The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[John U]

I have heard of them, as the institute of public affairs, not IPA, which is johnny points out is an excellent beer style first and foremost.

I asked the question because you used the word "fair" to refer to policies, not good or correct or best, and that is a catchword used all the time by the leadership of the ALP. Which of course means fair to those who don't pay much tax

I addressed that by saying fair could cover some diverse ground. For me that would be judged on each policy.

Like the Packers of the world. The people with the largest sums of cash pay the lowest percentage of their income in tax. I think it's fair for those who can afford it to pay a reasonable proportion of their actual income (not their income their well paid bean counters make up) as tax. You should check out Buffetts idea.

 

[Freediver]

As opposed to Liberals who are fair to coal mining companies, iron ore companies and their other rich mates that believe the trickle down effect is something they can stooge people who you think "pay less tax" with and that the greenhouse effect is something that either doesn't concern them or they don't believe in it because it's not in the bible.
I've paid more tax in the last ten years than a lot of rich fuckers that pay none through fancy accounting. I certainly don't get the same benefits as Packer or the other 90 odd companies with profits over 200 mil that pay no tax get from society.
The word fair could not be further from most Liberals vocabulary.

 

[pink poodle]

QUOTE

Which of course means fair to those who don't pay much tax

I see you aren't familiar with the concept of fair as the greater good. I shouldn't be surprised, selfishness among our populace is a wide spread value. It is probably more Australian than we would like to believe. For a quick reference look at Australia's score of 90 (USA = 91, NZ = 79) for individualism in Hoffstede's cultural dimensions. Thats a pretty high ranking for putting yourself above others, something we have also demonstrated well as a nation through our international aid efforts. So perhaps it is those of us that value collectivism and the greater good are out of touch and un-Australian? That is disappointing.

 

[pharmaboy]

As opposed to Liberals who are fair to coal mining companies, iron ore companies and their other rich mates that believe the trickle down effect is something they can stooge people who you think "pay less tax" with and that the greenhouse effect is something that either doesn't concern them or they don't believe in it because it's not in the bible.
I've paid more tax in the last ten years than a lot of rich fuckers that pay none through fancy accounting. I certainly don't get the same benefits as Packer or the other 90 odd companies with profits over 200 mil that pay no tax get from society.
The word fair could not be further from most Liberals vocabulary.

nice speech from the floor there - are you a staffer?

In truth, there is SFA difference between the 2 parties, they both recognise we operate in a globalised system of corporate operation - you have to compete to keep them domiciled here and in the mean time you extract a fair chinch of tax out of operations through employee tax payments, fbt and indirect taxation.

I'm sure you've never over claimed on your tax return nor looked for every single deduction you can, and I'm sure you've never offered a tradesman cash to reduce the price, nor accepted cash without declaring it.

Individuals are far likelier to break the law to pay less tax than public corporations who use legitimate means because accountants become liable for infractions when they are dishonest.

 

[pharmaboy]

QUOTE

I see you aren't familiar with the concept of fair as the greater good. I shouldn't be surprised, selfishness among our populace is a wide spread value. It is probably more Australian than we would like to believe. For a quick reference look at Australia's score of 90 (USA = 91, NZ = 79) for individualism in Hoffstede's cultural dimensions. Thats a pretty high ranking for putting yourself above others, something we have also demonstrated well as a nation through our international aid efforts. So perhaps it is those of us that value collectivism and the greater good are out of touch and un-Australian? That is disappointing.

Nothing wrong with the word fair at all - maybe I'm the only one who has noticed that it is shortens word of the last year. In the same way that the word "families" has been used or boats or whatever else. You could use equitable?

You are right though, the reality of the modern world is a great deal of selfishness, but I don't see the degree of selfishness differentiated by class or income. At the same time i m not in love with blame either, and I see a lot of have nots blaming the haves for their plight, like it's someone else's fault.

