GST: Premier Andrews says any increases must benefit health system

Date
    November 20, 2015
    The Age

Premier Daniel Andrews opposes any GST increase.   :) 



More funding for Australia's health system should be the top priority of any GST increase, Victoria's Premier Daniel Andrews has urged.

The Andrews government opposes any GST increase but has said it would respect the mandate of any federal government that won an election with a platform of an increase.

Mr Andrews, like his federal Labor counterparts, opposes a GST increase because it is an "unfair" tax. 

Earlier this month it was revealed that Treasury had offered several models to raise the GST, including lifting the rate to 15 per cent.   :(

Addressing the Committee for Economic Development Australia in Melbourne on Friday, Mr Andrews said if there was an increase it should go towards health because a drop in funding for the sector was a catalyst for the tax debate.

Treasurer Scott Morrison said any change to the GST would only be considered if put forward by the states and territories.

"Such a proposal would also have to reduce taxes, such as personal income tax, and increase income support payments to ensure vulnerable Australians were not adversely impacted, as occurred when the GST was introduced," Mr Morrison said.

Mr Andrews said one option being discussed around a GST change was to put half the new money raised into compensation for low income earners.

Under the plan, he said, the other half of the additional revenue would be spent on personal income and company tax cuts, with the remaining money to be spent on the health system.

"To potentially have an outcome where just the crumbs, or just the scraps of that process, gets allocated to the thing that brought it about, a crisis in the sustainability of our hospital funding, that I don't think is reform," Mr Andrews said.

"Our doctors and nurses need more money to treat more patients."

Tax reform, he said, was not simply about changing the rate of a tax.

This week's Fairfax/Ipsos poll found that if adequate compensation was paid to the poor and other taxes trimmed more than half of all Australians would back a GST increase.

Mr Andrews attacked the Turnbull government for lacking clarity on the budget and tax reform.

He also called on the Commonwealth to recognise that the major productivity levers in Australia were actually controlled by state governments, not Canberra.

"Until we get a federal government that is not so much interested in intruding and imposing, but instead partnering with states to realise the productivity potential… then I think we will always fall short."

He called for better partnerships with the federal government on infrastructure and education.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said under the Liberals' plan for a 15 per cent GST, every single Australian would have to pay more.   :(

"That's why Labor will not support Mr Turnbull's plan to raise the GST because it will push up the price of everything and hurt the very families who can least afford it," Mr Shorten said. 

hilarious

Dan the Man having a bet each way...


wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 6:37am:

GST: Premier Andrews says any increases must benefit health system

wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 6:37am:

Premier Daniel Andrews opposes any GST increase.

;D ;D ;D ;D

so hes opposing it.. but he WILL FORCE HIMSELF TO TAKE IT>.


well I guess hes not entirely stoooopid.....

he does realise doesnt he it is UP TO THE PREMIERS  ::) ::)

maybe he hasnt worked that out yet....

  he should stick to level crossing..

It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 6:54am:

It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact.

MONK do you seriously believe that???>...

tell me you are joking.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 6:54am:

It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact.

Although it was sloppy Joes intent to push the states in to making the decision for federal after cutting some 80billion, because wait for it, it might have made Fed Libs less popular than they already were , that sure worked out well for Sloppy and Dumb dumb.

Its time wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:17am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. Although it was sloppy Joes intent to push the states in to making the decision for federal after cutting some 80billion, because wait for it, it might have made Fed Libs less popular than they already were , that sure worked out well for Sloppy and Dumb dumb.

I WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME.. AFTER ALL ITS THE STATES THAT SPEND THE BLOODY TAX.. NOT THE FED AS MONK BELIEVES...

if you want MORE .. you go to the election with it... ::) ::) ::) ::)..

I call that smart...but  ;D ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:09am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking.

Yes, I seriously believe that.

Howard brought in the GST. In the Act he put in a clause that the GST could only be increased if all the states asked for it. But that clause can be removed by the Fed govt whenever it likes assuming the Senate agrees. The Greens will agree.

cods wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:09am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking.

they don't call him Joke Monk for nothing. . ::)

Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:24am:

cods wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:09am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking. Yes, I seriously believe that. Howard brought in the GST. In the Act he put in a clause that the GST could only be increased if all the states asked for it. But that clause can be removed by the Fed govt whenever it likes assuming the Senate agrees. The Greens will agree.

Sometimes Monk, I wonder why you bother.  Just tell them each state and territory bought in their own GST systems and Laws - include Hutt River Province as well.  Queensland is putting their GST up to 15%, NSW 42%, WA 25%  etc etc.....

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:53am:

cods wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:09am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking. they don't call him Joke Monk for nothing. . ::)

No, I pay them  :D  (Warning, obscure Goon Show reference)

But what I stated is the facts.

Commonwealth law governs the GST, the commonwealth can change the GST act. This is a fact of law.

Of course, the Senate has to be convinced to vote to remove the clause about States having to ask for changes to the GST but the Greens will oblige. Then the politics has to be right but a failing and panicking Morriscum might decide to do it.

cods wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:09am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking.

Monk is correct. The Premiers have no legal say. It is up to federal parliament only.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:55am:

Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it

That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal.

Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax.

stunspore wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:21am:

Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax.

Those that do that are ALL multi-nationals and it is a global problem that is difficult to fix. AS long as there are low-tax regimes, multi-nationals will obviously want to funnel profits through there.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:02am:

cods wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:09am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking. Monk is correct. The Premiers have no legal say. It is up to federal parliament only.

your wrong.





wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 6:37am:

Treasurer Scott Morrison said any change to the GST would[highlight] only be considered if put forward by the states and territories.

the feds make the changes[of course]... but the States make the decisions and they get the GST...

monk makes it sound like the FEDS SPEND THE MONEY...

cods wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:09am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking.

It is true, cods, because A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) ACT 1999 is a Federal law, not a State law. The part of the Act that specifies agreement with the states to raise the rate can be repealed from this Act at any time without affecting the rest of it.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:03am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal.

A bit rich of you to be complaining about trivialities when the Federal Liberals have blocked a BUDGET.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:03am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal.

in one survey 51% of Australians said that they'd accept a 15% gst as long as they were properly compensated. ..

So...you just need to be a good salesman against Bull Shittens negativity. .

Australians are willing to pay back Labor’s debt.. no doubt about it. . They just don't want to be ripped off. .

cods wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:26am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:02am: cods wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:09am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking. Monk is correct. The Premiers have no legal say. It is up to federal parliament only. your wrong. wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Treasurer Scott Morrison said any change to the GST would[highlight] only be considered if put forward by the states and territories. the feds make the changes[of course]... but the States make the decisions and they get the GST... monk makes it sound like the FEDS SPEND THE MONEY...

They do. It is spent on grants to the states. It need not be though. All taxes go to consolidated revenue. There are no specific cause taxes that must be spent where they're raised. The feds can do what they want with it.

cods wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:26am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:02am: cods wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:09am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking. Monk is correct. The Premiers have no legal say. It is up to federal parliament only. your wrong. wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Treasurer Scott Morrison said any change to the GST would[highlight] only be considered if put forward by the states and territories. the feds make the changes[of course]... but the States make the decisions and they get the GST... monk makes it sound like the FEDS SPEND THE MONEY...

If they don't change the rules so that the feds get to spend the money then they can not use the money to provide compensation or to reduce taxes which they are saying they will do.

At this point they are all having a few bob each way.

Legally the federal government can change it if they like but they have an arrangement saying that they have to have state approval. The minister is saying at this time that he won't break that guideline.

The federal government have been removing health care funding in order to put the states in the position of having no other choice than to ask to get money some way and have been told by the federal government that they need to ask for a GST increase if they want to be able to fund medical services in the future.

Bam wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:29am:

cods wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:09am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking. It is true, cods, because A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) ACT 1999 is a Federal law, not a State law. The part of the Act that specifies agreement with the states to raise the rate can be repealed from this Act at any time without affecting the rest of it.

