The Fairfax broadsheets today bring the latest ACNielsen poll of federal voting intention, showing Labor’s lead up to 55-45 compared with 54-46 last month. Labor’s primary vote is steady on 43 per cent with the Coalition down one point to 39 per cent. The poll also finds Peter Costello to be favoured as Liberal leader by 56 per cent of the 1400 respondents compared with 27 per cent for Malcolm Turnbull and 17 per cent for Brendan Nelson. In head-to-head terms, Costello leads Turnbull 49-35 and Turnbull leads Nelson 47-31. Worst of all for Nelson, his approval rating is down from 36 per cent to 31 per cent and his disapproval is up from 46 per cent to 53 per cent. Hat tip to poll watcher extraordinaire James J.
UPDATE: The latest weekly Essential Research survey shows Labor maintaining its lead of 58-42. Also featured are questions on pensions, industrial relations and Australia’s performance at the Olympics.
A good one to have a DD on!
How would the minors view the possibility of a DD and how are their finances?
If Labor has a hostile Senate now, and the Senate has already decided to block even minor policies, it might not be much of a concern having a DD. It might come down to how they think they will do in the house of Reps.
If there is the genuine opportunity there to knock of another dozen seats wouldn’t they take it. It also punches some more holes into LNP finances.
Plus a solid victory would give them sufficient bragging rights in the Senate.
Dude…you would be amazed…
Sci-fi hasn’t caught up with the **The Telegraph** yet
TP
The minors don’t want a DD as they know they would lose the balance of power when Labor cruise to an easy win. Less Labor voters would do the two-bob each way and split the houses with their votes coz we’ll all be pretty pissed off at having to vote again. The Greens, Mr X and FF are thinking hard about how to maintain their relevance in the next parliament. Expect some surprises…
GB
On re-reading my cut and paste jobbie of your words came out wrong…
Apologies
Diogenes
A DD improves the likelyhood of minor parties being elected to the Senate as all senators are up for election not the usual half.
The quota required for election is thus halved.
So it it the Fibs who would lose out in a DD election, that is why I doubt there will be one.
Gary Bruce @ 144
That should inspire the troops!
If he keeps that promise, I am sure that there would be plenty of labour voters who would be prepared to chip in for a new guitar for his 52nd.
Shame on you KRUDD, most unpopular PM since Whitlam.
That is either trolling, or el primo stupidity.
the secret to electoral success-NOT
Nuclear is the answer: Liberals
“http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24207945-29277,00.html”
MayoFeral @ 135
The grand plan on both sides was to keep slaughtering away until one side or the other ran out of people to slaughter. While we tend to get a bit focused on Gallipoli for cultural/historical/partriotic, and perhaps even party-partisan reasons, in the end it really did not matter much where the slaughter happened, as long as it contributed to the overall slaughter.
However, Gallipoli was probably not such a good place for the English, French and Australians to get into the slaughtering game because the Turks had the high ground, sea landings were notoriously chancy and the depth of our holdings was a bit shallow. Also, the logistical connections were not too good for us and relatively easier for the Turks. Finally, the Turks were defending their homeland on home soil and were therefore well-motivated.
The Germans withdrew to a defensive line ino the Western Front that gave themselves all the advantages of terrain. This gave them slaughtering efficiencies.
Ahem. Bit of a connection between the Boer War and Gallipoli, actually. General Hamilton, a rooinek Boer War hero of sorts, cocked things up so badly in the second Gallipoli landings that he practically single-handedly ensured that the whole shebang was doomed to failure – in terms of the immediate priority of opening a short supply route to the Russian army.
Turns out the Britishers were more effective at war crimes in the Boer War (wholesale murder by neglect of boer women and children in concentration camps) than they were at fighting boer commandoes. In terms of war crimes, the ex horse-thief and cold-blooded murderer of civilians, Breaker Morant, was hopelessly inept by comparison.
Of course both sides were better at bastardising/murdering the bantus than at anything else, but like in Iraq and Afghanistan, nobody was counting. Baden Powell’s role in the near starvation and death of bantus does not bear close examination. The noble cause of Hamilton’s practical war experience? The rooineks were after the Joburg gold and invaded two democracies to get it.
