Mega Thread All things Tony Abbott

[ralphmalph]

Maggie I don't know why you expected a reduction from Momentum? Momentum made a great marketing play spruiking that it would not charge the carbon tax at all because its energy is result of Tasmanian hydro. My financial planner put me onto it in the run up to the carbon tax coming in.
Have you forgotten this so soon?

I thought that was only if you chose their SmilePower option?

 

[GuruJane]

I thought that was only if you chose their SmilePower option?

Never heard of smilepower. My FP put me onto it.
I don't know if Momentum's claims were BS or not - but on every bill in the field marked "carbon charge" it always said 0.00.

 

[Power Raid]

What a very strange question.

not according to recent studies.

It might help him understand why things are the way they are.

 

[ralphmalph]

Never heard of smilepower. My FP put me onto it.
I don't know if Momentum's claims were BS or not - but on every bill in the field marked "carbon charge" it always said 0.00.

Not all Momentum 'products' or plans were carbon tax free. You had to select that plan.

 

[romeoh]

Of course you would iron almost everything being of my era.
But so does my daughter - who irons for herself.
My son irons for himself but his partner irons for the children when its needed.




Maggie I don't know why you expected a reduction from Momentum? Momentum made a great marketing play spruiking that it would not charge the carbon tax at all because its energy is result of Tasmanian hydro. My financial planner put me onto it in the run up to the carbon tax coming in.
Have you forgotten this so soon?

Yep so who has benefitted and by how much from the repeal?

 

[GuruJane]

Well hunting through a bill back in 2013 I find a smilepower logo at the bottom of the page, no prominence or explanation. I selected nothing - just rang them.

Checking the momentum website today the only plans on offer are called "smilepower"- seems generic.

 

[GuruJane]

Have located Momentum advice to customers on repeal of carbon tax.
It appears there was a "smilepower" plus a plan called residential standard which did attract the tax.

Carbon Pass Through customers (standard energy plan)
Residential
We’ve estimated that, on average, our residential customers will save 2.18 cents/KWh, which is around a $137 reduction in their annual electricity bill (over the financial year that began 1 July 2014)*.
In percentage terms this is estimated as:
Annual estimated cost saving (%)
Victoria
8%
New South Wales
8%
South Australia
7%
*Based on an average residential customer using 6.3 MWH per year.
Our residential customers’ individual saving may vary according to where they live and how much electricity they use.

Customers on this plan at 8% reduction based on 6.3 MWH pa do not seem to be shortchanged.

 

[Eagle87]

He means tax cuts for the rich.

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

 

[swingdog]

Yep so who has benefitted and by how much from the repeal?

Some big French companies that own our energy utilities have done well. Most of the gains have been lost due to increasing operating costs that have been passed on to consumers.

I hope nobody took seriously the government's $550 promise.

 

[pazza]

About as popular as the landfill mountain at the Werribee tip!

 

[RUNVS]

Even so, ordinarily there would always be an iron in a household for special jobs or emergencies. Personally have never come across a household without an iron particularly if there's a mother and sisters and a male parent who needs business shirts. But as Power Raid comments I suppose there are plenty of households these days where personal appearances don't count for much.

btw drip drying, while convenient, doesn't do as well as a good iron.

I almost never wear business shirts so it is not an issue for me. In fact the last time I wore a shirt even vaguely like a business shirt I was in High School. I go to university and the shirts I wear at uni definitely do not require ironing as they do not wrinkle like that.

 

[GuruJane]

I almost never wear business shirts so it is not an issue for me. In fact the last time I wore a shirt even vaguely like a business shirt I was in High School. I go to university and the shirts I wear at uni definitely do not require ironing as they do not wrinkle like that.

I was thinking more of your father? Was he at home?

 

[GuruJane]

Some big French companies that own our energy utilities have done well. Most of the gains have been lost due to increasing operating costs that have been passed on to consumers.

I hope nobody took seriously the government's $550 promise.

As I recall , $550 was the figure Treasury gave the Labor Govt which then based its compensation on it.

 

[Borry]

Or you could just let people decide how to run their own lives and stop trying to guess what is best for "the majority", and then legislate that everyone does that.

People are different. There is no 1 best answer for everyone, and the people trying to make these decisions for us are quite often not qualified to do so. For example, I find it quite ridiculous that I am supposed to take eating tips from Nicola Roxon.

