Mega Thread All things Tony Abbott

[RUNVS]

I think a good idea that would work like a Carbon tax but better is to simply increase the prices big companies have to pay for electricity. Currently a lot of the big polluters get electricity at way way way cheaper rates than the rest of us do. Stop letting them get away with it, stop subsidising them so much and when their power prices go up you can bet they will try and find ways to use less electricity.

 

[Play by Numbers]

I think a good idea that would work like a Carbon tax but better is to simply increase the prices big companies have to pay for electricity. Currently a lot of the big polluters get electricity at way way way cheaper rates than the rest of us do. Stop letting them get away with it, stop subsidising them so much and when their power prices go up you can bet they will try and find ways to use less electricity.

The states should never have privatised generation. Has been an unmitigated failure.

If they hadn't, or didn't plan to, then a transition to cleaner energy would be more easily achieved.

 

[smokingjacket]

Some custodians of capital are motivated solely by profit, but they are usually just the cowboys who come into any industry and have a short term mentality.

Real custodians of capital seek preservation of capital, seek stability, a long term benefit and certainty. The best way to achieve this would have been a quota trading desk rather than a tax but that would have worked quickly, simply, with certainty etc but it would not have been politically exciting.

in regards to real change at the top, I was referring to people who run organisations that make positive change. You don't get to the top of these organisations by being negative. They are motivated by success and positive signals.

In regards to resource companies, they will benefit no matter which energy mix is chosen as they all require commodities. So don't get too excited by a conspiracy.

You might be of an older generation. The finance guys I know are firmly in the cowboy camp and they absorbed that culture from the funds they're in.

In any case, you're dancing but staying on the same spot. Preservation of capital (profit), stability (stable profit), long term benefit (long term profit) and certainty (certainty of profit making). I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, I just don't see how you can argue that a price signal isn't a valid way to change behaviour. You could make a case to say that the money should have been recycled back in to industry to help with the adjustment as in Scandinavia. I could buy that. Unfortunately the Opposition of the time made it an issue of a tax on consumers making it politically difficult.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to extrapolate out a bit what you mean by positive change in a business sense. To me it sounds like 'positive' moves to invest/profit, as I said before. If it's some kind of feels thing you've lost me.

Don't dump that conspiracy rubbish on my doorstep you know it won't fly. It's hardly earth shattering to point out that companies in extractive energy industries with a huge amount of their assets tied up in that sector would prefer the status quo. That's not to say the large ones haven't got a plan b but there's no doubt that things like decentralised grids pose a threat to their primacy in the world. Most of the them will still make money, granted, but will they always be the titans they are now? Would be fair easier for another more nimble company, not tied up with all of the baggage from the fossil fuel days, to take that position.

 

[smokingjacket]

you could look at positive and negative as a buzz word if you like but are you a person who is motivated by the carrot or the stick?

Option 3.

 

[Power Raid]

You might be of an older generation. The finance guys I know are firmly in the cowboy camp and they absorbed that culture from the funds they're in.

In any case, you're dancing but staying on the same spot. Preservation of capital (profit), stability (stable profit), long term benefit (long term profit) and certainty (certainty of profit making). I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, I just don't see how you can argue that a price signal isn't a valid way to change behaviour. You could make a case to say that the money should have been recycled back in to industry to help with the adjustment as in Scandinavia. I could buy that. Unfortunately the Opposition of the time made it an issue of a tax on consumers making it politically difficult.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to extrapolate out a bit what you mean by positive change in a business sense. To me it sounds like 'positive' moves to invest/profit, as I said before. If it's some kind of feels thing you've lost me.

Don't dump that conspiracy rubbish on my doorstep you know it won't fly. It's hardly earth shattering to point out that companies in extractive energy industries with a huge amount of their assets tied up in that sector would prefer the status quo. That's not to say the large ones haven't got a plan b but there's no doubt that things like decentralised grids pose a threat to their primacy in the world. Most of the them will still make money, granted, but will they always be the titans they are now? Would be fair easier for another more nimble company, not tied up with all of the baggage from the fossil fuel days, to take that position.

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.

 

[Power Raid]

Option 3.

why not have both!

 

[Contra Mundum]

Who, like everyone else, struggles to check some biases at the door.