I do hope that if plans for a Boer War memorial in Canberra go ahead that it is dedicated to: the bantus, to the inventors of the concentration camps, to the gold bugs, to the war criminals (in particular Kitchener) and to the Boer women and children who died by the thousands. But, I bet you they won’t, because they will be more interested in perpetuating self-glorifying historical crap.
List of Australia’s useless wars: Maori War, Boer War, WW1, Korean War, Vietnam War, Konfrontasi, Iraq, Afghanistan. Other formerly warlike nations have managed to avoid going to war for centuries. Why is Australia such an habitual warmonger? Why do we gravitate to slaughter? It is not pre-ordained. We have choices.
Australia might even have been able to stay out of WW2 if neutral and strongly armed, rather than, as was the case, the reverse.
Didn’t Brenda say that the only way Australia would have nuclear power stations is if Rudd introduced them?
The cracks are getting bigger. 😛
Yes, apparently next month Cossie releases his book. He will go on about how a sensational economic manager he was and how he was concerned about funding Coconut’s irresponsible promises.
This book will be about Cossie taking ownership of the economic successes of the previous government and how Howard should have stepped down when Cossie asked him to.
Finally, he will go on about what a better PM than the Rodent he would have been and what a difference to the party he could have made.
The media will have premature ejaculations in planning for his honeymoon for the leadership, Cossie then becomes leader, and the long race starts for the next election.
And as I mentioned on the WA thread it won’t help the WA Libs, even if Barnett ruled out a Power Station.
And despite what the pro nuclear lobby think, this is a vote loser, pure and simple.
Ru
that was Brenda the Good,not his evil twin Brenda the Bad 🙁
apparently the good brenda keeps the bad one at bay, but when talcums itches the bad one comes out
Socrates
Shame Nelson and Libs over Medicare Levy , but consistent
Regarding particulaly ‘conservative facton Liberals like John howard , I actualy find consistency in there inconsistencys , because its there in its core written Party’s doctrine You may be trying to understand fron a ‘left-centric’ viewpoint by separating ‘business’ from ‘individual’ (or rather a specifi class of ‘individuals’
Medicare levy & $50,000 threshold , deliberateley planned 3 cruel blows at Labor ‘left’ most basis equity & social philosophy and existing policy
One to undermine principal of medicare , universal for all , cost not an inhibiting factor , free at low end , reasonable cost for middle , and fair escalation ttherafter
Two , to suport a PRIVATE entreprise Health Insurance industry , by making it more attractive to go private enterprise, at espense of public medicare system , AND these Private Insurance Industry is STILL still partly finaced by tax payer
Three , consequently via private health Insurance Industry , to further attact peoples into PRIVATE hospital Industry , at expense of public hospital system ,
AND these Private Hospital Industry is STILL still partly financed by tax payer
LESS monies collected by Governmetn from Medicare means LESS monies available for Hospitals (and finance th hart of Medicare This was a ‘business’ free enterprise Liberal Partys dogma at war with a labor ‘left’ equity supplied via Governemtn at a reasonable cost , and available to all
I’m obviously talking in broad here , as yes we need more Public hospitals , more beds etc etc (& yes private hospitals serve a purpose) , but clear philosophical and therefore policy diferences between Labor and curent ruling ‘consevative’
facton of Libs (& also with minority small ‘l’ libs)
In an ideal Howard world then all hospitals would become private and everyone must have private insurance. Thus health becomes secondary to profit motive at two levels and we know that when profits competes with human need who wins.