I'm not sure that part even needs to be repealed as it may be unconstitutional. Either way, it is a big nothing.

Bam wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 9:28am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. A bit rich of you to be complaining about trivialities when the Federal Liberals have blocked a BUDGET.

You sound like a muslim going to war over the murder of someone 700 years ago.  Time to join the current century.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:03am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal.

I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party???

:-? :-? :-?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:03am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal.

Yes that worked out well , saved 15bucks a year on power and doubled the budget deficit while the multinationals continue to ship 80% of their profits offshore , Bravo Libs Bravo

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 11:42am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-?

So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it.

The differences are clear.

Its time wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 12:10pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. Yes that worked out well , saved 15bucks a year on power and doubled the budget deficit while the multinationals continue to ship 80% of their profits offshore , Bravo Libs Bravo

Nobody believes your silly $15 savings claim, suppository. You need to get a new theme song. This time perhaps try for truth.

No such thing as a mandate to do whatever those in power want - that road leads directly to Fascism.....

There is, rather a contract signed and sealed, between people and government in a democracy... and those who breach it should be punished with more than a golden parachute retirement.

White collar crime at its best.. and worst.....

crocodile wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 9:54am:

cods wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:26am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:02am: cods wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:09am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking. Monk is correct. The Premiers have no legal say. It is up to federal parliament only. your wrong. wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Treasurer Scott Morrison said any change to the GST would[highlight] only be considered if put forward by the states and territories. the feds make the changes[of course]... but the States make the decisions and they get the GST... monk makes it sound like the FEDS SPEND THE MONEY... They do. It is spent on grants to the states. It need not be though. All taxes go to consolidated revenue. There are no specific cause taxes that must be spent where they're raised. The feds can do what they want with it.

Correct.

For the same reason, it's nonsense to assert that particular spending must be linked to particular cuts elsewhere. The linking argument is simply a political tool to keep the budget balanced.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 12:24pm:

No such thing as a mandate to do whatever those in power want - that road leads directly to Fascism..... There is, rather a contract signed and sealed, between people and government in a democracy... and those who breach it should be punished with more than a golden parachute retirement. White collar crime at its best.. and worst.....

You do know that we are talking about governments adhering to a mandate delivered by voters at a full election, right?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 12:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear.

What I am saying is neither side respects mandates....You are the one saying mandates are only acceptable when they suit you....In the end it is the Senate that decides what becomes policy and what is rejected???

::) ::) ::)

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 12:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear.

The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 12:16pm:

Its time wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:10pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. Yes that worked out well , saved 15bucks a year on power and doubled the budget deficit while the multinationals continue to ship 80% of their profits offshore , Bravo Libs Bravo Nobody believes your silly $15 savings claim, suppository. You need to get a new theme song. This time perhaps try for truth.

You could try the same thing yourself.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 2:15pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable.

The Gillard Government had to do a deal with senator Steve Fielding to pass the bill....The Coalition tried to maintain several aspects of work choices but was out manoeuvred by the Gillard Government....The Coalition almost scuttled the entire bill whilst trying to maintain they supported removing work choices!!!

::) ::) ::)

http://advertisers.careerone.com.au/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/attracting-job-candidates/new-workplace-laws.aspx

cods wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:26am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:02am: cods wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:09am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:54am: It is a federal law, nothing to do with the Premiers in fact. MONK do you seriously believe that???>... tell me you are joking. Monk is correct. The Premiers have no legal say. It is up to federal parliament only. your wrong. wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:37am: Treasurer Scott Morrison said any change to the GST would[highlight] only be considered if put forward by the states and territories. the feds make the changes[of course]... but the States make the decisions and they get the GST... monk makes it sound like the FEDS SPEND THE MONEY...

If the senate work the way it was set up, all the senators from the states that oppose any changes to the GST would vote against those changes, and all senators from the states that want changes would vote for those changes. not vote along party lines.

That is one reason that senators should be independent and not belong to any political party or vote as their state government tells them to vote. The senate was set up to look after the states right that is why there are 12 senators from each state, no state has more say then another state in the senate

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 12:15pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear.

Where is the mandate for Howard to bring in workchoices? Did he have one I don't remember it in any election promise in 2004

Dnarever wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 2:15pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable.

They voted with the labor senators to vote it down.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 2:16pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:16pm: Its time wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:10pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. Yes that worked out well , saved 15bucks a year on power and doubled the budget deficit while the multinationals continue to ship 80% of their profits offshore , Bravo Libs Bravo Nobody believes your silly $15 savings claim, suppository. You need to get a new theme song. This time perhaps try for truth. You could try the same thing yourself.

We've had this debate before and you have grudgingly, belately accepted that the CT added ~10% to the price of power and its removal reduced prices by ~10%

Do we need to do this all over again?

I never said the Feds spend the money, Cods.

But they could, Senate willing, change the GST Act further and keep some of the GST revenue for themselves.

It IS a federal law after all.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 4:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down.

Bullshit!!!


Quote:

Independent senator Nick Xenophon and the Opposition lost a vote to keep the definition at less than 20 employees. Senator Xenophon voted with the Opposition after Senator Fielding undercut his original deal with the Government. Senator Xenophon had been pushing for the transition to the 15-worker head count to take three years, but Senator Fielding intervened and struck a deal to make it 18 months. Because of the way the Government worded the motion in the Senate yesterday, it only needed one of the two senators to get its Fair Work Bill passed, and relied on Senator Fielding. It also meant the Coalition did not have to vote on the full bill because the Senate was only required to vote on whether or not it would insist on its amendments. The full bill passed the Senate early yesterday morning but the Government would not accept a Coalition supported amendment to raise an unfair dismissal threshold for small business from fewer than 15 employees to 20.

http://advertisers.careerone.com.au/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/attracting-job-candidates/new-workplace-laws.aspx

::) ::) ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 4:56pm:

I never said the Feds spend the money, Cods. But they could, Senate willing, change the GST Act further and keep some of the GST revenue for themselves. It IS a federal law after all.

The Feds can keep the lot if they wish. Doesn't even require legislation.
Changing the rate would require the assent of parliament though.

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 5:14pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 4:24pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down. Bullshit!!! Quote: Independent senator Nick Xenophon and the Opposition lost a vote to keep the definition at less than 20 employees. Senator Xenophon voted with the Opposition after Senator Fielding undercut his original deal with the Government. Senator Xenophon had been pushing for the transition to the 15-worker head count to take three years, but Senator Fielding intervened and struck a deal to make it 18 months. Because of the way the Government worded the motion in the Senate yesterday, it only needed one of the two senators to get its Fair Work Bill passed, and relied on Senator Fielding. It also meant the Coalition did not have to vote on the full bill because the Senate was only required to vote on whether or not it would insist on its amendments. The full bill passed the Senate early yesterday morning but the Government would not accept a Coalition supported amendment to raise an unfair dismissal threshold for small business from fewer than 15 employees to 20. http://advertisers.careerone.com.au/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/attracting-job-candidates/new-workplace-laws.aspx ::) ::) ::)

Get over yourself, Phil. You cannot get over the fact that the Libs supported the mandate the voters had given while Labor routinely rejects them.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 5:31pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 5:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 4:24pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down. Bullshit!!! Quote: Independent senator Nick Xenophon and the Opposition lost a vote to keep the definition at less than 20 employees. Senator Xenophon voted with the Opposition after Senator Fielding undercut his original deal with the Government. Senator Xenophon had been pushing for the transition to the 15-worker head count to take three years, but Senator Fielding intervened and struck a deal to make it 18 months. Because of the way the Government worded the motion in the Senate yesterday, it only needed one of the two senators to get its Fair Work Bill passed, and relied on Senator Fielding. It also meant the Coalition did not have to vote on the full bill because the Senate was only required to vote on whether or not it would insist on its amendments. The full bill passed the Senate early yesterday morning but the Government would not accept a Coalition supported amendment to raise an unfair dismissal threshold for small business from fewer than 15 employees to 20. http://advertisers.careerone.com.au/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/attracting-job-candidates/new-workplace-laws.aspx ::) ::) ::) Get over yourself, Phil. You cannot get over the fact that the Libs supported the mandate the voters had given while Labor routinely rejects them.

