Mega Thread All things Tony Abbott

[scon]

Gonna be interesting to see what conclusions the Senate inquiry into the gold plating activity delivers.
Hopefully not another whistle-blower crucifixion.
Rorting in the power industry about to be laid bare

 

[sherb]

Well, Tony Abbott sure is setting out to redress the multiple injustices Australia has committed against multinational companies and the very rich.

Yeah, poor IKEA.

 

[Footy Smarts]

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.

I don't know if you're paid to spread propaganda or just massively mistaken but most of this is laughably false. If you were right then there would be no way to reduce emissions intensity since the coal would have to be running even if we generated more wind or solar. Of course we see nothing of the sort.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/ati...t-waves-slow-stop-fall-demand-emissions-75888

While there are some inefficiencies in running old coal plants at less than full power it's far from an all or nothing thing. Of course there have been a number of generators mothballed completely. Also gas generators are often designed as peaking plants so obviously they're not sitting there burning the same amount of gas 24/7 while only generating electricity for a minority of the day.

 

[Footy Smarts]

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

I didn't do such a thing. Claiming a policy crippled an economy due to high power prices in a particular place when prices rose less there than anywhere else in the country in the previous 10 years (almost solely due to other factors) is downright moronic.

 

[Number37]

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.

LOLZ.
20 years with 2 professional accounting bodies eh.
LOLZ.
Tax the middle, they don't pay any tax.
LOLZ

Reminds me of that time at Senate Estimates when Helen Coonan thought she knew more than Dr Henry.

LOLZ.



Which 2 professional accounting bodies did you help with their submission?

 

[Number37]

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.

Thanks for that, but I will take Dr Henry's word over yours.
You got no idea.

 

[RUNVS]

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.

Electricity prices haven't really gone down and the poor and middle class have lost the rebates as well so odds are a lot of people are worse off financially as a result of the carbon tax being repealed.

 

[Number37]

For those that wish to learn what the Henry Review was about and want to learn why Joe Hockey is such a lying prick.


1. There is a strong bias in the tax system favouring investment in assets that appreciate in value such as shares and property, which has encouraged
overinvestment in these areas, especially speculative investment.
2. Tax subsidies for housing are highly inequitable, mainly benefiting high income earners and those who already own housing assets and increasing housing costs for renters and those attempting to buy a home
3. High income earners can avoid tax on their earnings by having it converted into lower-taxed forms of income such as ‘company cars’, employee shares, or ‘golden handshakes’
4.Work related deductions are often skewed towards those on higher incomes and lead to complexity and evasion of tax
5. High income earners can avoid tax by diverting income through discretionary trusts to lower taxed family members or a private company. Tax can also be avoided by sheltering earnings in a private company where it is taxed at 30%

http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/1719/PDF/TES_2009_Consolidated.pdf

Table 1.3 provides the numbers.
If you look at the top items ,Capital Gains & super concessions ($50b +) and compare it so say Family Tax benefits ($2b) you will quickly realise that Joe Hockey is taking us all for fools.
Take another example: Point 3 above: A $1.5b concession for golden handshakes (C3 on the Table 1.3) and compare that to Family Tax benefit ($2b)
The Henry Review is aimed squarely at things like Capital Gains because that is where the big expenditure in tax concessions is and that is why the government could increase its revenue by FAR MORE than targeting the middle where concessions pale in comparison.

Joe Hockey and parrots like Eagle talk about the middle being tax neutral the reality is there are people out there getting far more benefit from the tax system than the middle and not just a little more, 10 or 20 or 30 times more.
So yes, we need to have serious discussion about the tax system in our country, let's start with the facts.

 

[Power Raid]

I didn't do such a thing. Claiming a policy crippled an economy due to high power prices in a particular place when prices rose less there than anywhere else in the country in the previous 10 years (almost solely due to other factors) is downright moronic.

your graph indicated that the rest of Australia was dragged down to SA's level due to business uncertainty surrounding the tax and the poor investment that followed resulting in higher prices.