 

[pink poodle]

You are right though, the reality of the modern world is a great deal of selfishness, but I don't see the degree of selfishness differentiated by class or income. At the same time i m not in love with blame either, and I see a lot of have nots blaming the haves for their plight, like it's someone else's fault.

That's pretty funny, I see a lot more blame being thrown from the top down (cheap example being those damn dole bludgers or the empty trains). Blaming those without for holding back that with means, and as a result reducing the tools we as a society can offer each other to build a more equitable playing field. Access to education is the easy throw away example. I believe the justification often used is "competitiveness"...if you aren't competitive you don't deserve, but how can one be competitive in an uneven field?

 

[pink poodle]

you have to compete to keep them domiciled here and in the mean time you extract a fair chinch of tax out of operations through employee tax payments, fbt and indirect taxation.

So you are saying that companies, big business, and those of high wealth don't have to pay their fair share because their presence should be enough? That the people, in response to this privilege, should be putting up the cash to make it happen? There are other ways to be competitive in a global economy. Stability of infrastructure or work force, volume and value of resources, accessibility, and so on. One doesn't need to just give it up for fomo.

Your spiel has a strong religious similarity to it, so I feel now is a good time to hand the collection plate around and take up an offering of thanks for all our global employers...

 

[MARKL]

In truth, there is SFA difference between the 2 parties

Unfortunately true, both parties, whilst having a broad

...they both recognise we operate in a globalised system of corporate operation - you have to compete to keep them domiciled here and in the mean time you extract a fair chinch of tax out of operations through employee tax payments, fbt and indirect taxation...

Your argument may hold water for major manufacturers, let's use the obvious example Holden, Ford, Toyota where there is a massive amount of local employment created but it is BS for Google, Apple etc where there is little employment created but profits go overseas without paying tax. Ohh, the current genius's running the country dared Holden, Ford, Toyota to leave so there is not so much local employment anymore....not so much tax to collect either...

I'm sure you've never over claimed on your tax return nor looked for every single deduction you can, and I'm sure you've never offered a tradesman cash to reduce the price, nor accepted cash without declaring it.

Individuals are far likelier to break the law to pay less tax than public corporations who use legitimate means because accountants become liable for infractions when they are dishonest.

The great straw man argument, personal tax deductions are irrelevant to this argument because they are legal and tightly controlled. On the other hand corporate tax can be massively distorted by moving costs and profits between companies and countries. So taxes are paid not where the profits are earned but where it is most advantageous (i.e. the tax rate is lowest). This results in corporations making profits in Australia but paying no tax because the profits end up in an overseas company that is located to minimize tax payments - obviously most workers do not have this opportunity to minimize tax. At the end of the day this means you and I have to make up the shortfall through our personal taxes.

 

[Freediver]

you have to compete to keep them domiciled here .

That's called a race to the bottom.

 

[pink poodle]

That's called a race to the bottom.

That is unnecessary hyperbole. Being competitive on price has worked out really well for Bangladesh, Haiti, Vietnam, the Philippines, and more recently the USA. I'm pretty sure it will work out well for Australia as well.

 

[pharmaboy]

So you are saying that companies, big business, and those of high wealth don't have to pay their fair share because their presence should be enough? That the people, in response to this privilege, should be putting up the cash to make it happen? There are other ways to be competitive in a global economy. Stability of infrastructure or work force, volume and value of resources, accessibility, and so on. One doesn't need to just give it up for fomo.

Your spiel has a strong religious similarity to it, so I feel now is a good time to hand the collection plate around and take up an offering of thanks for all our global employers...

No, your first question is not what I'm saying. I was hoping context would be clear, but apparently not.

It was in reference to corporate tax rates. The setting of corporate tax rates hash no basis in fairness, but everything in competitiveness. If you want 50 cents in the dollar, then find, but in pretty short order a whole heap of corporate businesses and capital will leave this country, so you must have a balance between what you want and what you can get because other countries may offer more.