As a health minister of the day it was her duty to provide information on healthy eating to the public in an environment where there is increasing concern on the amount of money spent on healthcare for people suffering the health effects of poor eating patterns, oversmoking and alcoholism. And making people pay full fees for their own healthcare will just cause problems rather than solve them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Power Raid]

Yep so who has benefitted and by how much from the repeal?

all australians!

the question is how much and who benefited from the introduction of the tax. But what can you expect from a government who has no qualm in undermining Australia's constitution under one tax and mislead the electorate over another.

 

[sherb]

About as popular as the landfill mountain at the Werribee tip!

Nowhere near as popular.

 

[RUNVS]

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

Other than the USA, Canada and UK no country in the developed world has been been worse since the mid 70's in regard to income inequality

http://www.oecd.org/social/OECD2014-FocusOnTopIncomes.pdf

(graph on page 3)

How is it fair that the top 1% have had 22% of the growth in the Australian economy since 1975 to 2007 and the top 10% have had 48% of the growth?

That means the bottom 90% have had 52% of the growth.

 

[Maggie5]

Never heard of smilepower. My FP put me onto it.
I don't know if Momentum's claims were BS or not - but on every bill in the field marked "carbon charge" it always said 0.00.

Not on my account, it gave an amount for carbon charge, then the same amount as a credit.
But anyway it was nice of you to respond to a minor points (who cares about to iron or not to iron) but ignore the main point of my question. Anyone?

 

[Maggie5]

Some big French companies that own our energy utilities have done well. Most of the gains have been lost due to increasing operating costs that have been passed on to consumers.

I hope nobody took seriously the government's $550 promise.

Sadly I would think that majority of consumers believed this.
I have been with Origin for gas for longer than I can remember and switched to Momentum (from RED for electricity) when it first came to Victoria. Didn't really check out the plans, just signed up for the one they recommended. For what I use they are much of a muchness.

 

[Maggie5]

all australians!

the question is how much and who benefited from the introduction of the tax. But what can you expect from a government who has no qualm in undermining Australia's constitution under one tax and mislead the electorate over another.

That was what I was asking, how have all Australians benefited against the loss of revenue to the government?
Have asked many people so I thought that there may be someone in business that has benefited from the repeal and might explain.
Have they passed on the savings? Just thinking of PUP's instance that the ACCC oversee this.

 

[Eagle87]

Other than the USA, Canada and UK no country in the developed world has been been worse since the mid 70's in regard to income inequality

http://www.oecd.org/social/OECD2014-FocusOnTopIncomes.pdf

(graph on page 3)

How is it fair that the top 1% have had 22% of the growth in the Australian economy since 1975 to 2007 and the top 10% have had 48% of the growth?

That means the bottom 90% have had 52% of the growth.

It isn't fair. So what's your point?

You want a world where everyone benefits equally as regards income increases? That would make things better?

The report you provide acknowledges that there isn't an automatic correlation between these income growth inequalities and inequality more broadly. See the gini map, see where Australia fits. Also have a look at countries like France, Italy & Portugal which have most of the income growth going to the bottom over the same period. How's that working out for them?

When governments intervene to too great an extent you just get a manipulated market that ultimately causes its own problems that requires more government intervention that creates its own problems and so on. I understand that some government intervention to assist those who need assistance and to provide basic services is required but your position seems to be one where you see governments role as to attack all income inequality as if it's inherently evil and that "taxing the rich" is a big part of that.

We have a massively effective system that brings everyone back to the middle. We then had a prolonged boom period where much of the middle was treated as if they were poor and were given lots of assistance through reduced taxes and increased transfers. This created people in the middle with higher disposable incomes which, unsurprisingly, drove up the cost of everything and allied with cheap credit particularly drove up the cost of housing. The issue for us now is we have **** all net taxpayers but we can't tax most of those we need to - the middle - because the price of everything went up and they couldn't afford it if we did.

We don't need to massively raise taxes on a tiny number of people because it won't achieve anything. That's Wayne Swan economics of "tax the rich". It's cute and appeals to stupid people but it achieves nothing. We need to get a broader base of taxpayers and we need to wean the middle off transfer payments, this is tricky without allowing prices, particularly property prices to fall.

Your idea seems to be let's just increase their share of income. Solid idea for a country with extremely high wages already. We'd just further kill off Industries and sectors...

We are in a tough spot at present and real action needs to happen and that includes in the area of tax. It needs some increases in revenue in and substantial reductions in outgoings. You aren't achieving anything other than a miniscule amount of that by taxing "the rich" more. They are already amongst the few real net contributors to the system (see the tax report I quoted earlier).

I responded to your earlier post because it was Abbott level cliche one line nonsense. And basing what we need to do now on such stuff will kill us.