Both parties reject mandates as I have stated...You are the one claiming only Labor rejects a mandate which is bullshit...Get over yourself Maria....You are wrong!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 5:37pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 5:31pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 5:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 4:24pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down. Bullshit!!! Quote: Independent senator Nick Xenophon and the Opposition lost a vote to keep the definition at less than 20 employees. Senator Xenophon voted with the Opposition after Senator Fielding undercut his original deal with the Government. Senator Xenophon had been pushing for the transition to the 15-worker head count to take three years, but Senator Fielding intervened and struck a deal to make it 18 months. Because of the way the Government worded the motion in the Senate yesterday, it only needed one of the two senators to get its Fair Work Bill passed, and relied on Senator Fielding. It also meant the Coalition did not have to vote on the full bill because the Senate was only required to vote on whether or not it would insist on its amendments. The full bill passed the Senate early yesterday morning but the Government would not accept a Coalition supported amendment to raise an unfair dismissal threshold for small business from fewer than 15 employees to 20. http://advertisers.careerone.com.au/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/attracting-job-candidates/new-workplace-laws.aspx ::) ::) ::) Get over yourself, Phil. You cannot get over the fact that the Libs supported the mandate the voters had given while Labor routinely rejects them. Both parties reject mandates as I have stated...You are the one claiming only Labor rejects a mandate which is bullshit...Get over yourself Maria....You are wrong!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Libs supported the anti-workchoices mandate. FACT. Labor rejected the NO CARBON TAX mandate. FACT. Labor rejected the CT and mining tax repeal mandate. FACT

These are no debatable.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 4:24pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down.

Maybe you should check that out again - they actually abstained from voting on the primary bill.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 5:39pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 5:37pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 5:31pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 5:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 4:24pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down. Bullshit!!! Quote: Independent senator Nick Xenophon and the Opposition lost a vote to keep the definition at less than 20 employees. Senator Xenophon voted with the Opposition after Senator Fielding undercut his original deal with the Government. Senator Xenophon had been pushing for the transition to the 15-worker head count to take three years, but Senator Fielding intervened and struck a deal to make it 18 months. Because of the way the Government worded the motion in the Senate yesterday, it only needed one of the two senators to get its Fair Work Bill passed, and relied on Senator Fielding. It also meant the Coalition did not have to vote on the full bill because the Senate was only required to vote on whether or not it would insist on its amendments. The full bill passed the Senate early yesterday morning but the Government would not accept a Coalition supported amendment to raise an unfair dismissal threshold for small business from fewer than 15 employees to 20. http://advertisers.careerone.com.au/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/attracting-job-candidates/new-workplace-laws.aspx ::) ::) ::) Get over yourself, Phil. You cannot get over the fact that the Libs supported the mandate the voters had given while Labor routinely rejects them. Both parties reject mandates as I have stated...You are the one claiming only Labor rejects a mandate which is bullshit...Get over yourself Maria....You are wrong!!! [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] Libs supported the anti-workchoices mandate. FACT. Labor rejected the NO CARBON TAX mandate. FACT. Labor rejected the CT and mining tax repeal mandate. FACT These are no debatable.

Work choices was not struck down it was amended so the federal Government could maintain control over industrial relations....The Coalition rejected a mandate to introduce an ETS. FACT. Both Labor and the Coalition have not accepted mandates. FACT. Trying to maintain that it is only the ALP who reject mandates is bullshit....Partisan hacks have no credibility when they routinely ignore failings in the party they support!!!

[smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif] [smiley=thumbdown.gif]

Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945), radio address, October 26, 1939

::) ::) ::)

Dnarever wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 5:55pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 4:24pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down. Maybe you should check that out again - they actually abstained from voting on the primary bill.

So that it would pass.

Come on, Phil. Work it out. Do you not think they knew the consequences? Did Labor abstain on the carbon tax repeal votes?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 6:23pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 5:55pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 4:24pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down. Maybe you should check that out again - they actually abstained from voting on the primary bill. So that it would pass. Come on, Phil. Work it out. Do you not think they knew the consequences? Did Labor abstain on the carbon tax repeal votes?

Did the LNP reject Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....That fact alone makes your whole argument mute....I am not the one claiming it is only one party that rejects mandates....You are wrong but are so rusted on you cannot bring yourself to accepting the truth....Are you Tony Abbott be any chance???

::) ::) ::)

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 6:23pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 5:55pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 4:24pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down. Maybe you should check that out again - they actually abstained from voting on the primary bill. So that it would pass. Come on, Phil. Work it out. Do you not think they knew the consequences? Did Labor abstain on the carbon tax repeal votes?

Not so pedantic when it is you who don't know what you are talking about.

The Abbott government did not get a mandate so stop saying they did .

Actually the Abbott government, the majority of Australians didn’t vote for the L/NP, here is a simple explanation.


How a Mandate works. Elections with a large margin of victory, are often said to give the newly elected Government or elected official an implicit mandate to put into effect certain policies.



2013 Coalition Election Results: First Preference by Party:

Liberal – 32.02 %

Liberal National Party- 8.92 %

The Nationals- 4.29%

Country Liberal (NT)- 0.32 %

TOTAL: 45.55 %



45.55% of the Vote is NOT a Majority

45.55% of the Vote is NOT a Mandate.



54.45% of the Votes were for NOT the Coalition so the Abbott government has NO Mandate for their Arse-Backwards Policies.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 5:31pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 5:14pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 4:24pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down. Bullshit!!! Quote: Independent senator Nick Xenophon and the Opposition lost a vote to keep the definition at less than 20 employees. Senator Xenophon voted with the Opposition after Senator Fielding undercut his original deal with the Government. Senator Xenophon had been pushing for the transition to the 15-worker head count to take three years, but Senator Fielding intervened and struck a deal to make it 18 months. Because of the way the Government worded the motion in the Senate yesterday, it only needed one of the two senators to get its Fair Work Bill passed, and relied on Senator Fielding. It also meant the Coalition did not have to vote on the full bill because the Senate was only required to vote on whether or not it would insist on its amendments. The full bill passed the Senate early yesterday morning but the Government would not accept a Coalition supported amendment to raise an unfair dismissal threshold for small business from fewer than 15 employees to 20. http://advertisers.careerone.com.au/hr/hr-best-practices/recruiting-hiring-advice/attracting-job-candidates/new-workplace-laws.aspx ::) ::) ::) Get over yourself, Phil. You cannot get over the fact that the Libs supported the mandate the voters had given while Labor routinely rejects them.

meanwhile Phil has supported his arguments with links, while you just keep flapping your gums ...

Unless you want to provide evidence to the contrary, I'd suggest that you get over yourself Maria.

I have over the last decade or so come to not really believe in the validity of mandates. Though the theory seems to be valid on the surface we have had some doozies that have been claimed where no mandate existed as with the GST the majority vote clearly intended to oppose the GST.

As well as that we seen the Democrats support the mandate principle and no longer exist because of it - the people who voted for them refused to vote for them ever again because of the betrail, almost all of the democrat vote was in the belief that the democrats stated position on the GST would remain consistently in place after the election  and believed that the election result obtained meant that the GST was dead.

We had the last election where Labor voters were clearly voting to support a price on carbon and would lynch any Labor party member who betrayed that position irrespective of any perceived mandate.

I have come to believe that people who vote for a political party in an election have the right to expect the party to respect the platform their supporters had voted for even in opposition.

There was a time where I thought that a mandate was a black and white situation, I no longer see it that way and in fact doubt that the concept has much current validity at all.

the people that voted for the democrats voted for them because the democrats said THEY WERE OPPOSED to the GST. The democrats betrayed them so the people refused to believe their lies again. The only mandate the democrats had was to THEIR voters.

