Another new tax from Labor (1 Viewer)

[Rafy]

"Read my lips: no new taxes" Ronald Reagan, August 18, 1988

That was Bush Snr and he didn't get re-elected.

 

[townie]

All the states promising to abolish stamp duty with the introduction of the GST

 

[townie]

That was Bush Snr and he didn't get re-elected.

Whoops, my bad, idk why I thought Reagan,
But he did win the election and he did raise taxes
And sure he paid for it but its still a common occurrence for pollies to lie

 

[moll.]

I don't object to the NDIS, but I do object to the necessity of raising taxes. There are dozens of middle-class welfare schemes, blatant cash-handouts, tax deductions for the rich and subsidies for dead industries that could be cut to afford it. I'll be interested to see how they make up the rest of the funds in the budget though. Maybe they will have enough courage to scrap bad policies that reward special interest groups.

 

[townie]

I don't object to the NDIS, but I do object to the necessity of raising taxes. There are dozens of middle-class welfare schemes, blatant cash-handouts, tax deductions for the rich and subsidies for dead industries that could be cut to afford it. I'll be interested to see how they make up the rest of the funds in the budget though. Maybe they will have enough courage to scrap bad policies that reward special interest groups.

Lol, sif want genuine tax reform, that's a bad moll

 

[soloooooo]

I don't object to the NDIS, but I do object to the necessity of raising taxes. There are dozens of middle-class welfare schemes, blatant cash-handouts, tax deductions for the rich and subsidies for dead industries that could be cut to afford it. I'll be interested to see how they make up the rest of the funds in the budget though. Maybe they will have enough courage to scrap bad policies that reward special interest groups.

This is basically my opinion also.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Labor is screwed anyway lol. They raked up so much debt ... (And had so many failed schemes)

 

[Okashi]

Tony Abbot "no great big new taxes"

Okay? Has that promise been broken?

 

[Okashi]

I don't object to the NDIS, but I do object to the necessity of raising taxes. There are dozens of middle-class welfare schemes, blatant cash-handouts, tax deductions for the rich and subsidies for dead industries that could be cut to afford it. I'll be interested to see how they make up the rest of the funds in the budget though. Maybe they will have enough courage to scrap bad policies that reward special interest groups.

Idealistic thinking... How many middle class welfare schemes can you name? Tax deductions for the rich?
So if the government decides to end subsidies to dead industries will you and other cowards like you go front up the workers and sack them all? No you don't have the guts to do so and neither do the politicians.

 

[townie]

Okay? Has that promise been broken?

Yes, he just agreed to rise in the Medicare levy. And a rise in the corporate tax rate to fund maternity leave (that lie is even more blatant given it was an election policy AT THE SAME TIME as he was promising no new taxes iirc).

Then if you open it up to more than taxes there are plenty of examples of broken promises. And you know what, for the most part I think that's okay. Any politician stupid enough to stick to a three year old policy when the ground has shifted beneath them is an idiot.

Where Gillard I think fucked up is that the factual ground didn't shift, which would have made for a good reason to go back on her word, only the political and that is a lot harder for people to swallow.

 

[soloooooo]

Where Gillard I think fucked up

If gillard had only fucked up one or two policies then she would probably be elected at the coming election. The trouble is that she has personally in a lot of cases, fucked up most of Labors policies. She has even got a lot of labor voters offside now from which I can't see any way Labor under Gillard or shorten or anyone else can recover before the election. Federal labor is going to face an electoral wipeout like what occurred to qld labor.

 

[Lolsmith]

I don't object to the NDIS, but I do object to the necessity of raising taxes. There are dozens of middle-class welfare schemes, blatant cash-handouts, tax deductions for the rich and subsidies for dead industries that could be cut to afford it. I'll be interested to see how they make up the rest of the funds in the budget though. Maybe they will have enough courage to scrap bad policies that reward special interest groups.

like disabled people?

 

[moll.]

