Why? Well within their power to do it.
I'd be interested if putting a 'super tax' on only mining and resources profits would be seen as exactly what it is - a clever way to avoid breaking section 114 of the consitution.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Why? Well within their power to do it.
I'd be interested if putting a 'super tax' on only mining and resources profits would be seen as exactly what it is - a clever way to avoid breaking section 114 of the consitution.
He paid 70 million in tax last year - if he wants to challenge ...more power to him.
No just greater means.So richer people have more right to complain?
So richer people have more right to complain?
That seems to be raising a couple of things: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.
He paid 70 million in tax last year - if he wants to challenge ...more power to him.
Yeah and how much of our finite assets did he dig out of the ground?
On what basis do you think they belong to you?
is this man related to damir dokic?
Who do they belong to?
Not Aboriginals.
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.
He paid 70 million in tax last year - if he wants to challenge ...more power to him.
The point being debated here appears to be that the rich have less right to complain.
If you want to mount a High Court challenge - knock yourself out ...why should someone be limited on how they can expend their cash?
If we are going to start limiting High Court challenges - does that include the Malaysian solution?
I have no doubt that the likes of Twiggy and Palmer honestly believe these decisions are to the detriment of the nation.
On what basis do you think they belong to you?
Mmmm. Only a few problems.
The first being the act is being passed by consent of parliament.
The second is...what the **** are you smoking?
The bit refering to the consent of parliament is about the states raising armies.
And the relevance is?
The debate is about Palmer not being able to complain? Or could it be that we're sick of his fat bloated carcas complaining when he's a billionaire?