The GST should never have been introduced, well over 50% of the population voted against it. It's a disgrace and a stain on democracy that it was ever allowed to proceed.

John Smith wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:52pm:

the people that voted for the democrats voted for them because the democrats said THEY WERE OPPOSED to the GST. The democrats betrayed them so the people refused to believe their lies again. The only mandate the democrats had was to THEIR voters. The GST should never have been introduced, well over 50% of the population voted against it. It's a disgrace and a stain on democracy that it was ever allowed to proceed.

As to WorkChoices—never mentioned in the campaign. The concept of a mandate died then.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 9:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:52pm: the people that voted for the democrats voted for them because the democrats said THEY WERE OPPOSED to the GST. The democrats betrayed them so the people refused to believe their lies again. The only mandate the democrats had was to THEIR voters. The GST should never have been introduced, well over 50% of the population voted against it. It's a disgrace and a stain on democracy that it was ever allowed to proceed. As to WorkChoices—never mentioned in the campaign. The concept of a mandate died then.

true ... they only came up with workforces through when they realised they had control of both houses.

Yup. they tried to claim a mandate saying they had tried to increase the number of employees in a company before unfair dismissal claims could be made.

Not exactly WC!

Nope, mandates are dead.

philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 6:28pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 6:23pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 5:55pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 4:24pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 2:15pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 12:15pm: philperth2010 wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 11:42am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:03am: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:55am: Andrews has already said that if the federal government takes a GST to an election and wins.. he wont oppose it That is interesting... A labor person willing to accept a electoral mandate...  Pity Federal labor didnt do that with the Carbon Tax repeal or Mining Tax repeal. I suppose it was in part because the Federal Coalition under Tony Abbott refused to accept Kevin Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....Something the Coalition themselves took to the 2007 election....We should have an ETS if mandates where respected by either party??? :-? :-? :-? So what are you saying? Mandates are real or only when they suit you? There was a very very clear mandate to remove Workchoices - and the libs voted it down. There was a very very clear mandate to remove the Carbon Tax and Labor voted to keep it. The differences are clear. The Liberals never voted the workchoices legislation down that is a popular fable. They voted with the labor senators to vote it down. Maybe you should check that out again - they actually abstained from voting on the primary bill. So that it would pass. Come on, Phil. Work it out. Do you not think they knew the consequences? Did Labor abstain on the carbon tax repeal votes? Did the LNP reject Rudd's mandate to introduce an ETS....That fact alone makes your whole argument mute....I am not the one claiming it is only one party that rejects mandates....You are wrong but are so rusted on you cannot bring yourself to accepting the truth....Are you Tony Abbott be any chance??? ::) ::) ::)

Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices. Mandates do not and can not apply to each and every policy no matter how small or else you reduce the purpose of parliament to a rubber stamp. Mandates apply to the one or two BIG policy matters that dominate elections. The ETS was scarcely discussed.

Labor voter wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:53pm:

The Abbott government did not get a mandate so stop saying they did . Actually the Abbott government, the majority of Australians didn’t vote for the L/NP, here is a simple explanation. How a Mandate works. Elections with a large margin of victory, are often said to give the newly elected Government or elected official an implicit mandate to put into effect certain policies. 2013 Coalition Election Results: First Preference by Party: Liberal – 32.02 % Liberal National Party- 8.92 % The Nationals- 4.29% Country Liberal (NT)- 0.32 % TOTAL: 45.55 % 45.55% of the Vote is NOT a Majority 45.55% of the Vote is NOT a Mandate. 54.45% of the Votes were for NOT the Coalition so the Abbott government has NO Mandate for their Arse-Backwards Policies.

And in todays electoral education for the dim-witted, we learn the difference between an arithmetic majority and a MANDATE.

Or at least, everyone else does. And yet you think Labor had a mandate to remove WorkChoices. Did they or did they not?

There was a mandate for an ETS: both Labor and Libs had an ETS in their platform.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:47pm:

I have over the last decade or so come to not really believe in the validity of mandates. Though the theory seems to be valid on the surface we have had some doozies that have been claimed where no mandate existed as with the GST the majority vote clearly intended to oppose the GST. As well as that we seen the Democrats support the mandate principle and no longer exist because of it - the people who voted for them refused to vote for them ever again because of the betrail, almost all of the democrat vote was in the belief that the democrats stated position on the GST would remain consistently in place after the election  and believed that the election result obtained meant that the GST was dead. We had the last election where Labor voters were clearly voting to support a price on carbon and would lynch any Labor party member who betrayed that position irrespective of any perceived mandate. I have come to believe that people who vote for a political party in an election have the right to expect the party to respect the platform their supporters had voted for even in opposition. There was a time where I thought that a mandate was a black and white situation, I no longer see it that way and in fact doubt that the concept has much current validity at all.

Mandates for many people are a huge problem and the reason is simple: it is a principle, not a vote.  Mandates are understood and respected by men and women of principle while lesser people will never see them. They are the honest and decent acts taken by MPs of character when nothing compells them other than their conscience and morality. For some, they understand it perfectly, while other have not a clue.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 9:05pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:52pm: the people that voted for the democrats voted for them because the democrats said THEY WERE OPPOSED to the GST. The democrats betrayed them so the people refused to believe their lies again. The only mandate the democrats had was to THEIR voters. The GST should never have been introduced, well over 50% of the population voted against it. It's a disgrace and a stain on democracy that it was ever allowed to proceed. As to WorkChoices—never mentioned in the campaign. The concept of a mandate died then.

The exact opposite is true. Because there was no mandate, the Libs were thrown out of office.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 7:56am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 9:05pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:52pm: the people that voted for the democrats voted for them because the democrats said THEY WERE OPPOSED to the GST. The democrats betrayed them so the people refused to believe their lies again. The only mandate the democrats had was to THEIR voters. The GST should never have been introduced, well over 50% of the population voted against it. It's a disgrace and a stain on democracy that it was ever allowed to proceed. As to WorkChoices—never mentioned in the campaign. The concept of a mandate died then. The exact opposite is true. Because there was no mandate, the Libs were thrown out of office.

The Libs were thrown out of office because the lying rodent refused to hand over power.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 7:56am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 9:05pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:52pm: the people that voted for the democrats voted for them because the democrats said THEY WERE OPPOSED to the GST. The democrats betrayed them so the people refused to believe their lies again. The only mandate the democrats had was to THEIR voters. The GST should never have been introduced, well over 50% of the population voted against it. It's a disgrace and a stain on democracy that it was ever allowed to proceed. As to WorkChoices—never mentioned in the campaign. The concept of a mandate died then. The exact opposite is true. Because there was no mandate, the Libs were thrown out of office.

It was unheralded, unfair, harsh and totally unworkable—a typical Lib product in fact. THAT is why Howard got the Double Order of the Boot with bar.

WA will never agree to an increase while the Feds are shafting them in the present system.

miketrees wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 8:43am:

WA will never agree to an increase while the Feds are shafting them in the present system.

Actually with the mining boom  over WA are very likely to go back to being the biggest beneficiaries of tax collected in other states as was the case for over 95% the prior century in the various forms.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 7:51am:

Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices.

And Abbotts main policy was 'STOP THE BOATS' :D :D :D

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 7:51am:

Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices.

Both Howard and Rudd went to the election with ETS policies, the one which was ultimately negotiated and then blocked was closer to the Howard government election promise than to Labors.

The ETS policy that Abbott blocked was virtually the same policy he had argued to support and was the Liberal party policy taken to the 2007 election by the Howard government.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 7:55am:

Mandates for many people are a huge problem and the reason is simple: it is a principle, not a vote.  Mandates are understood and respected by men and women of principle while lesser people will never see them. They are the honest and decent acts taken by MPs of character when nothing compells them other than their conscience and morality. For some, they understand it perfectly, while other have not a clue.

I just love when a lib lectures others on principles, a concept that would normally never enter their feeble minds.....