Socrates
#134
My further thoughts hav been to try to list by example in last post #165 , suggesting a common overall thread of Liberal philosohy (which then shows clearly in its consequent policys) , and its actualy wrtiten down in there sourse dogma doctrine , but ‘cleverly’ written for rusted on to lap up
If one compares to Labors (efectively Chifley ‘light on hill’ basis) , Liberals see firstly ‘small’ government’ that does not interfere with th key Liberal philosophy priority being ‘private enterprise’ ( which to them leads to econamic wealth & growth as an end result…and end object….so there is no equity thought built in at end objective , as there is with Labor Think ‘freedom of individal’ is broadlley reffering to ‘freedom’ to participate or start in a ‘free enterprise’ busines….which almost by extension implys ‘workers’ in those ‘free enterprise’ business’s (run/owned by those ‘individual freedom of individuals’) ar almost a non entity or machine Now its not quite as stark as that , but seeems thats where emphasis is
Further , think they see ‘private enterprise’ providing a ‘trickel down’ efect to workers …non business owners , but with major rewards going to business individuals
So when you mention for example govt subsidies or tax concessions for business , thats consistent with there view that ‘private enterprise’ sits at ‘apex’ , and such ‘handouts’ simply oil it When you mention examples of ‘user pay’ , again thats th ‘apex’ (‘free enterprise’) doing its priority job
You may hav a diferent view and am interested in your thoughts However thats why I for moment see no inconsistencys in there policys for tax subsidies , or user pays or , non ‘free enterprise owners’ individuals freedoms as they ar not part of ‘apex of a market economy as an end in itsself objective
As to NSW Labor facton you were unhappy with , well all Partys hav strains within them as Partys ar people with ambition as well as policy agendas , key is to ensure Partys overall policy & standards remain , thats ongoing Do you tend towards a Bob Brown approach , a Bracks faction approach , a Beattie or other I always found John Button in many ways ideal
Ron
“Small government” is another Liberal myth. They only say they want small government. What they want is government to act as a pro-business bully.
Despite the rhetoric, Howard by 2001 was spending more on government than Keating did! ROTFL!! He trully earnt his title “the drunken sailor”. Even worse, he managed to push government spending up while investment in education and infrastructure shrank. It was only the mining boom increase in national revenue that stopped Howard setting even more records in govt spending as a % of GDP. His spending kept increasing well ahead of inflation; he was just lucky that the economy grew faster than his pork barrel.
I don’t see my critique as relying on “leftist” ideology. The issues I refrred to are core aspects of political philosphy since the days of Locke and Mill, the founders of Liberalism. I didn’t even mention equity.
Ron
I’m not a member of any party but I’d say I’m closer in ideology to Labor than Liberal. Ironically I’m one of those small L liberals so its curious to me that I perceive that Labor and Liberal have shifted so far to the right that I seem to be too the left of both. I suppose that must be why I come across as a leftist. Yet I saw myself in the 80s as a centrist and more conservative than average. I don’t believe my views have moved to the left. The greens are too far to the left for me, but I can at least respect their sincerity. However I don’t think any party goes on philosophy these days; its sound-bite first, principles second.
As for Labor figures, I realise that the NSW Right is not the whole party and there are some bits I do respect. Of current figures I’d list John Faulkner, Lindsay Tanner and Penny Wong as my favourite performers. Quite happy with Rudd, Swan and Gillard so far too.
Socrates
It seems that the left and centre have merged. I was always left of centre and now find myself left of Labor on some things. I am still left re Health, Education and Transport. I am not against privatisation on most things except those 3 mentioned above. I am sorry that the Dems have disappeared as to place a protest vote is much more difficult (as I did in 2001).
Interesting couple of stories about the Pineapple Party and debt. The first about a backflip by Springborg on phasing out stamp duty and the other about the debt left over from the Liberal’s Gold Coast City Council campaign.
[QUEENSLAND Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg has backed down on a promise to phase out stamp duty in the state.
Mr Springborg, leader of Queensland’s new Liberal National Party, made the pledge before the state election in September 2006.
Then heading the state Coalition, Mr Springborg pledged that if elected he would get rid of stamp duty in five years.
At the time, he said: “My Coalition team will be absolutely committed in government to abolishing this tax once and for all and returning its benefits to the people of Queensland.”
Addressing a Property Council of Australia lunch in Brisbane yesterday, Mr Springborg said he could no longer vow to abolish stamp duty, which generates revenue of about $2billion.