 

[Power Raid]

Electricity prices haven't really gone down and the poor and middle class have lost the rebates as well so odds are a lot of people are worse off financially as a result of the carbon tax being repealed.

all we have to do is agree on a energy generation model that is clean, affordable and can supply reliable base load. until then, yes you're right.

unfortunately no one wants to make the tough decisions

 

[Power Raid]

I don't know if you're paid to spread propaganda or just massively mistaken but most of this is laughably false. If you were right then there would be no way to reduce emissions intensity since the coal would have to be running even if we generated more wind or solar. Of course we see nothing of the sort.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/ati...t-waves-slow-stop-fall-demand-emissions-75888

While there are some inefficiencies in running old coal plants at less than full power it's far from an all or nothing thing. Of course there have been a number of generators mothballed completely. Also gas generators are often designed as peaking plants so obviously they're not sitting there burning the same amount of gas 24/7 while only generating electricity for a minority of the day.

lol

you just turn gas plants on and off, just like that!

lol

yep, that's how they work.

Anyone here an engineer and explain how many hours they require?

 

[Power Raid]

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.

yep that's it

nothing to do with the issues highlighted for years and years that have come home to roost.

can you pass the drugs you are using? they are clearing top shelf.

 

[smokingjacket]

So what is the benefit? We have remedied the tax but we now have to set a clear positive long term strategy leading to a cleaner future. Once this has been achieved, and businesses regain confidence, businesses will return and thus we will see the fruits of the repeal. We have achieved stage on but stage 2 will likely take 5 years.

no; to succeed it would take years to see the benefit as infrastructure simply doesn't change overnight. so what caused the decrease in CO2

Am I missing something? If it will take years to recover, and we need years to build the new infrastructure of a green economy (I don't think anyone pretended it wouldn't be a transition) then why didn't we stay on our current path?

market forces will work their magic

Your words.

 

[Power Raid]

Am I missing something? If it will take years to recover, and we need years to build the new infrastructure of a green economy (I don't think anyone pretended it wouldn't be a transition) then why didn't we stay on our current path?

Your words.

I'm glad you asked. Unfortunately the tax and negative elements are design for political benefit.

People who make decisions over capital and change are motivated by success not fear and uncertainty.

Sure we need the fear and negative elements such as a tax to motivate the electorate. but real change needs to be at a higher level and needs a positive method that resonates.

in short we need action not a tax or spin. The negative elements make the watermelons feel good but it holds up progress and delays our transition.

 

[smokingjacket]

I'm glad you asked. Unfortunately the tax and negative elements are design for political benefit.

People who make decisions over capital and change are motivated by success not fear and uncertainty.

Sure we need the fear and negative elements such as a tax to motivate the electorate. but real change needs to be at a higher level and needs a positive method that resonates.

in short we need action not a tax or spin. The negative elements make the watermelons feel good but it holds up progress and delays our transition.

People who make decisions over capital are motivated by profit. Hence the price signal.

By real change at the top are you referring to the major resource companies that are betting on the world not getting it's act together?

 

[Grin]

Thanks for that, but I will take Dr Henry's word over yours.
You got no idea.

For some people economics is more a quasi religious than an academic pursuit.

 

[Eagle87]

For those that wish to learn what the Henry Review was about and want to learn why Joe Hockey is such a lying prick.
.

The Henry Tax Review was "about" a comprehensive review of the Australian Tax System across the entire system excluding GST.

It has nothing to do with Joe Hockey. Why you even need to raise him in the discussion is odd and suggests a pathological political bias.

To the extent that you paint the Henry Tax Review as some form of crackdown on "the rich" then you misrepresent it. And again suggest a political imperative behind your comments.

1. There is a strong bias in the tax system favouring investment in assets that appreciate in value such as shares and property, which has encouraged overinvestment in these areas, especially speculative investment..

The bias is that Capital gains tax provides 50% discount on the capital gain. Henry suggested that be reduced to a 40% discount. That was knocked on the head by the then government.

Of course if it's genuinely speculative investment, Investment entered into for a gain on sale, then it's actually taxable on revenue account and no capital gains discount is available. I agree that both taxpayers and the tax office and, it appeared, some members of treasury struggled with this concept.