Mp's are voted in to do what the people that voted for THEM want them to do, not to do what the winning party wants them to do.  If I vote for someone because he is pro carbon tax, it is unprincipled of him to change his tune AFTER the election. The democrats tried that and look where it left them.

John Smith wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 9:17am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 7:51am: Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices. And Abbotts main policy was 'STOP THE BOATS' :D :D :D

And "Ditch the witch"

I thought it lucky that he had no policies about ducks or trucks. It may have been unfortunate.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 7:51am:

Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices. Mandates do not and can not apply to each and every policy no matter how small or else you reduce the purpose of parliament to a rubber stamp. Mandates apply to the one or two BIG policy matters that dominate elections. The ETS was scarcely discussed.

climate change is the "great moral, environmental and economic challenge of our age' ........... sound familiar?

Labor voter wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 7:53pm:

The Abbott government did not get a mandate so stop saying they did . Actually the Abbott government, the majority of Australians didn’t vote for the L/NP, here is a simple explanation. How a Mandate works. Elections with a large margin of victory, are often said to give the newly elected Government or elected official an implicit mandate to put into effect certain policies. 2013 Coalition Election Results: First Preference by Party: Liberal – 32.02 % Liberal National Party- 8.92 % The Nationals- 4.29% Country Liberal (NT)- 0.32 % TOTAL: 45.55 % 45.55% of the Vote is NOT a Majority 45.55% of the Vote is NOT a Mandate. 54.45% of the Votes were for NOT the Coalition so the Abbott government has NO Mandate for their Arse-Backwards Policies.

It is more accurate to state that every elected parliamentarian has the right to assert their own policy agenda. With so many different views represented in the Parliament, compromise is often necessary. That is a good thing, and is a sign of a healthy democracy.

As long as a party sticks to its policy platform in Parliament, they won't harm their chances at the next election.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 9:23am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 7:51am: Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices. Both Howard and Rudd went to the election with ETS policies, the one which was ultimately negotiated and then blocked was closer to the Howard government election promise than to Labors. The ETS policy that Abbott blocked was virtually the same policy he had argued to support and was the Liberal party policy taken to the 2007 election by the Howard government.

Come back to me when you are ready to criticise Gillard from bringing in a CT she promised not to an for labor refusing to repeal the CT after and election thumping on the issue.

Until then, you are just playing with hypocrisy.

Bam wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 10:23am:

Labor voter wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 7:53pm: The Abbott government did not get a mandate so stop saying they did . Actually the Abbott government, the majority of Australians didn’t vote for the L/NP, here is a simple explanation. How a Mandate works. Elections with a large margin of victory, are often said to give the newly elected Government or elected official an implicit mandate to put into effect certain policies. 2013 Coalition Election Results: First Preference by Party: Liberal – 32.02 % Liberal National Party- 8.92 % The Nationals- 4.29% Country Liberal (NT)- 0.32 % TOTAL: 45.55 % 45.55% of the Vote is NOT a Majority 45.55% of the Vote is NOT a Mandate. 54.45% of the Votes were for NOT the Coalition so the Abbott government has NO Mandate for their Arse-Backwards Policies. It is more accurate to state that every elected parliamentarian has the right to assert their own policy agenda. With so many different views represented in the Parliament, compromise is often necessary. That is a good thing, and is a sign of a healthy democracy. As long as a party sticks to its policy platform in Parliament, they won't harm their chances at the next election.

Really? Don't you meant their ADVERTISED policy agenda?  MPs and parties do not have the right to simply say one thing at an election and then afterwards do absolutely anything they want.  That was Howards mistake in 2004 and Gillard's in 2010. We can forgive variations on a them, but we dont forgive an entire new song.

Really? Don't you meant their ADVERTISED policy agenda?  MPs and parties do not have the right to simply say one thing at an election and then afterwards do absolutely anything they want.  That was Howards mistake in 2004 and Gillard's in 2010. We can forgive variations on a them, but we dont forgive an entire new song.


This is the only reason we need an elected head of state,, to call another election when parties deviate from their promises.

Perhaps then they may have to be honest with the electors,,, that has its problems because most of you are too stupid to understand what is required.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 7:51am:

Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices. Mandates do not and can not apply to each and every policy no matter how small or else you reduce the purpose of parliament to a rubber stamp. Mandates apply to the one or two BIG policy matters that dominate elections. The ETS was scarcely discussed.

So did the Abbott government have a mandate to stop the boats , remove the fixed carbon price or to remove the super profits tax ?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 5:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 9:23am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 7:51am: Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices. Both Howard and Rudd went to the election with ETS policies, the one which was ultimately negotiated and then blocked was closer to the Howard government election promise than to Labors. The ETS policy that Abbott blocked was virtually the same policy he had argued to support and was the Liberal party policy taken to the 2007 election by the Howard government. Come back to me when you are ready to criticise Gillard from bringing in a CT she promised not to an for labor refusing to repeal the CT after and election thumping on the issue. Until then, you are just playing with hypocrisy.

I said virtually on day 1 that Gillard had broken her election promise. You are the one who seems to invest heavily in hypocrisy.

The election loss was mainly due to Rudd’s whiteanting and treachery.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 7:29pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 7:51am: Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices. Mandates do not and can not apply to each and every policy no matter how small or else you reduce the purpose of parliament to a rubber stamp. Mandates apply to the one or two BIG policy matters that dominate elections. The ETS was scarcely discussed. So did the Abbott government have a mandate to stop the boats , remove the fixed carbon price or to remove the super profits tax ?

Absolutely. They were the three big topics of the election although 'stop the boats' didnt need a mandate since both parties (belatedly) agreed on that so we are back to just two.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2015 at 7:32pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 5:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 9:23am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 7:51am: Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices. Both Howard and Rudd went to the election with ETS policies, the one which was ultimately negotiated and then blocked was closer to the Howard government election promise than to Labors. The ETS policy that Abbott blocked was virtually the same policy he had argued to support and was the Liberal party policy taken to the 2007 election by the Howard government. Come back to me when you are ready to criticise Gillard from bringing in a CT she promised not to an for labor refusing to repeal the CT after and election thumping on the issue. Until then, you are just playing with hypocrisy. I said virtually on day 1 that Gillard had broken her election promise. You are the one who seems to invest heavily in hypocrisy.

Now all you have to do is criticise Labor for voting AGAINST the CT repeal.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 7:32pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 5:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 9:23am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 7:51am: Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices. Both Howard and Rudd went to the election with ETS policies, the one which was ultimately negotiated and then blocked was closer to the Howard government election promise than to Labors. The ETS policy that Abbott blocked was virtually the same policy he had argued to support and was the Liberal party policy taken to the 2007 election by the Howard government. Come back to me when you are ready to criticise Gillard from bringing in a CT she promised not to an for labor refusing to repeal the CT after and election thumping on the issue. Until then, you are just playing with hypocrisy. I said virtually on day 1 that Gillard had broken her election promise. You are the one who seems to invest heavily in hypocrisy. Now all you have to do is criticise Labor for voting AGAINST the CT repeal.

Why?

I had the misfortune to see premier Andrews on the television.

How underwhelming.

If he wants more money for the health system, the first thing he should do is fund a chromosome analysis for himself .
What is it with the heads on these labor leaders.

they are a who's who of ugly

beattie
gillard
rudd
shorten (the premature baby)
now this andrews fellow.


meanwhile observe the chisselled features of

Abbott
Turnbull and the NSW premier
Corey bernardi could easily star in magic mike.

Are the lefty politicians over compensating for a lifetime of being treated as beta males due to their dysmorphic features ?

someone should investigate

aquascoot wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:55am:

I had the misfortune to see premier Andrews on the television. How underwhelming. If he wants more money for the health system, the first thing he should do is fund a chromosome analysis for himself . What is it with the heads on these labor leaders. they are a who's who of ugly beattie gillard rudd shorten (the premature baby) now this andrews fellow. meanwhile observe the chisselled features of Abbott Turnbull and the NSW premier Corey bernardi could easily star in magic mike. Are the lefty politicians over compensating for a lifetime of being treated as beta males due to their dysmorphic features ? someone should investigate

Glad you finally came out Aqua :). May your life now be ever more enjoyable.

Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif] 

wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:02am:

Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:59am:

aquascoot wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:55am: I had the misfortune to see premier Andrews on the television. How underwhelming. If he wants more money for the health system, the first thing he should do is fund a chromosome analysis for himself . What is it with the heads on these labor leaders. they are a who's who of ugly beattie gillard rudd shorten (the premature baby) now this andrews fellow. meanwhile observe the chisselled features of Abbott Turnbull and the NSW premier Corey bernardi could easily star in magic mike. Are the lefty politicians over compensating for a lifetime of being treated as beta males due to their dysmorphic features ? someone should investigate Glad you finally came out Aqua :). May your life now be ever more enjoyable.

Image is important.
i think corey has excellent leadership criteria.
olympic rower, a man of conviction, would galvanise the female vote.
its a sign of how far to the left the liberal party have gone that a guy with such hard core liberal values is seen as a pariah

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:20am:

wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger.

? Tony always said the states decided.  Was he lying?

aquascoot wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:59am: aquascoot wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:55am: I had the misfortune to see premier Andrews on the television. How underwhelming. If he wants more money for the health system, the first thing he should do is fund a chromosome analysis for himself . What is it with the heads on these labor leaders. they are a who's who of ugly beattie gillard rudd shorten (the premature baby) now this andrews fellow. meanwhile observe the chisselled features of Abbott Turnbull and the NSW premier Corey bernardi could easily star in magic mike. Are the lefty politicians over compensating for a lifetime of being treated as beta males due to their dysmorphic features ? someone should investigate Glad you finally came out Aqua :). May your life now be ever more enjoyable. Image is important. i think corey has excellent leadership criteria. olympic rower, a man of conviction, would galvanise the female vote. its a sign of how far to the left the liberal party have gone that a guy with such hard core liberal values is seen as a pariah

Liberal as long as you follow every word of the church, you mean?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:39am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger. ? Tony always said the states decided.  Was he lying?

He was wrong. Simple are that.

However there is a difference between "technically" and "practically". Practically the states decide, technically the federal government does.

The federal government could just over-rule the states, but I don't think it's likely, at least under Turnbull. He won't waste the political capital on it. Better to get people on his side and put pressure on the states that way.

Looks like Scoot is gay and racist. Not really surprising.

Kytro wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:53am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:39am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger. ? Tony always said the states decided.  Was he lying? He was wrong. Simple are that. However there is a difference between "technically" and "practically". Practically the states decide, technically the federal government does. The federal government could just over-rule the states, but I don't think it's likely, at least under Turnbull. He won't waste the political capital on it. Better to get people on his side and put pressure on the states that way.

For it to have much chance, the Feds will need most of the states on-side. The feds dont need their agreement, but they do need their support.

Why is this so hard for some to grasp?

Too many believe Liar Howard.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:26am:

Too many believe Liar Howard.

Nobody beleives you.


56/44


Get used to it.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 7:32pm: I said virtually on day 1 that Gillard had broken her election promise. You are the one who seems to invest heavily in hypocrisy. Now all you have to do is criticise Labor for voting AGAINST the CT repeal.

Again you indulge in hypocrisy.

We're still waiting for you to criticise the Liberal party on numerous topics. Which you won't do because you're a self-confessed partisan hack.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:30am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:26am: Too many believe Liar Howard. Nobody beleives you. 56/44 Get used to it.

After ignoring polls and constantly devaluing their worth for two years do you have any idea how much of a hypocrite you currently look.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:20am:

wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger.

mariacostel - 49.76 Posts per day
Sir Crook - 5.76 Posts per day
Bam - 11.00 Posts per day

If there's a bludger here, it's you ... is there anyone here, anyone at all, who has more posts per day?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:38am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 7:32pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 5:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 9:23am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 22nd, 2015 at 7:51am: Was there a mandate for an ETS? the major election policy was workhoices. Both Howard and Rudd went to the election with ETS policies, the one which was ultimately negotiated and then blocked was closer to the Howard government election promise than to Labors. The ETS policy that Abbott blocked was virtually the same policy he had argued to support and was the Liberal party policy taken to the 2007 election by the Howard government. Come back to me when you are ready to criticise Gillard from bringing in a CT she promised not to an for labor refusing to repeal the CT after and election thumping on the issue. Until then, you are just playing with hypocrisy. I said virtually on day 1 that Gillard had broken her election promise. You are the one who seems to invest heavily in hypocrisy. Now all you have to do is criticise Labor for voting AGAINST the CT repeal.

Why should I do that everyone who voted for them did so on the expectation that this would be their position.

Bam wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:21am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger. mariacostel - 49.76 Posts per day Sir Crook - 5.76 Posts per day Bam - 11.00 Posts per day If there's a bludger here, it's you ... is there anyone here, anyone at all, who has more posts per day?

RETIRED...

Not living on any welfare at all. Can you two say the same?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:46am:

Bam wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:21am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger. mariacostel - 49.76 Posts per day Sir Crook - 5.76 Posts per day Bam - 11.00 Posts per day If there's a bludger here, it's you ... is there anyone here, anyone at all, who has more posts per day? RETIRED... Not living on any welfare at all. Can you two say the same?

i am retired as well and I am not on here 24/7 I do have a life beside on being on here


Quote:

labor voter 53 1.51 Posts per day

Get out now and then and smell the roses Marie and you might see how the other half lives

Labor voter wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 12:55pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:46am: Bam wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:21am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger. mariacostel - 49.76 Posts per day Sir Crook - 5.76 Posts per day Bam - 11.00 Posts per day If there's a bludger here, it's you ... is there anyone here, anyone at all, who has more posts per day? RETIRED... Not living on any welfare at all. Can you two say the same? i am retired as well and I am not on here 24/7 I do have a life beside on being on here Quote: labor voter 53 1.51 Posts per day Get out now and then and smell the roses Marie and you might see how the other half lives

I get out quite a lot thanks.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 10:46am:

Bam wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:21am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger. mariacostel - 49.76 Posts per day Sir Crook - 5.76 Posts per day Bam - 11.00 Posts per day If there's a bludger here, it's you ... is there anyone here, anyone at all, who has more posts per day? RETIRED... Not living on any welfare at all. Can you two say the same?

just waiting for the pension instead of working so as to support yourself. :D :D :D

they let you for recreational time do they ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 2:46pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:46am: Bam wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:21am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger. mariacostel - 49.76 Posts per day Sir Crook - 5.76 Posts per day Bam - 11.00 Posts per day If there's a bludger here, it's you ... is there anyone here, anyone at all, who has more posts per day? RETIRED... Not living on any welfare at all. Can you two say the same? just waiting for the pension instead of working so as to support yourself. :D :D :D

Ive got a very well paid hubby to do that. Thanks for asking!

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 2:56pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 2:46pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:46am: Bam wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:21am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger. mariacostel - 49.76 Posts per day Sir Crook - 5.76 Posts per day Bam - 11.00 Posts per day If there's a bludger here, it's you ... is there anyone here, anyone at all, who has more posts per day? RETIRED... Not living on any welfare at all. Can you two say the same? just waiting for the pension instead of working so as to support yourself. :D :D :D Ive got a very well paid hubby to do that. Thanks for asking!

ahh, sponging off your husband. I'm not surprised

John Smith wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 4:32pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 2:56pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 2:46pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:46am: Bam wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:21am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger. mariacostel - 49.76 Posts per day Sir Crook - 5.76 Posts per day Bam - 11.00 Posts per day If there's a bludger here, it's you ... is there anyone here, anyone at all, who has more posts per day? RETIRED... Not living on any welfare at all. Can you two say the same? just waiting for the pension instead of working so as to support yourself. :D :D :D Ive got a very well paid hubby to do that. Thanks for asking! ahh, sponging off your husband. I'm not surprised

When they lie in bed facing each other, I wonder if their donks touch?

stunspore wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:21am:

Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax.