“We’ve got a very serious debt situation in Queensland. When it comes to a conflict between the need now to invest in infrastructure and immediately cut duties such as stamp duty, I can’t make that commitment today,” he said.]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24210335-5006786,00.html
QUEENSLAND’S newly merged Liberal National Party has been saddled with a $600,000 debt because Liberal leaders were misled over the costs of a failed election campaign.
[Former Queensland Liberal president Mal Brough planned to sack state party director Geoffrey Greene last month over debts incurred by the campaign to win control of the Gold Coast City Council in a March poll.
Instead, the LNP was formed and Mr Greene negotiated a lucrative severance package, the details of which were revealed last week by The Weekend Australian.
The package included the prospect of $115,000 in consultancy fees, career transition and relocation allowances, and a certificate of appreciation from the LNP for Mr Greene’s performance as Liberal director.
When Mr Brough, a former Howard government minister, was elected Liberal state president in May, he appointed a new branch treasurer, Kevin Blinco.
Mr Blinco uncovered a $300,000 debt left over from the $1million Gold Coast campaign, in which the Liberals failed to win a single seat.]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24210334-5006786,00.html
The Electoral commision of Queensland has released the final report into the redistribution of state seats.
http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/asp/index.asp?pgid=393
The mining industry looks for a free ride and free permits. The status quo suits them and they’re giong to fight for it to last as long as possible.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24210440-2702,00.html
In good news, Ruddster supports geothermal with $50M which should shut the mining industry up a bit. The mining industry is a bit torn on geothermal. They obviously do well with the drilling and set-up of geothermal but they prefer coal with carbon capture.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/20/2340898.htm?section=justin
• The proposed electorate of Macrossan has been renamed Dalrymple after a well known North Queensland explorer and pastoralist. This change was supported in
a number of objections, including The Nationals (QRC/OBJ823) and Kett
Kennedy (QRC/OBJ95) who provided the Commission with a biographical
account of both figures.
• The electorate of Samsonvale has been renamed Pine Rivers which the
Commission accepts provides a better known and accepted identity for the area.
The Commission received a significant level of support for this change, including
support from the ALP, The Nationals and the Moreton Bay Regional Council.
• The electorate of Dalby has been renamed Condamine, taking into account the
fact that the Condamine River provides a geographical link which runs the length
of the electorate. Condamine was also the name of a previous electorate in the
region and was supported in a number of objections including one from The
Nationals.
Stafford doesn’t get parts of Chermside back, Clermont stays in Gregory and Mt Morgan stays in Mirani despite the objections about these three areas.
In other changes in the final report.
Duaringa and Bauhinia go to Gregory not Callide.
Kuranda comes out of Cook and into Barron River.
Perigian Springs stays in Noosa.
Doonan stays in Noosa
Township of Cooroy stays in Nicklin.
Mooloolah goes to the Caloundra electorate not Glasshouse.
Flagstone goes to Beaudesert.
Part of Cornubia West goes to Springwood rather than Redlands.
Waterford West stays in Waterford rather than Springwood.
Muskiemp
You are right but in a snse that is my point. you class yourself as “left” but I would say that you are in the merged centre you refer to. Forty years ago Robert Menzies, no socialist himself, presided over an economy with tarrif barriers, full employment, home loans capped at 6% interest and State owned banks. What passes for “normal” now is VERY right wing by any historical standard.
Socrates @ 176
Spot on.
Folk who think that Howard’s legacy is finished just because he got shunted from parliament, should think again. There are a huge number of Howard-vetted appointments still beavering away. Terms of reference and/or scopes of various institutions are still in place. Funding for pro-Howard world view institutions went up, and vice versa.
The framing of many debates still owes a lot to Howard. The real differences between liberal and labour on economic management are at the edges.
Militarism has had a boost and there is no sense that this will change under labour. We are still in two wars. The US alliance is stronger than it was when he arrived and has not diminished since.
Labour has reverted to bilateral trade deals.
The electorate has been conditioned by Howard’s populism to dependency on the government purse, the begging bowl, and an abiding sense of resentment that the government might be giving somebody else more. My guess is that this will be one of Howard’s enduring legacies, because it is very difficult to rebase the electorate to a different set of expectations.