Remember the history of this concession is that it replaced the indexation previously available on capital gains. Which was to ensure that the gain taxed was only the real gain on that asset and we weren't simply taxing inflation.

I mean if sometime buys an asset in say 2004 for $100,000 and sells it in 2014 for $120,000 have they really made any money?

If we discounted the value of $120,000 in 2014 to 2004 it would be worth less than 100,000. So in real terms they have made no money. Indexation of the original $100,000 results in zero gain.
But indexation was removed and replaced with the simpler 50% discount (the intention being simplification not a concession)

Under the 50% discount the person pays tax on $10,000. In circumstances such as this the"discount" is no concession at all and results in tax on a real dollar loss.

But hey let's just call it a concession regardless. It is true that we'd raise more money by simply taxing all gains without allowing any adjustment for indexation. Whether that's fair is another thing. The boom in prices post 1999 (when these measures) came in of course skews the result and makes the discount seem more concessional than the indexation method it replaced. A few years of flat growth or decline would alter that perception. More on this later.

2. Tax subsidies for housing are highly inequitable, mainly benefiting high income earners and those who already own housing assets and increasing housing costs for renters and those attempting to buy a home

Which subsidies?

More on this below.

3. High income earners can avoid tax on their earnings by having it converted into lower-taxed forms of income such as ‘company cars’, employee shares, or ‘golden handshakes’.

Add I'm sure a man of your immense knowledge is aware, cars and employee shares have been gutted since 2010 by changes under the former government. So that aspect is not relevant.

Golden handshakes is a very minor issue with minimal cost. But if we are just throwing out grab bags of context free tax concessions maybe mention that redundancy payments and death benefits are hugely confessional taxed. I could name a few more if you'd like?

4.Work related deductions are often skewed towards those on higher incomes and lead to complexity and evasion of tax

Seriously? Work related deductions are expenses necessarily incurred in gaining our producing assessable income from work.

Things like uniforms, work clothes, tools etc

Accountants on $200,000 have very few work related deductions generally.

Tradies on $80, 000 often have a lot.

But sure, it's entirely possible that people who earn more spend more in earning that money. Shocking concept. Complexity in the area of deductions generally can be significant, but the area of work related deductions was the bit where Henry embarrassed himself (and showed one of his biases) by suggesting we do away with all such deductions and replace them with a standard deduction for everyone. He also argued for abolition of individual tax returns which would eliminate the need for many tax accountants allowing them "to do more useful and fulfilling things". This was an unfortunate burst of arrogance from Henry.

The government decided against this measure when many unionists (for one group) noted they'd be worse off if they couldn't claim their tools, cars etc....

5. High income earners can avoid tax by diverting income through discretionary trusts to lower taxed family members or a private company. Tax can also be avoided by sheltering earnings in a private company where it is taxed at 30%

Well that's simply untrue if it's "their income" - we have PSI rules and anti-avoidance rules to deal with that.

It is true that anyone setting up a business from a plumber through to a personal trainer through to a large multinational enterprise can use a company or trust to operate that business. These are separate legal entities that have tax obligations. And certainly, say, plumbers who run business through such enterprises can limit tax to a 30% Corporate rate. Of course if individuals access those moneys as loans or dividends there are provisions that require them to return those amounts as income.

I understand that this area can confuse people. Henry seemed to struggle with it at times. But I also understand that the softish rules around loans from these entities were considerably tightened from 2009.

Could you tax Mum & Dad plumbing Pty Ltd more? Yes. Henry recommended cutting the rate though, to ensure companies remain competitive.

http://archive.treasury.gov.au/documents/1719/PDF/TES_2009_Consolidated.pdf

Table 1.3 provides the numbers.
If you look at the top items ,Capital Gains & super concessions ($50b +) and compare it so say Family Tax benefits ($2b) you will quickly realise that Joe Hockey is taking us all for fools.
Take another example: Point 3 above: A $1.5b concession for golden handshakes (C3 on the Table 1.3) and compare that to Family Tax benefit ($2b)
The Henry Review is aimed squarely at things like Capital Gains because that is where the big expenditure in tax concessions is and that is why the government could increase its revenue by FAR MORE than targeting the middle where concessions pale in comparison..

