You put up a whole lot insigificant nonsense trying to sound smart.
It was YOU that suggested taxing the middle more. Now you want to qualify your proposition because you know it was nothing more than political ideology.
I suggested repeatedly that Dr Henry would laugh at (your) submissions to tax the middle more, because as I have also repeatedly stated, the tax neutrals are only a small part of the problem. I have yet to see anything from you which would indicate otherwise.
Although you seem to coming to your senses and qualifying your position.
I have no interest in responding to all the other nonsense you posted. It has zero academic merit. You make a whole lot of unsubstantiated conclusions.

You are the one that makes out that the tax neutrals are the biggest problem in relation to the structural deficit. I simply pointed out, based purely on the numbers, that is as far from the truth as you can get.
By FAR the biggest single contributor to the structural deficit is the terms of trade. As Wayne Swan found out the hard way. As Joe Hockey has now also come to learn.
To give you an indication:
View attachment 100856
The structural deficit is an issue, nobody is disputing that. Your contention (LNP 3 word slogans) that the tax neutral ( by implication leaners or recipients of the Age of entitlement) are the root cause is plain nonsense. It is you that started this discussion with reference to the tax neutrals. Using that statistic is NOTHING more than political ideology.
FFS.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,665
Likes
50,424
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
If the government was serious about stopping people going to the doctor needlessly then they would force employers to only require a doctors note on the 3rd day of being sick. That would be far more useful than anything a $7 tax would do.
Do employers still require doctor's certificates? In all of our businesses we have a simple policy of "if you need a day of take it" no questions asked and no counting of how many days are taken. Mental health is extremely important and people need time out to remain mentally healthy.

I'm sure 99% of companies don't ask for certificates. but yes, if some business still do, your suggestion is sensible or the businesses should pay the full un-subsidised cost for the service.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,665
Likes
50,424
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
If the government was serious about stopping people going to the doctor needlessly then they would force employers to only require a doctors note on the 3rd day of being sick. That would be far more useful than anything a $7 tax would do.
out of curiousity does your employer make provide a certificate?

can I ask what industry you are in?

that is truly a bizarre requirement for 2015.
 

smokingjacket

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Posts
3,521
Likes
3,588
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Liverpool
The tax to me was not only a negative policy but also a big clumsy one. Like people, not all jurisdictions are the same and thus will have better and worse environmental footprints. So what is the point of punishing a jurisdiction because its most logical outcome is not optimal for australia as a whole? Surely we should look to improve all jurisdictions but the real measure of our succes is australia as a whole.

So with a few basic principles in mind being:
1) horses for courses. some places may have different energy mix solutions to others.
2) have a measured target goal for australia measured against time. thus a quota may start small or large but can grow over time.
3) consider the economic impact. $23/t was loonie, we need to consider how we compare globally.
4) set a platform of certainty. Shifting to a market price was dangerous as it open the whole economy to a strangle arbitrage from global arb funds.


So by dividing up Australia into jurisdictions and setting up a quota desk for each place that guarantees to by a certain quota of electricity from the market place with floor and ceiling prices for a certain quality of power. ie a quota of power delivered within specifications of sulphur, co2 etc. ie 100mw with a footprint of less tha x tonnes of carbon, x sulphur and companies can tender into the quota. This quota is sold on a priority basis into the market.

This has many benefits being optimal outcomes by jurisdiction, a guaranteed and measurable pollution reduction, price effective, can be staged or modular, avoids financial arbitrage, cuts out merchant banks and most of all sets a competitive but stable platform for investment into the sector knowing their is a market.

These desks also become assets and can be sold in the future. It is also future proof.



oh and yes you're right re your comments on profit. For me business isn't just a measure of profit rather it is about making a positive difference. I find spivs, sharks, arbs and market manipulators disgusting. A common tactic of these types of investors are day traders and short sellers. I they start to appear on my register, I simply put the stock into a trading halt and let their margin calls get called. Suddenly your register returns to long term investors aligned with the goal of a long term business.

Imagine if we went to a market based price and arb funds shorted high CO2 producing stock and at the same time bought the CO2 permits and strangled the businesses. Then bought the stock back twice over and then sell the permits back into the market? our whole Fn economy could played by the George Soros types.
Your proposals are certainly reasonable. Just for clarity though, your opposition to the carbon tax - apart from that it was redistributive in your view - was that it would transition to an ETS?

Whilst I agree with you that setting up another layer for the money shufflers to game is the wrong way to go about it. Surely there would be a way to regulate this sort of thing though?

Saying that, considering Turnbull and Rudd were both ex-Macquarie, maybe trying to avoid that situation misses the point altogether.

To bring it back, even if we tinkered with it a bit, the Carbon tax should never have been axed.
 
Last edited:

RUNVS

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Posts
32,987
Likes
29,270
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
out of curiousity does your employer make provide a certificate?

can I ask what industry you are in?

that is truly a bizarre requirement for 2015.
Currently a full time uni student and unemployed but I used to work for a shitty toy store for a number of years part time and I always required a doctors certificate when I was sick.
 

Power Raid

TheBrownDog
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
61,665
Likes
50,424
Location
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Is the $7 charge based on evidence that such a price signal works for that particular transaction?

Genuinely curious - I assume there was research beforehand.
no idea but you would hope there was some research rather than just a number plucked from thin air.

I also can't believe the cap $70* wasn't added to social welfare payments. This would have alleviated the negative impact on our poorest and provided a small windfall for them.

*In fact I would increase austudy to the same as the dole and increased the dole by $700 a year. In addition I would allow people on the dole to work and only reduce their social security payments on the same formula as austudy. but I guess that is a bit off topic.
 

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
Attack the underprivileged and protect the rich - at all costs.

That's what this government and its supporters are all about.

http://m.theage.com.au/business/a-taxing-tale-of-two-peak-bodies-20150101-12gcty.html
If you are genuinely interested in this, I'd add the following.

The section referred to in this piece by West is section 25-90 which was introduced in 2001 as a cost compliance measure. The EM to the bill explains both that and the extensive structuring that was going on before this provisions under the general deductibility provision (section 8-1).

The interest was still deductible under the former arrangements and arguably even moreso.

The repeal of the provision would likely take us back to that pre-2001 position. Which is to say the same amount, if not more, would still be deducted. It's not like this is a concession that grants people money that general provisions wouldn't attract. It's a cost of borrowing money. It's subject to 25-90 (or 8-1 if repealed); its subject to Debt-Equity rules; Thin Capitalisation rules (which have just been hugely tightened up); transfer pricing and it will be subject to the base erosion and profit shifting regime currently being set up by the OECD and to which Australia is signatory (and will impose huge compliance burden on all cross border business).

I do absolutely understand how galling it is when someone reports a $600m concession to corporates while also cutting funding to charities but it's not as simple as that and, arguably, the article is entirely misleading and in line with a direction that West seems to push much of his articles.

More broadly, I do get the attraction of attacking "the rich" and "big corporates" but again that's simplistic and jingoistic.

I do think it's unfortunate that we describe so many things that are just legitimate business transactions as "rorts" or "tax concessions". At its core 25-90 simply allows a deduction for borrowing costs on money borrowed for use in carrying on a business. I'm not naive enough to think that profit shifting doesn't occur given our relatively high corporate tax rates but you attack that via transfer pricing and anti-avoidance rules (see our tax act and the OECD) not by disallowing general business expenses arbitrarily.

If that paints me as a raving right winger, I think that's unfortunate. For the record I suspect Joe Hockey understands none of what I just wrote as regards 25-90.
 
Top Bottom