But until people grasp that we already have high incomes at all levels by international standards and we currently don't really tax our "average families" much at all (tax and transfers net) we aren't in position to start much of a discussion IMO

We really do have some challenges at present and I'm not sure anyone is really addressing them at all.

For the record my default position is Liberal in terms of politics but this government is pretty bloody average and many of the problems I raise in this thread trace back to Howard.. No side seems right at present. But Labors ideas of raising no taxes (except on "the rich") and sticking with high cost social programs and appearing to cut nothing isn't exactly an inspiring alternative unless you want to live with your head in the sand.

 

[Power Raid]

That was what I was asking, how have all Australians benefited against the loss of revenue to the government?
Have asked many people so I thought that there may be someone in business that has benefited from the repeal and might explain.
Have they passed on the savings? Just thinking of PUP's instance that the ACCC oversee this.

We saw many projects not proceed and many businesses leave the country for a variety of reasons over the last 8 years. The loss of confidence and the dent to Australia's reputation as being a good place to do business will take time to recover.

Nevertheless it will recover but unfortunately we are unlikely to see these businesses return as structural changes make decisions like that difficult. Rather we will need to attract new businesses that can benefit from a more stable platform.

A way of attracting new business and our revenue problem, and fixing two birds with one stone. is fixing our non-resident tax system and introduce a proper property tax. Why? non-residents should pay the same tax as residents on income earned in Oz and a proper property tax if designed properly will see property prices fall and building construction increase. Lower rents will then result in lower residential and commercial costs.

Sadly though, we will pay a 20 year price for those 7 years.


oh an no re the ACCC. that is not the mandate or capability of the organisation. If we were to follow Palmer's recommendation we would have to draft new laws and powers for the ACCC to set commercial prices for the goods and services they render. Then give the statutory powers to take companies and individuals to court for changing prices from the ACCC recommended price?

sounds a bit "Palmer" like doesn't it?

 

[Maggie5]

We saw many projects not proceed and many businesses leave the country for a variety of reasons over the last 8 years. The loss of confidence and the dent to Australia's reputation as being a good place to do business will take time to recover.

Nevertheless it will recover but unfortunately we are unlikely to see these businesses return as structural changes make decisions like that difficult. Rather we will need to attract new businesses that can benefit from a more stable platform.

A way of attracting new business and our revenue problem, and fixing two birds with one stone. is fixing our non-resident tax system and introduce a proper property tax. Why? non-residents should pay the same tax as residents on income earned in Oz and a proper property tax if designed properly will see property prices fall and building construction increase. Lower rents will then result in lower residential and commercial costs.

Sadly though, we will pay a 20 year price for those 7 years.


oh an no re the ACCC. that is not the mandate or capability of the organisation. If we were to follow Palmer's recommendation we would have to draft new laws and powers for the ACCC to set commercial prices for the goods and services they render. Then give the statutory powers to take companies and individuals to court for changing prices from the ACCC recommended price?

sounds a bit "Palmer" like doesn't it?

I am not sure that your response addresses what I asked.
Leg of lamb never reached $100 and Whyalla hasn't been wiped off the map. No-one I know believes that the first power/gas accounts have shown anything like a $50-100 reduction (given that savings was going to be $550 per year).

Who has benefited? If not the consumer, not the environment, supermarkets stated that they didn't pass on costs as they absorbed the tax.

Surely this was not a con, if it was well then the gov't has missed out on $6 Billion in revenue, which would be very helpful right now.

 

[Number37]

It isn't fair. So what's your point?


We have a massively effective system that brings everyone back to the middle. We then had a prolonged boom period where much of the middle was treated as if they were poor and were given lots of assistance through reduced taxes and increased transfers. This created people in the middle with higher disposable incomes which, unsurprisingly, drove up the cost of everything and allied with cheap credit particularly drove up the cost of housing. The issue for us now is we have **** all net taxpayers but we can't tax most of those we need to - the middle - because the price of everything went up and they couldn't afford it if we did.

You have zero idea about the tax system.
Stop writing nonsense.
If the price of everything is going up it offsets any gains made in income.
If you read Ken Henry's tax review it explains very thoroughly how the tax system can and should be made fairer.
Taxing the 'middle' more is a completely stupid idea.

 

[romeoh]

all australians!

the question is how much and who benefited from the introduction of the tax. But what can you expect from a government who has no qualm in undermining Australia's constitution under one tax and mislead the electorate over another.

You might need to be more specific. I'd like to see the concrete numbers.