The edges between church and state have become more blurred and there is no sense that this will change under labour.
The environment was generally toast under Howard and is still generally toast under Rudd. Be interesting to see whether this changes over time.
There are a few significant changes: racist dog whistling, compulsive xenophobia and bastardization of ethnic minorities have virtually disappeared under Rudd. Unfortunately, the latter is still into wrapping himself in the flag.
Boerwar
Yes I am no fan of Howard’s either. In the end he became a shrewd politician but never cared much about principles. Sticking to your own prejudices is not the same thing. I see little of Menzie’s principles in Howard; the latter only admired the former for winning, not much else.
All those who say he was a politician of substance should remember back to his stint as treasurer under Fraser. He was not called “Honest John” out of flattery – he was caught out badly several times. He just learnt to cover his tracks better over time. If that passes for substance then give me someone shallow.
Socrates
#169
“Ron
Small government” is another Liberal myth. They only say they want small government. What they want is government to act as a pro-business bully.”
Liberals and “small Governemtn a ‘Liberal myth’ , Yes and No I feel Socrates
ditto Liberals and “freedom of individual” a ‘Liberal myth’ again Yes and No I think Socrates Liberals and
“100% support free enterprise market system for profit ” Yes (and no No at all) , believing in benefits accruing ‘finally’ at poor level via ‘trickle down ‘efect’
I happen to believe above is true , but trying to successfuly explain Liberals Partys pecular interpretation of th above conflicting astatements into there philosiphy/beliefs is always been dificult
Believe thats why some pundits hav trouble identifying precisely what th Liberals do or ghav ever stood for
As to policy implementation from that , well sometimes they’ reimplemented
‘pure’ and sometimes less so What I do suggest is that out of above yes and no 5 combinations th ‘core centrepiece’ is free enterprise for profit (last combination) and that remaining 4 combinations of interpretation from from that centrepiece
For example ‘small governemnt like ignore Howard’s bribing middle class welfare that created actualy ‘big government’ because Howard failed one aspect of there philosophy there but if one looks broader at there ‘small government’ YES and NO philosophy , on one hand they believe in policys to ensure th less government does so ( say outsourcing Centre Link, hospitals schools etc) that leaves more for th ‘core centrepiece’ of free enterprise for profit in th total economy , AND policys then ar actively implamented for that purpose
YET conflictingley Liberals will use Public Govt to bully and subsidise this supposedly non govt needed free enterprise system or Industry where needed , in reality Liberals cynicly see this as simply oiling th core centrepiece or Industry to maintain its viabilty , and do not see th blatant contradiction of govt
‘of ‘socialising’/protecting profits vuia subsidies/bus tax concessions for a supposedly independent of govt free enterprise system (thats where I got my Yes and No from in first paragraph) Further more conflictingly , Liberals then hav to create massive Federal/State Govt Tax & Industry beauocracies to adnminister these subidies , schemes & bus tax concessions (antithisus of ‘small govt’)
So whilst there is a contradicton with ‘small govt’ myth , and there is a above , core centrepiece of supporting free enterprise system for profit still remains achieved in both contradictions
Other combinations lited initially to me follow a similar conflicting pattern , but suport there core centrepiece…which is th end objective Thats my view of Liberals Why I mentioned Labor’s ‘equity’ base is Labors core beliefs/policy implementation do not hav Liberals support free enterprise as centrepiece and end objective , Labor instead sees th free enterprise system PLUWS government as simply a MEANS (niot an end objectice) to achieve more equity & social justice (of which ‘Medicare’ is an obvious example both of Labor , and its difference to Liberals who’d prefer US style free enterprise healthcare
Same policy fdiffs to Privae hospital , schools , unemployment benefis , medicare levy plus medicare itself , etc Most ‘left’ people see this contrast starkly I submit there is no change in this respect between 1980’s and now at all
What has however changed is globilisation and necessity to be absolutely financialy responsible and maintain economic sustainability inside ‘oz’ as we’re competing NOW directly with World , but believe this reality and requirement of Labor to talk about ithis subject/policys for this subject hav created an illusion of ‘moving right’ , rather than using current economic Globilisation tools’ to achieve same equity & sovcial objectives So maybe Globilised World has changed and people like you Socrates and I hav more dificulty accepting those changes , but see no change in objectices Any thoughts
pre Globisation , difference of Partys end objectives were stark , all globilisation has done is to appear to cloud such diferences , but they are still there (all thats changed is ‘means’ (using glilisation) used to achhieve same end equiity & social objectives
Muskiemp & Socrates
missed your earlier posts
Muskiemp there has been a merging to centre on economic policy for Partys , which is unavoidable if one is to be an economicly responsible in a globilised world Limitations as to what one can do flow from that , however not as to how ones ‘social’ expenditure priorities ar set
Socrates , saw your reference to Menzies , Menzies govt sided with every single Employer’s submission to Arbitration Commission in 50’s and 60’s AGAINST workers submissions…I’d classify Menzies as an Employer’s man , and th antithisus of either ‘centre’ or ‘left’
177 Boerwar, that is the most glowing account of the Howard years I have ever read. Had to put my sunglasses on to read it.