That is why the 2 parties are broadly agreed, its pragmatism in a global market

 

[pharmaboy]

Unfortunately true, both parties, whilst having a broad



Your argument may hold water for major manufacturers, let's use the obvious example Holden, Ford, Toyota where there is a massive amount of local employment created but it is BS for Google, Apple etc where there is little employment created but profits go overseas without paying tax. Ohh, the current genius's running the country dared Holden, Ford, Toyota to leave so there is not so much local employment anymore....not so much tax to collect either...



The great straw man argument, personal tax deductions are irrelevant to this argument because they are legal and tightly controlled. On the other hand corporate tax can be massively distorted by moving costs and profits between companies and countries. So taxes are paid not where the profits are earned but where it is most advantageous (i.e. the tax rate is lowest). This results in corporations making profits in Australia but paying no tax because the profits end up in an overseas company that is located to minimize tax payments - obviously most workers do not have this opportunity to minimize tax. At the end of the day this means you and I have to make up the shortfall through our personal taxes.

Agree on the technology companies - they seem to operate without borders.

You've hit on the reasoning though, better 20% of something than 30% of nothing

It's not a strawman, I'm merely pointing out that we, even those of us who profess to be all about fairness, do whatever we can to reduce tax, and while we as individuals don't have access to offshore tax reduction, neither do corporates have access to the cash economy. It's a glass houses thing. I don't really like getting a bonus and seeing half of it disappear to Canberra, and I'm pretty sure not many are jumping up and down in gratitude for the tax take (when it's from them).

When I occasionally read an income statement from Australian corporates, I always see a fair chunk of tax being paid out, so I'm not sure the perception is as great as the reality

 

[pharmaboy]

That's called a race to the bottom.

It's called reality, Australia can stay above the bottom due to low sovereign risk and good capital markets, so we are only as good as the system that supports us

 

[John U]

It's not a strawman, I'm merely pointing out that we, even those of us who profess to be all about fairness, do whatever we can to reduce tax, and while we as individuals don't have access to offshore tax reduction, neither do corporates have access to the cash economy. It's a glass houses thing. I don't really like getting a bonus and seeing half of it disappear to Canberra, and I'm pretty sure not many are jumping up and down in gratitude for the tax take (when it's from them).

When I occasionally read an income statement from Australian corporates, I always see a fair chunk of tax being paid out, so I'm not sure the perception is as great as the reality

I'm happy to pay tax. I live in a safe society and have the option to take advantage of a lot of the things tax provides. I do fuck all trading in cash. I ask for receipts.

A large number of massive companies pay no tax also. I think a good idea would be an annual register of companies in Australia and the amount of tax they pay in Australia. Giving people the option of buying from companies who pay a 'fair' amount of tax in Australia and avoiding those who don't. Companies could promote the fact that they pay tax.

Paying tax shouldn't be seen as a bad thing.

 

[Flow-Rider]

I don't really like large corporations for many personal reasons but to force them to pay more tax will eventually lead them to go to another country and people will lose their job's all together. From what I've seen they do cheat the system but they employ a lot of people also.

 

[golden path]

I don't really like large corporations for many personal reasons but to force them to pay more tax will eventually lead them to go to another country and people will lose their job's all together. From what I've seen they do cheat the system but they employ a lot of people also.

Yes, what's the lesser of the two evils?

TBH, I'm more concerned about the multi-millions if not billions of government waste and incompetence, than tax avoidance.

 

[Flow-Rider]

TBH, I'm more concerned about the multi-millions if not billions of government waste and incompetence, than tax avoidance.

Yeah, that's another can of worms, they need to keep an eye on internal corruption. Political donations by companies is a bit suspect at times and it's a bit like scratch my back and I'll scratch yours later.

 

[wesdadude]

Well the Libs just got slaughtered here in WA…

 

[golden path]

Labor in eh?

Good luck with it.....

 

[John U]

Labor aren't for the average working bloke, that's for sure.

I see the Greens as even further Left than Labor.

And as such, the embodiment of eeeeeevil.

Asked this back a bit, what's your your definition of the average working vote.