I would take him as pro-consul Caesar style over any clown in Federal Parliament - he's got brains and ideas for starters - miles in front

 

[Power Raid]

I think a good idea that would work like a Carbon tax but better is to simply increase the prices big companies have to pay for electricity. Currently a lot of the big polluters get electricity at way way way cheaper rates than the rest of us do. Stop letting them get away with it, stop subsidising them so much and when their power prices go up you can bet they will try and find ways to use less electricity.

That has very little to do with the environment and everything about your ideology

 

[raghav]

Judging by most of the comments of the two numerical combatants it is fairly clear that not only is 87 the superior number but also it's user displays the superior knowledge.

 

[RUNVS]

That has very little to do with the environment and everything about your ideology

It would work in a similar way to the Carbon tax though.

 

[Eagle87]

I would take him as pro-consul Caesar style over any clown in Federal Parliament - he's got brains and ideas for starters - miles in front

Sure. But you could say that about a good percentage of the population.

Having sat across a desk from him for numerous hours he has the blinkers on in certain areas as most economists do.

The tax review has good ideas within it, its overall a very good document, but he had some highly competent people around him who took a lot of advice from other highly competent people and it's pretty flawed to put all the positives of the document on him.

The attached report of his exchange with the senators perhaps puts his theoretical flaws on proper display:

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/business/...t-out-of-the-bag/story-e6frfig6-1225873774975

 

[Number37]

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.

I am just a nobody that just so happens to know a bit about the workings of our tax system.

But you don't see that because you don't know what specific taxes means.
They are irrelevant to that debate.

What are you on about, you are the only one writing about cigarettes and alcohol

The entire sum of your argument was the 'middle' don't pay any tax and the entire sum of your solution was to tax them more.

The issue for us now is we have **** all net taxpayers but we can't tax most of those we need to - the middle -

That is not THE issue, it is a relatively small part of much much much bigger problem.
The Tax Expenditures table make that plain, perhaps not for LNP cheer squad members like yourself.

As I have contended all along, making the 'middle' the target is just plain stupid. A contention supported by the Henry Review that focused instead on THE issues that are a bigger part of the problem.

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?

You may want to think about what you copy from a website before trying to sound smart.

Keep digging...how deep a hole do you want to dig for yourself?

 

[Contra Mundum]

I would take him as pro-consul Caesar style over any clown in Federal Parliament

Sure. But you could say that about a good percentage of the population.

Having sat across a desk from him for numerous hours he has the blinkers on in certain areas as most economists do.

The tax review has good ideas within it, its overall a very good document, but he had some highly competent people around him who took a lot of advice from other highly competent people and it's pretty flawed to put all the positives of the document on him.

The attached report of his exchange with the senators perhaps puts his theoretical flaws on proper display:

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/business/...t-out-of-the-bag/story-e6frfig6-1225873774975

Thanks mate sitting on my arse on holidays so I will definitely read that stuff

 

[Power Raid]

It would work in a similar way to the Carbon tax though.

it would certainly reduce power consumption in Oz as the businesses move to a lower cost jurisdiction. these products would be made in a higher polluting jurisdiction and then shipped to australia adding more pollution to the supply chain.

thus we would have a smaller economy, lower wages, less general tax revenue and higher global pollution. With less wealth and as we know there is a strong correlation between poverty and a lack of concern for the environment. My concern is, this would be a giant step back for Australia and the environment.

 

[Eagle87]

I am just a nobody that just so happens to know a bit about the workings of our tax system.



What are you on about, you are the only one writing about cigarettes and alcohol

The entire sum of your argument was the 'middle' don't pay any tax and the entire sum of your solution was to tax them more.


That is not THE issue, it is a relatively small part of much much much bigger problem.
The Tax Expenditures table make that plain, perhaps not for LNP cheer squad members like yourself.

As I have contended all along, making the 'middle' the target is just plain stupid. A contention supported by the Henry Review that focused instead on THE issues that are a bigger part of the problem.



You may want to think about what you copy from a website before trying to sound smart.

Keep digging...how deep a hole do you want to dig for yourself?

HahaHaha... A series of contextless quotes from various responses arranged in no particular order and with no substantive comment attached.

You've been pwned young Jedi.

That aside, at no point have I said taxing the middle is the only solution. But when the tax and transfer system results in 60% of households making no net contribution in a system heavily reliant on income taxes you've got a significant weakness.

Henry was constrained from examining the GST in his tax review and also from widening the tax base. They were pretty substantial restrictions. Since the report was handed down members of his team have said that GST rate should be raised and he himself has said a raise is inevitable. Would have been nice to see the report with GST in.

