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

[scblack]

If elections didn't run on Party lines and party behaviour was governed by law I'd say you have an argument. But unfortunately we do vote largely on party lines in Australia and polls are suggesting that the electorate supports the removal of Rudd, regardless of how and why it took place.

Lastly, the Libs have just as many factions and power brokers as Labor do. Remember the shit that the young Libs were pulling a few years ago, the problems between Howard and I think it was Arthur Sinodis (calling Howard the Rat), Costellos supporters going around getting the numbers for a possible leadership challenge, etc.

There are many instances of behind the scenes games in both parties. It's how parties work and its what most of the electorate votes on.

Yes good point and fair enough, but no one else is as blatant as the Labor party with this, as smeck has said.




What does anyone think about the back-down by Gillard on the super tax?

They had very little other option I know, but they backed themselves into a corner on this. It was a shit tax, which they did not have any details worked out, or did not understand fully to begin with, so the sensible thing was to back off it. But if they did back down they are backflipping again, and look weak. They stuffed themselves.

The result is a big back down.

And I see the worst of this backdown, is that they tried to tie so many other initiatives to the need for another tax. Company tax cuts are now unlikely, superannuation increases (paid for by employers not govt) are unlikely. ***Edit - Sorry super increases are staying (as I said employers pay them), tax cuts halved.***

They look very incompetent. And except for Rudd, they are all the same jokers who proposed this tax. Rudd's overthrow just provides a scapegoat - the policy and backdown is still a Labor f*ck-up.

 

[brisneyland]

Yes good point and fair enough, but no one else is as blatant as the Labor party with this, as smeck has said.




What does anyone think about the back-down by Gillard on the super tax?

They had very little other option I know, but they backed themselves into a corner on this. It was a shit tax, which they did not have any details worked out, or did not understand fully to begin with, so the sensible thing was to back off it. But if they did back down they are backflipping again, and look weak. They stuffed themselves.

The result is a big back down.

And I see the worst of this backdown, is that they tried to tie so many other initiatives to the need for another tax. Company tax cuts are now unlikely, superannuation increases (paid for by employers not govt) are unlikely.

They look very incompetent. And except for Rudd, they are all the same jokers who proposed this tax. Rudd's overthrow just provides a scapegoat - the policy and backdown is still a Labor f*ck-up.

I think though the backdown will be supported by voters and industry, so the only people who really care that it's a 'backdown' will be the LNP and the rest of the anti-Labor brigade.

And scapegoating, kinda true but don't forget a large part of the unpalatability of this tax was due to Rudd appalling leadership style and refusal to negotiate and consult with industry. Gillard is at least pretending to do that.

 

[MasterOfReality]

scblack,

Early instincts tell me its not over yet.

They have agreed to 30% instead of 40%, because it obviously looks more palatable.

It still needs to get through the Senate? Who knows what will change after the election. If the Greens get more power in the Senate, they will probably demand a higher tax then it will be on again.

Super is a huge con job - I would like the freedom to look after my own money. I think many businesses may not cop the extra 3% and just reduce wages to compensate.

 

[smeck]

................They look very incompetent. And except for Rudd, they are all the same jokers who proposed this tax. Rudd's overthrow just provides a scapegoat - the policy and backdown is still a Labor f*ck-up.

I'll go with Brisneyland on that, while the Gang of Four were the instigator's Rudd will wear the concrete boots for the implementation, which was most of the issue. They sat on the Henry Review for 5 months and then released it with the Budget that included a new tax, with no industry consultation and no intention to negotiate. Rudd kept saying he was open to full and frank discussions but he refused to discuss anything because all of the markers for the tax were "about right".

As for the new MRRT, I think Gillard will win support for this 'win' but the new tax is so limited they can't trumpet it as reform, let alone generational reform. The cost to small business will be interesting to see, given a noteable part of the increase in Superannuation cost ws coming from the Company tax cuts there will be pain. Now half of company tax cut is gone, business still has to fund the 3% superannuation increase, most of the revenue from the RSPT is gone so other budget initiatives will have to go as well. We'll need to see the modelling that appears over the next week to know the scale of potential changes.

There will have to be a mini budget handed down to revise the estimates, the only way Gillard can avoid that is to call an election, which is a serious possibility. She doesn't need to look good, she just needs to look better than Rudd. The electorate don't want to vote for Abbott, she just needs to give them an excuse to vote for her and not being an ego maniac will be enough. On top of that she's a woman and a there is a momentous opportunity to elect a female PM, she'd have to be a holocaust denier to not win the election.

 

[scblack]

scblack,

Early instincts tell me its not over yet.

They have agreed to 30% instead of 40%, because it obviously looks more palatable.