Idealistic thinking... How many middle class welfare schemes can you name?

Baby Bonus.
Family Tax Benefits A and B.
First Home-Owners Grant.
Private Health Insurance Rebate.

Tax deductions for the rich?

Interest rate tax concessions.
The use of trusts to hide private income.
Capital gains tax deductions.

So if the government decides to end subsidies to dead industries will you and other cowards like you go front up the workers and sack them all? No you don't have the guts to do so and neither do the politicians.

No, it's up to the managers to tell them, because that's what they do. They manage. And if the business is bankrupt without government subsidies, then they have done a poor job of managing.
And you are essentially proving my point. It makes a shitload of economic sense to end subsidies to industries and reduce barriers to trade, but no politician has the courage to do it because the benefits are spread relatively thinly over the entire population and are long-term, whilst the costs are upfront and highly visible to a very, very small minority, even if, overall, they are less than the eventual benefits.

 

[SylviaB]

So if the government decides to end subsidies to dead industries will you and other cowards like you go front up the workers and sack them all? No you don't have the guts to do so and neither do the politicians.

is this supposed to be an argument against it?

 

[soloooooo]

I support ending subsidies to flatlining industries, e.g. car manufacturers.

 

[townie]

is this supposed to be an argument against it?

ikr

 

[db94]

Gillard is just trying really desperately to get more votes with this policy. If Abbott didnt support this, he'd be labelled the 'misogynistic, disabled hating liberal party leader'. Dont think this policy will get her popularity up, shes screwed... everyone is finally seeing through her lies.

Dunno where the other 2/3's of the $ is coming from... Swannie will be working on some loop hole for budget as we speak

 

[Okashi]

Yes, he just agreed to rise in the Medicare levy. And a rise in the corporate tax rate to fund maternity leave (that lie is even more blatant given it was an election policy AT THE SAME TIME as he was promising no new taxes iirc).

Then if you open it up to more than taxes there are plenty of examples of broken promises. And you know what, for the most part I think that's okay. Any politician stupid enough to stick to a three year old policy when the ground has shifted beneath them is an idiot.

Where Gillard I think fucked up is that the factual ground didn't shift, which would have made for a good reason to go back on her word, only the political and that is a lot harder for people to swallow.

The government is proposing a rise in the Medicare levy. Not a big new tax but a 0.5% increase on an existing levy. Either way it will go through the house with or without coalition support.
Rise in the corporate tax rate which may or may not be offsetted by a drop in company tax to fund for paid parental leave is an ELECTION PROMISE for the upcoming federal election in September. So full and frank with the Australian people that there's going to be a tax on big business. So he has changed his position and is putting his new position to the Australian people at the election.It's fine for the Opposition to change its proposals from the previous election such as NBN. But being on the Government you cannot change your position so recklessly because governments are elected on a mandate. Think you're confused with Opposition and Government.

 

[Okashi]

is this supposed to be an argument against it?

Lol no it isn't actually. Obviously it should be cut because protection of industries is never sustainable. But you guys simplify the whole situation with your idealistic views. The broad point I am trying to make is we have too many inner city trendies and hipsters who try to impose their idealistic views on the rest of the country that they know little about. Case in point in live exports to Indonesia. Overnight they tried to kill off northern Australia and didn't do a bad job of it. No thought for the farmers but rather those poor cattle which were going to be killed off anyway. Have to look at both point of views. Like dairy industry deregulation which led to many dairy farmers committing suicide. No tree hugger cares about that.

 

[Okashi]

Baby Bonus.
Family Tax Benefits A and B.
First Home-Owners Grant.
Private Health Insurance Rebate.


Interest rate tax concessions.
The use of trusts to hide private income.
Capital gains tax deductions.


.

Lol no comment I lost this one. Not necessarily eradicating these programs but means testing them.
All of these policies were under Howard to hand out money to win votes in good economic times. FTB is actually upper class welfare as well because it applies to incomes up to 175k... Lols.