Steve ,
Wait till ‘Rodent’ writes his book “re-writing” our history of his 12 year Liberal Government , and how his priority was always on ‘helping ‘ Aussie “battlers”
Love to see how ‘Rodent” will rationalize promising $3 billion personal tax cuts to wealthiest in 2007 electon vs Rudd promising to ditch them and give that same $3 billion to Schools for computers , fast internet etc
Hate to break it to you, mate, but it was those ‘battlers’ that did the best under his government.
BTW: what happened to the “education revolution”? Where’s our “national broadband”? Pretty weird, huh?
Computers going into schools tho that is just the digital ER.
Fast broadband, bit difficult to implement thanks to Howard’s Telstra privatisation.
A-C they might have been battlers, but they weren’t stupid not to know how well they were doing under the Rodent. Result; they voted him out on his arse, including his own seat lol.
By the way A-C who would you like to see lead your “sinking ship” of a party at the next election?
Interesting to see a further market move on the next Fibs Leader (probably due to my 162 post) 🙂
Cossie 1.70
Straightbull 2.35
Brenda Nelson 3.50
Mother Of Chuckie 9.00
Schrek 26.00
Nutty Mad Monk 34.00
A-C
The stats that show the Ratman Battlers had done better than other demographics is a sham.
If you remove the massive rise in house prices, they have done much worse than others.
Do you remember Ratty saying “I have not had any complaints about rising house prices” ?
Just because the value of your assets have increased, it does not mean you are better off.
The Education Revolution is happening, unlike the Rat Govt. this one does things.
Did you read the Age yesterday?
“Australia’s first region-wide wireless broadband network has been established on South Australia’s Yorke Peninsula.” ?
At last we have a Govt. that does stuff, not just talk. 😛
Hi Centre,
Who’s better off under Krudd now?
Low, middle, high earners or all of the above?
Really, I’m very curious. This country has really taken off over the past 9 months. Prosperity and success as far as the eye can see.
Ruawake,
I generally try not to read that leftwing rag -but please fill me in!
If Australia’s first region-wide wireless broadband network been established on South Australia’s Yorke Peninsula is the first accomplishment of this colossal $4.7 billion project over the last 9 months then what a sink-hole taxpayers have found themselves mired in.
How is the ‘computers for every student’ errr… “computers for every *two* students” policy going?
I bet the Ruddster had a few words to say to DFAT about this. A briefing given to NZ journos describing our government’s view of her as a left-wing control freak whose foreign policy is a hang-over from the Vietnam War days.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24211807-601,00.html
Whoops, “her” of course refers to Helen Clark.
A-C
My Sister in Law who works for the Education Dept. says it is going very well. 😛
A-C
I’m better off. When I go overseas to countries other than the US I don’t get spat on anymore. 😀
Yes A-C
Low income earners: Increased benefits for carers and pensioners.
