Society/Culture Clive Palmer

Remove this Banner Ad

H

hamohawk1

Premiership Player
Veteran
Feb 18, 2011
4,325
4,482
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Man just has too much money

If he doesn't like something he will simply go out and establish an organisation or threaten legal action.

Currently he is trying to take the government to court over its carbon tax implementation stating it is 'unconstitutional'

i am all for people challenging the ideas of society and groups when they think its wrong on occasions
But to me Clive Palmer, you're just a tool with too much money
 
Thats how this society rolls, money talks bullshit walks...

It's unconstituinal in the goverments that ruled before the british invasion how he has accumalated his wealth...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Rich man fights efforts by government to tax him more.

An old story, and not an original one.

Will lose any and all money he spends on a court challenge, should not even make it to the high court, there should be no grounds for them to consider it as a matter.
 
mateys said:
would there be a chance that gina rinehart or andrew forrest will try and take the govt to court?


will the liberal party be bankrolling challenge?
Click to expand...

There have been questions on the legal validity of a minerals resource rent tax. In regards to

114. A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

in our constitution.

Barnet and Forrest have hinted that they may look into this.
 
the rich crying poor imo.

gillard could tax the mining industry as much as they want, the resources are staying here. i don't care that the mineral boom is keeping our economy afloat, those resources only come out of the ground once
 
The Reaper said:
There have been questions on the legal validity of a minerals resource rent tax. In regards to

114. A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.

in our constitution.

Barnet and Forrest have hinted that they may look into this.
Click to expand...

And wouldn't the Cth just reply that the tax is levied on the business practise rather than the resource itself, thus falling under the corporations power?

HC rarely rules against the Cth constitutionally. He'll probably get rolled (though I know next to nothing about the case and could think of about 1000 better things to do than read the pleadings).
 
jonoman89 said:
And wouldn't the Cth just reply that the tax is levied on the business practise rather than the resource itself, thus falling under the corporations power?

HC rarely rules against the Cth constitutionally. He'll probably get rolled (though I know next to nothing about the case and could think of about 1000 better things to do than read the pleadings).
Click to expand...

Yeah, one would think that the Federal government would have designed the tax so that it is technically not on the resources.

Which is why whilst Barnet and Forrest have looked into the possibility of a court case they haven't proceeded with one.
 
when blackcat in the third person was a young grommet, he used to use this, now he just uses KY

mrs-palmers.jpg
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Reaper said:
Yeah, one would think that the Federal government would have designed the tax so that it is technically not on the resources...
Click to expand...

Then why isn't the MRRT a "super profits" tax applicable to all companies not just one industry?

Seems that would solve a lot of problems and take out the us v them idea of the magnates.
 
Ktrain said:
Then why isn't the MRRT a "super profits" tax applicable to all companies not just one industry?

Seems that would solve a lot of problems and take out the us v them idea of the magnates.
Click to expand...

Because that would be attacking the big banks as well...... and they my friend run the world.
 
nut said:
Because that would be attacking the big banks as well...... and they my friend run the world.
Click to expand...

So if the govt is going to levy higher corporate taxes on one particular industry at the exception of all others they should be subject to a legal challenge. They may win but that doesn't mean they are right.

If you want to keep the money of resources for public spending then you already have the mechanism...royalties - now I know that pisses off Canberra as that goes to the states but that's the constitution.
 
Given his physical persona one would imagine that he'd have difficulty getting his leg over so he's no doubt frustrated and addresses that by throwing his vast amount of money at things such as this latest project.
 
Meh.

Voters have unrealistic expectations about what governments should do for them. Governments never have enough money to do everything they promise. Governments must tax things to raise the money they need. But nobody likes to be the one paying tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top