Interesting that you went to that list. Tax Expenditure Statement 2009.

Here is a summary from your link.

"LARGE TAX EXPENDITURES

Table 1.3 provides a list of the largest measured tax expenditures for 2009-10. The largest measured tax expenditures are the concessional capital gains taxation of owner-occupied housing (E4 and E5) which is estimated to provide a benefit to taxpayers of around $31.5 billion in 2009-10. Together, these tax expenditures represent the exemption of owner-occupied housing from CGT.
After the owner-occupied housing exemption, the next largest tax expenditure is the concessional taxation of employer contributions to superannuation (C5) of around $11.4 billion in 2009-10. This is followed by the concessional taxation of superannuation entity earnings (C6) and the GST-free status of food (H23). These tax expenditures are estimated to provide benefits to taxpayers in 2009-10 of around $9.8 billion and $5.6 billion respectively.
The largest negative tax expenditures in 2009-10 are customs duty (F21) and the higher rate of excise levied on cigarettes (F7). These tax expenditures are estimated to be around $3 billion and $1.4 billion respectively.
There are a number of tax expenditures for which an estimate is not available but which have been assigned an order of magnitude classification (for details refer to Chapter 3. The largest such tax expenditures are as follows:• income tax exemption for religious, scientific, charitable or public educational institutions (B23);• income tax exemption for State and Territory bodies (B110); and• quarantining of capital losses (E28)."

So $31.5 billion is from the tax exemption on Owner occupier housing and $11.4 billion is from only taxing employer contributions to support at 15% (rather than taxing the super at marginal rates)

So your$50 billion of capital gains and super concessions is really the exception of the family home and confessional tax on employer Superannuation contributions.. You suggesting we reverse these?

As for family tax benefits being $2b this is simply errant nonsense. The 2015 budget shows the cost of FTB at $19 billion and the total cost of family tax assistance through family assistance payments at just under$38 billion.

The 2 billion figure you quote is simply the cost of not subjecting FTB to income tax. That is the cost of treating it as exempt income.

As for C3 being 1.5 billion for golden handshakes that's completely false. It's actually$1.5 billion for concessional Taxation of non Superannuation termination benefits. That's redundancies mainly.

Joe Hockey and parrots like Eagle talk about the middle being tax neutral the reality is there are people out there getting far more benefit from the tax system than the middle and not just a little more, 10 or 20 or 30 times more.
So yes, we need to have serious discussion about the tax system in our country, let's start with the facts.

Yes, let's start with the facts indeed.

At this stage you are proposing what?

The abolition of the tax exemption on the family home?
The elimination of concessional Taxation on employer Superannuation contributions?
The elimination of concessional tax on redundancy?
The elimination of work related deductions?

And you were out either$17 billion or$35+ billion on family Assistance costs.

You really want to do this? Or you better off going back to some sledge posts?

 

[Eagle87]

Thanks for that, but I will take Dr Henry's word over yours.
You got no idea.

I agree with Dr Henry on this. It's just that you used his comments about "specific taxes" and "usage charges" as support in a discussion about income tax.

Thats the definitive apples v oranges comparison.

But you don't see that because you don't know what specific taxes means.

http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/co...ons/papers/final_report_part_1/chapter_12.htm

You'll see from that link in the first couple paragraphs that specific taxes are not income taxes. They are things like tobacco taxes and alcohol taxes. I'm unsure what they have to do with income tax and why you quoted them in support of an argument against adjusting income tax or transfer payments.

They are irrelevant to that debate.

 

[Eagle87]

Which 2 professional accounting bodies did you help with their submission?

Asked and answered my pointlessly argumentative friend.

ICAA & CPA Australia.

Again, I work for neither but have been connected to do many things for them over the years and have been on various boards for them. You?

And it was submissions not submission.

 

[Maggie5]

surely you are jesting

Nope, and as for market forces - the most over-used comment in business. What does it mean? That a few will dictate to sheep?