It still needs to get through the Senate? Who knows what will change after the election. If the Greens get more power in the Senate, they will probably demand a higher tax then it will be on again.

Super is a huge con job - I would like the freedom to look after my own money. I think many businesses may not cop the extra 3% and just reduce wages to compensate.

No, its not over yet by a long shot, but today is the first announcement of the back-down. And there is no other way to put it - its a big back down.

Super isn't a con job, the number of SMSF's (about 400,000 of them at last count) show that people CAN look after their own funds.

The problem with increasing super SGC is that, like myself, many people have packages INCLUSIVE of super. So the superannuation increase is paid by ME through reduced salary component in the package. If the super component goes from 9% to 12%, without substantial increases to compensate, my cash on a monthly basis reduces.

 

[MasterOfReality]

No, its not over yet by a long shot, but today is the first announcement of the back-down. And there is no other way to put it - its a big back down.

Super isn't a con job, the number of SMSF's (about 400,000 of them at last count) show that people CAN look after their own funds.

The problem with increasing super SGC is that, like myself, many people have packages INCLUSIVE of super. So the superannuation increase is paid by ME through reduced salary component in the package. If the super component goes from 9% to 12%, without substantial increases to compensate, my cash on a monthly basis reduces.

Yeah I should have clarified - exclusive of SMSF's.

 

[brisneyland]

No, its not over yet by a long shot, but today is the first announcement of the back-down. And there is no other way to put it - its a big back down.

You can make a big deal out of it if you want, but I don't think anyone else other than you and Abbot will really care.

IIRC you never supported the RSPT anyway?

 

[MasterOfReality]

You can make a big deal out of it if you want, but I don't think anyone else other than you and Abbot will really care.

IIRC you never supported the RSPT anyway?

I think you will find a lot of people see though the thinly veiled 'tax reform', and recognise it for what it really is - a tax grab. A tax grab that has selectively targeted one industry, when in reality, it could be applied to every industry that earns above what the government deems to be a 'super profit' threshold.

It sets a dangerous precedent - the government is now lumping an additional tax on what it deems are 'super profits'. Shit, can't have companies earning too much can we ?

 

[brisneyland]

I think you will find a lot of people see though the thinly veiled 'tax reform', and recognise it for what it really is - a tax grab. A tax grab that has selectively targeted one industry, when in reality, it could be applied to every industry that earns above what the government deems to be a 'super profit' threshold.

It sets a dangerous precedent - the government is now lumping an additional tax on what it deems are 'super profits'. Shit, can't have companies earning too much can we ?

Of course it is, and everyone knows that, but my point is that no one is particularly going to care (other than the Opposition) that the government is 'backing down' on this particular issue. It's not like it's ooohh, I dunno, "the greatest moral challenge of our time."

I'd wager that a lot of the voting public support the 'back down' so trying to make some cheap political points by calling it so is futile.

LOL - Swann is on the box right now squirming under some awkward questions about Rudd and now Gillards roles in the RSPT saga. Honestly, I think the voting public doesn't care or know about the whole Labor party's role in the RSPT - I think as far as they can tell, new PM = new Labor party.

 

[MasterOfReality]

Of course it is, and everyone knows that, but my point is that no one is particularly going to care (other than the Opposition) that the government is 'backing down' on this particular issue. It's not like it's ooohh, I dunno, "the greatest moral challenge of our time."

I'd wager that a lot of the voting public support the 'back down' so trying to make some cheap political points by calling it so is futile.

The way I look at political parties and governments is similar to the way I look at companies.

Ie what would this mob be like running a company? Successful or dismal?

Does someone want to shed some light on how a reduction in the tax rate and an increase in the threshold would only reduce revenue by $1.5b?

 

[MasterOfReality]

LOL - Swann is on the box right now squirming under some awkward questions about Rudd and now Gillards roles in the RSPT saga. Honestly, I think the voting public doesn't care or know about the whole Labor party's role in the RSPT - I think as far as they can tell, new PM = new Labor party.

To add to my previous post, when you put it like that, then maybe. Sometimes people don't look past the nightly news.

Thats why Gillard will call an election soon before the gloss wears off.

 

[smeck]

............................The problem with increasing super SGC is that, like myself, many people have packages INCLUSIVE of super. So the superannuation increase is paid by ME through reduced salary component in the package. If the super component goes from 9% to 12%, without substantial increases to compensate, my cash on a monthly basis reduces.