So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts!

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 6:19pm:

stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts!

Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything.

crocodile wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts! Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything.

Maybe. Doubt it.

crocodile wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything.

rubbish ... there's always a reason ... MORE PROFIT

John Smith wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 8:50pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:18pm: Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything. rubbish ... there's always a reason ... MORE PROFIT

What about more available dollars going towards reinvestment in capital stock.

We would have to reduce company tax to zero.

Vic wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 6:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 4:32pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 2:56pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 2:46pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:46am: Bam wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 10:21am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:20am: wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 8:02am: Thank you for not supporting an increase in the GST.  Good on you Premier Andrews.   [smiley=thumbsup.gif]  Andrews doesnt get a say, dole-bludger. mariacostel - 49.76 Posts per day Sir Crook - 5.76 Posts per day Bam - 11.00 Posts per day If there's a bludger here, it's you ... is there anyone here, anyone at all, who has more posts per day? RETIRED... Not living on any welfare at all. Can you two say the same? just waiting for the pension instead of working so as to support yourself. :D :D :D Ive got a very well paid hubby to do that. Thanks for asking! ahh, sponging off your husband. I'm not surprised When they lie in bed facing each other, I wonder if their donks touch?

;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:36pm:

We would have to reduce company tax to zero.

A tantalising thought but not entirely practical. Corporations have limited liability so there must be at least some penalty for it. Apart from that and the corporate welfare that gets splashed around there really isn't much of a case for corporate tax. Wouldn't you just love all those franking credits to vanish.

crocodile wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts! Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything.

Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything.

A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral.

Bam wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:18pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts! Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything. Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything. A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral.

Which concessions did you have in mind ?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 9:36pm:

We would have to reduce company tax to zero.

Why?  Do YOU get to reduce your tax to zero for investing in a new car to get to work, or researching how to reduce your outlays on electricity, gas, petrol and so forth as well as developing new ways to earn income for your company called Your Family?

Neither do I.....

So why should company taxes go to zero?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:07am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:36pm: We would have to reduce company tax to zero. Why?  Do YOU get to reduce your tax to zero for investing in a new car to get to work, Only work related usage is deductable. Trips to work don't count and form part of the private usage component. This is either paid by personal income tax or goes to FBT as a premium rate by the company. or researching how to reduce your outlays on electricity, gas, petrol and so forth as well as developing new ways to earn income for your company called Your Family? Because it improves labour productivity. The only consistent method that supports real wages growth. Everybody benefits. Neither do I..... So why should company taxes go to zero?

I'm sure he means the company as in retained earnings even if in jest. The shareholders would still be expected to pay tax on their income just like everyone else.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:07am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:36pm: We would have to reduce company tax to zero. Why?  Do YOU get to reduce your tax to zero for investing in a new car to get to work, or researching how to reduce your outlays on electricity, gas, petrol and so forth as well as developing new ways to earn income for your company called Your Family? Neither do I..... So why should company taxes go to zero?

My statement was in reply to crocodile’s statement. I don’t think company tax should go to zero!

We need to clean up all the tax dodges that have accumulated, then we can tinker with tax rates etc to boost business activity etc. I consider NewStart and Pensions as negative taxes—Newstart in particular needs to be increased.

Increased dole payments in times of low economic activity is one of the automatic stabilisers of the Budget but with the dole so low this stabiliser doesn’t work.

crocodile wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 11:15pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:36pm: We would have to reduce company tax to zero. A tantalising thought but not entirely practical. Corporations have limited liability so there must be at least some penalty for it. Apart from that and the corporate welfare that gets splashed around there really isn't much of a case for corporate tax. Wouldn't you just love all those franking credits to vanish.

Given that the dividend would increase by the same amount and we would ten pay tax on it, the effect on the bottom line for most people would be nil.

Bam wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:18pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts! Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything. Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything. A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral.

But any tax concessions or subsidies do not apply evenly across the board, while company tax does.  And if it is revenue neutral, how does that help anyone at all?

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 6:37am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 12:07am: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 9:36pm: We would have to reduce company tax to zero. Why?  Do YOU get to reduce your tax to zero for investing in a new car to get to work, or researching how to reduce your outlays on electricity, gas, petrol and so forth as well as developing new ways to earn income for your company called Your Family? Neither do I..... So why should company taxes go to zero? My statement was in reply to crocodile’s statement. I don’t think company tax should go to zero! We need to clean up all the tax dodges that have accumulated, then we can tinker with tax rates etc to boost business activity etc. I consider NewStart and Pensions as negative taxes—Newstart in particular needs to be increased. Increased dole payments in times of low economic activity is one of the automatic stabilisers of the Budget but with the dole so low this stabiliser doesn’t work.

Stabiliser???  You need to think that through again since it is completely wrong. 

mariacostel wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 7:22am:

Bam wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 7:40pm: crocodile wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:18pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts! Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything. Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything. A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral. But any tax concessions or subsidies do not apply evenly across the board, while company tax does.  And if it is revenue neutral, how does that help anyone at all?

Not all profits are distributed to shareholders. Companies have a retained earnings component. While its true that the forgone franking credits are picked up as ordinary income tax but its not quite revenue neutral. More about that later.

By reducing the tax payable on retained earnings it leaves more capital available for capital stock, machinery and technology rollout and therefore growth in labour productivity.

This is the reason that company taxes fall most heavily on the workers rather than the owners of the capital since any diminution of productivity stunts real wages growth.

With regards to revenue neutrality you need to also consider the deadweight losses associated with the various tax regimes. Company taxes have nearly the double the deadweight losses of income tax. For this reason it is not quite revenue neutral. Every dollar of company tax costs the local economy $1.40 with that extra 40c coming out of yours and my pocket. ( Marginal excess burden and deadweight loss is the same thing )

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/ScreenHunter_3498-Jul.-28-09.14.jpg

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

Bam wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 7:40pm: crocodile wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:18pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts! Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything. Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything. A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral. Which concessions did you have in mind ?

Start with any concession that fits the mechanism of privatising profits and socialising losses.

Some corporate subsidies also would need to be axed such as fuel tax concessions for the mining industry. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned, so that tax concession only fattens the profits of foreign shareholders. We spend almost as much money in the Federal budget subsidising rich foreign shareholders of mining companies as we spend providing foreign aid to poor countries.

Also take a close look at what's coming out of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance.

One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. We need measures to stop this, such as requiring all businesses doing business in Australia that borrow money to borrow that money from an Australian bank, or to have a deemed interest rate for foreign corporate borrowings that is closely aligned to the average corporate interest rate but discounted by the corporate tax rate.

Other similar measures are possible that combat corporate tax avoidance. The findings of the Senate inquiry will be revealing.

So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right?

Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone.

One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. - Bam

You make it sound as if it is some trick recently discovered by avoiders Bam. and that Australian law has been deliberately structured to provide for it.

In fact it relies on a principle as old as the joint stock companies of the early 19th century. That is, every corporate entity is a separate legal entity just like an individual is. So there is no fiction in one company in a group borrowing from another company in the group.
Governments have to legislate for "related entities" to be treated otherwise and this is where very complex and difficult legal complications can come into play.

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right? Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone.

That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it.

Bam wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 12:01am: Bam wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 7:40pm: crocodile wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:18pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts! Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything. Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything. A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral. Which concessions did you have in mind ? Start with any concession that fits the mechanism of privatising profits and socialising losses. Some corporate subsidies also would need to be axed such as fuel tax concessions for the mining industry. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned, so that tax concession only fattens the profits of foreign shareholders. We spend almost as much money in the Federal budget subsidising rich foreign shareholders of mining companies as we spend providing foreign aid to poor countries. Also take a close look at what's coming out of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance. One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. We need measures to stop this, such as requiring all businesses doing business in Australia that borrow money to borrow that money from an Australian bank, or to have a deemed interest rate for foreign corporate borrowings that is closely aligned to the average corporate interest rate but discounted by the corporate tax rate. Other similar measures are possible that combat corporate tax avoidance. The findings of the Senate inquiry will be revealing.