What does the 2009 Tax Expenditure table make clear? I went through the points you raised. The biggest ticket items are CGT exemption on the family home and super concessions on employee contributions. I asked you which of your shopping list you were actually advocating for and you've not answered them and instead gone for ad hominem attack.

Try answering the questions with specifics and I'll respond.

Otherwise your debate is at the level of our current parliamentarians. Which is to say it's pretty ****ing average.

 

[Eagle87]

Thanks mate sitting on my arse on holidays so I will definitely read that stuff

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.

 

[Number37]

Sure. But you could say that about a good percentage of the population.

Having sat across a desk from him for numerous hours he has the blinkers on in certain areas as most economists do.

The tax review has good ideas within it, its overall a very good document, but he had some highly competent people around him who took a lot of advice from other highly competent people and it's pretty flawed to put all the positives of the document on him.

The attached report of his exchange with the senators perhaps puts his theoretical flaws on proper display:

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/business/...t-out-of-the-bag/story-e6frfig6-1225873774975

Quoting the Herald Sun..LOLZ

Is the underlined bit you?

Highly competent people with their own agendas are a dime a dozen.

 

[RUNVS]

it would certainly reduce power consumption in Oz as the businesses move to a lower cost jurisdiction. these products would be made in a higher polluting jurisdiction and then shipped to australia adding more pollution to the supply chain.

thus we would have a smaller economy, lower wages, less general tax revenue and higher global pollution. With less wealth and as we know there is a strong correlation between poverty and a lack of concern for the environment. My concern is, this would be a giant step back for Australia and the environment.

I am not saying remove the subsidies entirely, just reduce them.

 

[sherb]

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.

 

[Eagle87]

Quoting the Herald Sun..LOLZ

Is the underlined bit you?

Highly competent people with their own agendas are a dime a dozen.

When quoting actual quotes from people the source is somewhat irrelevant.

Are you one of the political hacks that inhabits this particular board? The kind who ensure we grown ups tend to stay away for months on end.

I have no agenda other than correcting nonsense in an area in which I have some level of knowledge and expertise. I understand in our current political environment that the hacks can't accept that anyone isn't on "a side". Which is unfortunate.

 

[Number37]

Try answering the questions with specifics and I'll respond.

bla bla bla
Keep cheering for One Term Tone.
Keep parotting Donut Joe's slogans.
However way you want to slice it, your (and Donut Joe's) 'tax the middle more' mantra is complete and utter nonsense.
The ONE AND ONLY purpose it serves is political ideology.
You have not adduced a shred of evidence that supports your contention that taxing the middle will address the structural deficit issue.
You can keep repeating 'they don't pay any tax' until your nose bleeds it is a meaningless statistic.

 

[Power Raid]

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.

yep absurd

this is a real failing of the NDIS. In WA the DSC would go with the applicant down the Centrelink and organise the correct social security benefits being a pension and any other entitlements.

unfortunately he is on NewStart and this requires job application.

This is the exact type of issue that is caused by federal governments interfering with state based services. NDIS should be scrapped and the funds allocated to the state services and restore some sense of normality to our most needy.

 

[Eagle87]

bla bla bla
Keep cheering for One Term Tone.
Keep parotting Donut Joe's slogans.
However way you want to slice it, your (and Donut Joe's) 'tax the middle more' mantra is complete and utter nonsense.
The ONE AND ONLY purpose it serves is political ideology.
You have not adduced a shred of evidence that supports your contention that taxing the middle will address the structural deficit issue.
You can keep repeating 'they don't pay any tax' until your nose bleeds it is a meaningless statistic.

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

 

[GuruJane]

bla bla bla
Keep cheering for One Term Tone.
Keep parotting Donut Joe's slogans.
However way you want to slice it, your (and Donut Joe's) 'tax the middle more' mantra is complete and utter nonsense.
The ONE AND ONLY purpose it serves is political ideology.
You have not adduced a shred of evidence that supports your contention that taxing the middle will address the structural deficit issue.
You can keep repeating 'they don't pay any tax' until your nose bleeds it is a meaningless statistic.

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.

 

[RUNVS]

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.

Like you have any understanding of tax either. If it were up to you you would increase taxes on the poor and decrease taxes on the rich which has been proven in some states in the USA not to work at all.