 

[Grin]

A belief in market forces as some sort of mysterious free market consciousness where the market is deity and knows best is, of course, no more based in reality than any other fundamentalist religion.

Think GFC, think Crisco Xmas hampers.

Markets need regulation, and plenty of it if we are to protect consumers, investors, workers etc. from exploitation by the corrupt and greedy.

 

[TheMase]

Nope, and as for market forces - the most over-used comment in business. What does it mean? That a few will dictate to sheep?

The carbon 'tax' was in place to make fossil fuels less affordable and have companies invest in cleaner technologies. The tax was in place to force change in this marketplace (manipulate market forces?).

Companies like making profit and thus they will go for what makes them the most money. The carbon tax was to force them into future thinking about what will be the most profitable long term solution given fossil fuels will incur extra taxes...

Of course it was hijacked by the opposition who played it as a hit in consumers and not what it was intended for....

I actually don't believe in man made climate change, but I don't see this as a reason as to why we should not be trying to preserve the only planet in which we can currently inhabit.

 

[Footy Smarts]

lol

you just turn gas plants on and off, just like that!

lol

yep, that's how they work.

Anyone here an engineer and explain how many hours they require?

I never said such a thing. You're claiming that they basically burn the same amount of gas when they're not producing as when they are which is bloody hilarious.

Your claim that adding wind and solar only gives marginal reductions in carbon emissions because coal and gas plants still have to run is just fossil fuel lobby crap. It's shown to be crap by the fact that when we added wind and gas to the grid and used less coal our emissions intensity dropped. Since the carbon tax was removed we've seen a spike in brown coal, black coal and gas production at the expense mainly of hydro. If your absurd suggestion was true that should do nothing to emissions since they were running all the time anyway. Oh look we've had a massive spike in emissions intensity with that happening. Makes you wonder why they're emitting more carbon dioxide when they were running full time anyway.





The data clearly shows your statement to be bullshit. It's a statement made time and again by the fossil fuel lobby and time and again shown to be crap. Go to any country who has invested highly in wind or solar and the emissions reductions are similar to the amount of renewables installed. Since I know you're not an idiot I'm left with one of 2 conclusions. You're either ignorant of the facts in which case I hope you can see how clear the data is, or that you're deliberately spreading misinformation.

 

[Power Raid]

Nope, and as for market forces - the most over-used comment in business. What does it mean? That a few will dictate to sheep?

A belief in market forces as some sort of mysterious free market consciousness where the market is deity and knows best is, of course, no more based in reality than any other fundamentalist religion.

Think GFC, think Crisco Xmas hampers.

Markets need regulation, and plenty of it if we are to protect consumers, investors, workers etc. from exploitation by the corrupt and greedy.

market forces only really work where there is competition. I can't speak for the rest of Oz but the deregulation and splitting on the power corp here in WA has been a failure as they split the company by operations (infrastructure, retail, wholesale).

To fix this F up they will merge the entities together again and then split the businesses vertically meaning there will be competition across each operation.

 

[Power Raid]

I never said such a thing. You're claiming that they basically burn the same amount of gas when they're not producing as when they are which is bloody hilarious.

Your claim that adding wind and solar only gives marginal reductions in carbon emissions because coal and gas plants still have to run is just fossil fuel lobby crap. It's shown to be crap by the fact that when we added wind and gas to the grid and used less coal our emissions intensity dropped. Since the carbon tax was removed we've seen a spike in brown coal, black coal and gas production at the expense mainly of hydro. If your absurd suggestion was true that should do nothing to emissions since they were running all the time anyway. Oh look we've had a massive spike in emissions intensity with that happening. Makes you wonder why they're emitting more carbon dioxide when they were running full time anyway.

View attachment 100783

View attachment 100785

The data clearly shows your statement to be bullshit. It's a statement made time and again by the fossil fuel lobby and time and again shown to be crap. Go to any country who has invested highly in wind or solar and the emissions reductions are similar to the amount of renewables installed. Since I know you're not an idiot I'm left with one of 2 conclusions. You're either ignorant of the facts in which case I hope you can see how clear the data is, or that you're deliberately spreading misinformation.

you're on the wrong tangent