Might not be so easy. All primary producers are eligible for the concession. Like it or not, miners are primary producers.

Bam wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 12:01am: Bam wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 7:40pm: crocodile wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:18pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts! Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything. Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything. A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral. Which concessions did you have in mind ? Start with any concession that fits the mechanism of privatising profits and socialising losses. Some corporate subsidies also would need to be axed such as fuel tax concessions for the mining industry. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned, so that tax concession only fattens the profits of foreign shareholders. We spend almost as much money in the Federal budget subsidising rich foreign shareholders of mining companies as we spend providing foreign aid to poor countries. Also take a close look at what's coming out of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance. One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. We need measures to stop this, such as requiring all businesses doing business in Australia that borrow money to borrow that money from an Australian bank, or to have a deemed interest rate for foreign corporate borrowings that is closely aligned to the average corporate interest rate but discounted by the corporate tax rate. Other similar measures are possible that combat corporate tax avoidance. The findings of the Senate inquiry will be revealing.

So basically just follow your ideology and bias?

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:41am:

One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. - Bam You make it sound as if it is some trick recently discovered by avoiders Bam. and that Australian law has been deliberately structured to provide for it. In fact it relies on a principle as old as the joint stock companies of the early 19th century. That is, every corporate entity is a separate legal entity just like an individual is. So there is no fiction in one company in a group borrowing from another company in the group. Governments have to legislate for "related entities" to be treated otherwise and this is where very complex and difficult legal complications can come into play.

It is a fiction (an accounting fiction) because one entity controls both sides of the deal.

It's not a real debt because the Australian arm of the corporation has no discretion to borrow money from elsewhere at a lower rate. It borrows money from the foreign arm of the corporation in a fictitious transaction that has only one purpose - to get money out of Australia without that money being taxed.

I notice though that you have made no constructive suggestions on ways to fix this problem. Why is it? Do you like foreign multinationals collectively avoiding tens of billions of dollars of tax a year?

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:48am:

Bam wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:12am: crocodile wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 12:01am: Bam wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 7:40pm: crocodile wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:18pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts! Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything. Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything. A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral. Which concessions did you have in mind ? Start with any concession that fits the mechanism of privatising profits and socialising losses. Some corporate subsidies also would need to be axed such as fuel tax concessions for the mining industry. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned, so that tax concession only fattens the profits of foreign shareholders. We spend almost as much money in the Federal budget subsidising rich foreign shareholders of mining companies as we spend providing foreign aid to poor countries. Also take a close look at what's coming out of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance. One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. We need measures to stop this, such as requiring all businesses doing business in Australia that borrow money to borrow that money from an Australian bank, or to have a deemed interest rate for foreign corporate borrowings that is closely aligned to the average corporate interest rate but discounted by the corporate tax rate. Other similar measures are possible that combat corporate tax avoidance. The findings of the Senate inquiry will be revealing. Might not be so easy. All primary producers are eligible for the concession. Like it or not, miners are primary producers.

There's no reason why farmers and miners should be lumped together as "primary producers" and given the same generous subsidies. Farming and mining are very different. Farmers can raise crops on the same patch of land over and over. Miners can only mine the same minerals once.

We should not be subsidising fossil fuels at all. That is the problem - subsidising an industry that is clearly not in need of subsidy.

Abolition of the fossil fuel subsidy does not necessarily mean nothing replaces it. We can remove excise from renewable fuels, to encourage investment in those fuels as a new industry. When the market share of renewable fuels reaches 25%, we can start reapplying the excise. We can be self-sufficient for renewable fuels, it only takes political will to make it happen.

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:44am:

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:34am: So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right? Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone. That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it.

It is written into the GST legislation and the federal government is still saying that it will respect the terms of the agreement.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:44am: bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:34am: So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right? Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone. That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it. It is written into the GST legislation and the federal government is still saying that it will respect the terms of the agreement.

They can say what they like. What they're allowed to do is another matter. Just for your edification you may like to read section 81 of the constitution. All revenues go to consolidated revenue. The proposition that there is a special GST fund for the purposes of funding the states is expressly proscribed by the constitution. It is merely a gentleman's agreement.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

81. All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

Bam wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 11:49am:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:48am: Bam wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:12am: crocodile wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 12:01am: Bam wrote on Nov 24th, 2015 at 7:40pm: crocodile wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 7:18pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23rd, 2015 at 6:19pm: stunspore wrote on Nov 21st, 2015 at 8:21am: Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax. So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts! Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything. Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything. A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral. Which concessions did you have in mind ? Start with any concession that fits the mechanism of privatising profits and socialising losses. Some corporate subsidies also would need to be axed such as fuel tax concessions for the mining industry. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned, so that tax concession only fattens the profits of foreign shareholders. We spend almost as much money in the Federal budget subsidising rich foreign shareholders of mining companies as we spend providing foreign aid to poor countries. Also take a close look at what's coming out of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance. One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. We need measures to stop this, such as requiring all businesses doing business in Australia that borrow money to borrow that money from an Australian bank, or to have a deemed interest rate for foreign corporate borrowings that is closely aligned to the average corporate interest rate but discounted by the corporate tax rate. Other similar measures are possible that combat corporate tax avoidance. The findings of the Senate inquiry will be revealing. Might not be so easy. All primary producers are eligible for the concession. Like it or not, miners are primary producers. There's no reason why farmers and miners should be lumped together as "primary producers" and given the same generous subsidies. Farming and mining are very different. Farmers can raise crops on the same patch of land over and over. Miners can only mine the same minerals once. We should not be subsidising fossil fuels at all. That is the problem - subsidising an industry that is clearly not in need of subsidy. Abolition of the fossil fuel subsidy does not necessarily mean nothing replaces it. We can remove excise from renewable fuels, to encourage investment in those fuels as a new industry. When the market share of renewable fuels reaches 25%, we can start reapplying the excise. We can be self-sufficient for renewable fuels, it only takes political will to make it happen.

What renewable fuels?  the 5 litres of biodiesel Audi have produced? Laudable technology but hardly one that is in production and available.

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 1:37pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 12:44pm: crocodile wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:44am: bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:34am: So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right? Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone. That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it. It is written into the GST legislation and the federal government is still saying that it will respect the terms of the agreement. They can say what they like. What they're allowed to do is another matter. Just for your edification you may like to read section 81 of the constitution. All revenues go to consolidated revenue. The proposition that there is a special GST fund for the purposes of funding the states is expressly proscribed by the constitution. It is merely a gentleman's agreement. Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act 81. All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

When the states were refusing to remove some of the taxes and charges that the GST was supposed to remove, Peter Costello told them that he would withhold corresponding amounts from their GST allocations. It was his decision.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 5:08pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 1:37pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 12:44pm: crocodile wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:44am: bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25th, 2015 at 9:34am: So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right? Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone. That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it. It is written into the GST legislation and the federal government is still saying that it will respect the terms of the agreement. They can say what they like. What they're allowed to do is another matter. Just for your edification you may like to read section 81 of the constitution. All revenues go to consolidated revenue. The proposition that there is a special GST fund for the purposes of funding the states is expressly proscribed by the constitution. It is merely a gentleman's agreement. Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act 81. All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution. When the states were refusing to remove some of the taxes and charges that the GST was supposed to remove, Peter Costello told them that he would withhold corresponding amounts from their GST allocations. It was his decision.

Costello was bluffing and Bull shiting - all the taxes that were meant to be removed had been - Costello was sneakily claiming that the deal was different to the one he had made.