Unfortunately Labor will never acknowledge your position here, you're not the demographic they represent and they have no issue in bleeding you dry to pay the people they do. I'm the same unfortunately, well unfortunately for me anyway. I contribute 5% to get an increased contribution out of the Employer, that increase will mostly evaporate with the new changes, but I'll bet the cost to me will stay the same. Nothing changes until 2013/14 anyway, and the constitution states no Government can bind another, there's still two elections until any of this comes into effect and it will change between now and them. The Senate and the States still need to sign-off on it, I'll bet the Solicitor General will want a real close look this time as well. At least now there is a modicum of stability so long term investment decisions can be made.

 

[smeck]

....................Does someone want to shed some light on how a reduction in the tax rate and an increase in the threshold would only reduce revenue by $1.5b?

We'll need to see the modelling, but since the MRRT only covers Coal and Iron Ore I'm sceptical about the numbers. Given Base Metals and Nickel can be quite profitable to only lose $1.5bil needs clarification, but I suspect the cyclical nature of their profits have been considered too random to tax efficiently. I know our EBIT fluctates wildly year to year and administrative cost of the tax would probably overshadow the tax take some years, like FY08. I suspect the minimal change in revenue is because all of the on-shore Coal seam gas and Petroleum projects will now roll into the PRRT at 40%, a little creative accounting therefore shows the modified RSPT loses little.

 

[Arete]

Apart from the canning of 2/3rds of federally funded early career postions as an incentive to "seek opportunites abroad" issue, I don't actually get paid super.
We were awarded an internationally funded grant, which the federal government took 15% of for the priviledge of spending it at an Australian institution, who in turn took a 20% slice for "administration costs". As such, my salary (paid from the grant money I secured from overseas) was technically made a "living allowance" in order to avoid having to cough up another slice of the research budget as income tax. No taxable income = no super.
Was highly amusing when the environment minister tried to use the project of an example of his government fostering biodiversity research and my boss publicly corrected him - stating that the federal government had a net negative impact on our research budget and 100% of our funding was secured overseas...

However, back on topic slightly I don't believe for a second we'd be treated any differently under either administration.

 

[scblack]

I suspect the minimal change in revenue is because all of the on-shore Coal seam gas and Petroleum projects will now roll into the PRRT at 40%, a little creative accounting therefore shows the modified RSPT loses little.

Well picked up!

I just came across something similar in a news release from Origin Energy.

 

[TonyG]

The problem with increasing super SGC is that, like myself, many people have packages INCLUSIVE of super. So the superannuation increase is paid by ME through reduced salary component in the package. If the super component goes from 9% to 12%, without substantial increases to compensate, my cash on a monthly basis reduces.

That wont be a problem Lyle,
The maths is pretty simple. If you divide your base by 1.09 times your package, this gives you your true base. Then times that by 3% and Bob's your uncle! that's the difference or alternatively times your true base by 1.12 and that's the total Super
I'm on the same sort of package deal and I've done this maths before when working out if I want to do extra Super.

 

[Hobzai]

No, its not over yet by a long shot, but today is the first announcement of the back-down. And there is no other way to put it - its a big back down.

Actually, there's a lots of other ways to put it, but don't let it bother you.

 

[smeck]

Actually, there's a lots of other ways to put it.............

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...mining-super-tax/story-e6frg8zx-1225887313787

These guy's used triple twist with pike. I was pretty sure the Government line was garbage and this story gives a little credence to it. Gillard didn't have enough time to make any real changes and Swan has been too hard nosed about the Tax to make changes of this significance. It would seem Ferguson did the chief negotiating role here and Gillard signed off on it. It would seem I've been unfairly harsh on Martin Ferguson when I stated Tanner was the only competent Labor Minister. He appears to be someone that can actually think outside the intial policy doctrine and find a solution. Gillard will get the credit, but she probably does deserve some for sidelining the Minister with nothing to contribute and unshackling a Minister that obviously had a solution.

 

[Ivan]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...mining-super-tax/story-e6frg8zx-1225887313787

Who the hell puts avocado on their omelette?

 

[murrum]

I think you will find a lot of people see though the thinly veiled 'tax reform', and recognise it for what it really is - a tax grab. A tax grab that has selectively targeted one industry, when in reality, it could be applied to every industry that earns above what the government deems to be a 'super profit' threshold.

It sets a dangerous precedent - the government is now lumping an additional tax on what it deems are 'super profits'. Shit, can't have companies earning too much can we ?

C'mon MOR, that last comment is a bit OTT. The fundamentals are that the tax is based on the removal of a finite resource owned by all. If you are a service industry making a super profit - good luck to you and there is no reason to be afraid.

Fact is, through a stroke of luck we are a nation full of dirt that others want. For that luck not to benefit the nation, in particular into the long term through strategic spending, would be a great shame. This tax scheme provides a means to do this.

Any tax is always viewed as a tax grab - thats what it is... taking money from private sphere to public. In this case I am completely comfortable with the principle.