Mid income earners: After 10 straight interest rate rises in a row (8 under Coco) some economists are predicting a cut of 50 points as soon as next month.
High income earners: They will get their turn. But when they do, it will be shared among all income earners, not exclusively to them such as under the Rodent.
What is so unfortunate for the Fibs is that voters are going to realise that everything that they said they could do, Labor can do – only better!
Given the state of global markets, I know many on the left here are going to disagree, but I would like to see capital gains tax abolished. It truly is a ridiculous tax that only serves to penalise aspirational voters who make investments to try to get ahead. (That’s if they are lucky enough to make a gain)!
Coy tax should be reduced. It would place our companies in a stronger position to compete globally. Sure that would benefit the higher end but mid income earners would stand to gain a windfall with their super as well.
Also, I would like to see a new tax threshold of say 80% for salaries above $3 million. Those that get it are not worth that much. Most of them are totally useless, whose company I would like to name.
Centre,
I would agree of abolishing the Capital Gains tax if the tax deductions in gaining that capital gains was also abolished.
Muskiemp, interesting that the Get-up organisation believes in reducing the discount rate from 50% to 35% on gains from assets held for longer than a year. That’s a good policy although I would go further to zero.
On second thoughts I would bring in an 80% threshold on salaries including bonuses to over $2 mil. They pay themselves what they like, and they are definitely worth no more.
Centre @ 195
The outcomes of the coming debate on tax reform are probably going to be central to the future prosperity of Australia for a generation and probably for the future of labour in Government. I dread to think of what the opposition and the minors will do to any significant reform in the Senate.
I lost count after a while but the Howard/Costello anti-red tape team added well over 5,000 pages of tax law during their stint. That is about 500 pages of tax law per year in office. Thanks fellas.
One result was that taxpayers steadily became more and more incapable of managing their tax affairs without paid professional assistance and, consequently, there was a shortage of same so the prices for tax services went through the roof. Also, as usual, the really wealthy smartypants still managed to avoid or minimise their tax significantly.
Responding to your comments I would suggest the following:
1. Any reform that results in a drastic reduction in the size of the tax act would be excellent. The implication is that the tax arrangements would be simplified.
2. Tax law should include a greater emphasis on their intent. This means that instead of having $10,000 a day QCs protecting the very rich using the letter of the law, we would have them trying a much more difficult legal task – trying to defend their clients from anything that looks like they are arranging things to avoid tax. When in doubt taxpayers could get a reading from the tax dept. But, benefit of doubt not to the tax minimiser/avoider/cheater. The intro to the new Tax act would encourage courts to take a very dim view of scammers. Rather than with petty thieves, we could crowd the jails with tax cheat criminals. Just fining them part of their ill-gotten gains is ridiculous. They are big-time thieves and should spend at least some time with petty thieves.
3. The reforms would need to be a package. Reduction in capital gains and in company tax are probably both desirable, but the degree would depend on where tax receipts and social welfare costs for the next generation are going.
4. My pet desire would be to see that the family home is taxed just like other investments and that religious enterprises and so-called not for profit enterprises are also taxed just like other investments. The national investment in family homes is distorting our productivity and is distorting our environmental footprint. McMansion Madness in a time of global warming.
5. My absolute favorite wish would be the re-introduction of hefty death and gift duties. This means that individuals in every generation would be encouraged to compete in the marketplace on a more fair footing.
Boerwar, on point no.5, it’s obvious that you have either already inherited everything or you’ve got bugger all to leave your children!
Fulvio Sammut @ 199
*wry grin*
Like most people I do the best I can within the laws as I find them, if I can only figure out what they mean.
I would say that, in general, the operation of my proposed changes to the tax laws would probably leave me, my children and my accountant less well off. I am hopeful that the Senate will save us all.
Changes to taxes on the family home and to superannuation arrangements would give me a hit but the country needs it. The superannuation arrangements desperately need reforming after the blatantly distorted gift giving to self-funded retirees carried out by Howard/Costello in their final years).
Pretty well regardless of what happens to me, I would like to see an environment where my children could thrive through hard work, integrity and enterprise.