The regular Essential Research fortnightly average is our only new federal poll for the week, and it finds Labor losing one of the two points it gained last time to record a two-party lead of 53-47. Primary votes are 40% for Labor (down one), 40% for the Coalition (steady), 10% for the Greens (steady) and 1% for what’s left of Palmer United (steady). The poll finds only 26% deeming it likely Tony Abbott will make it to the next election with 57% opting for unlikely, with wide partisan differences along the expected lines. With respect to tax reform, strong majorities are recorded in favour of measures hitting multinational corporations and high-income earners, while fierce hostility remains to expanding or increasing the GST. However, it’s lineball on removing negative gearing, which 33% support and 30% oppose. Questions on economic and financial issues get the usual set of grumpy responses, with a balance of belief in favour of company profits having improved, but every personal and national indicator deemed to have gotten worse.
[Just put it to voters and see what reply they get then.]
That is the battle and labor has a very poor recent record of not going into battle. It did briefly on the CPRS and found the greens on the wrong side of the battle. Would expect the greens to conclude Labors proposed changes were worse than no change at all and ‘locked in’ forever and again labor would be alone in a battle with big business.
A brave party would do it – fight the good fight and take it to the voters – I don’t think labor is brAve it is institutionally cowardly – presumably all the fight is saved for internal battles.
Speaking of battles – news from the front is that labor are already backing down before the senate inquiry starts.
WeWantPaul@51
Then vote for the proposal.
Others will vote as they see fit.
meher baba @42:
[No, it was a country with a stagnant and far more inequitable economy than we have today.]
Wrong on both counts.
No decade since the 1960s has been so good for Australian real GDP growth rate. Indeed, one might argue that the stagnation set in during the 1990s…you know, after all the neoliberal reforms had a chance to show their value.
And as for your contention that the 1960s was a time of massive wealth disparities, that’s also a furphy: The Gini coefficient throughout the 1960s (PDF; p.12 is the table in question) was much lower than it is today.
So….Sir Robert ran massively higher marginal tax rates than is the case today, but somehow managed an economy with much higher GDP growth rates and less inequality than today’s.
Care to reconsider your answer?
meher baba @50:
[In those days, it was much harder for women living in abusive relationships to get divorce or any sort of income support. Abortions and homosexuality were totally illegal, and we didn’t allow non-white people into the country. Lots of major works of world literature – Joyce’s Ulysses being a prime example – were banned.]
And these have what, again, to do with economic policy? Your point about the follies of protectionism is well-taken, but it’s not like 1960s legislation is an all-or-nothing package deal.
Tricot
We tend to educate children to meet the needs of parents (who want to understand the reports and compare little Johnny’s progress to others in the peer group), teachers (who want a hard life made a little easier, and often, alas, are thus nervous of trying anything too radical – being out of control being the nightmare), and the wider community, rather than to meet the needs of children.
For children to reach their full potential, we should probably ignore the needs of others and actually focus on their needs.
One educator remarked at the start of an article that education is the most researched field in the world — and the one where the results of research are least applied.
I am dubious of schools which talk about student centred learning, because I’ve yet to experience one that was.
This one sounds like it’s at least trying.
[37
TrueBlueAussie
Family Trusts work this:
Family Member A makes $300,000 a year paid to the Family Trust
Family Member B makes $30,000 a year paid to the Family Trust
Family Member C is your 18yo teenage son who is unemployed so $0 a year
The Family Trust then pay Members A, B, C equal amounts in income.
Family Member A now makes $110K a year
Family Member B now makes $110K a year
Family Member C now makes $110K a year]
however, if Person C is less than 18 yo, they will pay the top marginal rate on the whole $110k.
It will be interesting to see if the other polls are in the same range as Essential.
If so I think these polls are setting in and that it is very dire for the LNP chances of a second term.
I don’t think changing leaders after the budget will work as the budget will cement the policies in.
If the polls are more variable I think the LNP are still in disaster territory and if the budget is not too bad in the unfairness stakes the LNP may recover in time to be a good chance of a second term.
Mr Neil Laurie, The Clerk of the Parliament of Queensland has advised Mr Wellington The Speaker of the Parliament of Queensland, that there are no legal reasons why Mr Gordon MP cannot continue to fulfil his duties/responsibilities as an MP ..and cast his vote however he choses..
I suspect Mr Gordon is going nowhere..
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Documents/TableOffice/TabledPapers/2015/5515T227.pdf
meher baba@50
I don’t think this comparison is fair.
I don’t love the 1950s myself, but most of the argument you put up here against Menzies’ higher taxation has little to do with taxation issues.
I understand you mean to say that the higher tax rates were wasted on providing industry protection and subsidies to certain industries, but how is it compared to today’s subsidies on industries?
What is the argument against applying higher taxes here?
[ there are no legal reasons why Mr Gordon MP cannot continue to fulfil his duties/responsibilities as an MP ..and cast his vote however he choses.. ]
And therein lies the idiocy of claiming that you wont accept someone’s vote. No-one has the right to deny a properly elected members vote in parliament unless that member is somehow disqualified under the rules of the parliament, not of whatever party they belong or may have once belonged to.
Oh oh.
When there was only one Greens in the NSW all was sweetness and light. The solo could just wedge Labor and get on with it.
But, but, but… now there is more than one, the real trouble at the bottom of the garden begins.
Ms P is doing the right, moral, ethical thing.
Good on her.
If there was one lesson from the Victorian Libs and the Labor Feds, relying on a untrustworthy crook is no way to run a sate or a country.
“@ABCNews24: Soon: #Essendon chairman Paul Little & coach James Hird to speak following a not-guilty verdict at the AFL anti-doping tribunal.”
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2015/03/31/water-cannon-salute-foams-virgin-atlantic-a330-costs/
Ooops. What a costly mistake.
[Apparently there is a button on airport firefighting equipment that says FOAM not WATER. It was accidentally pressed during a water cannon salute for a new Virgin Atlantic A330 flight at Manchester Airport earlier today, and the damage bill is eye watering. ]
markjs @58:
[Mr Neil Laurie, The Clerk of the Parliament of Queensland has advised Mr Wellington The Speaker of the Parliament of Queensland, that there are no legal reasons why Mr Gordon MP cannot continue to fulfil his duties/responsibilities as an MP ..and cast his vote however he choses..
I suspect Mr Gordon is going nowhere..
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Documents/TableOffice/TabledPapers/2015/5515T227.pdf%5D
I suspect there’ll be another election, either in Cook as a by-election, or Statewide as Anna dissolves Parliament – rather than allowing this issue to fester for three years.
If Anna wants to tough it out, that’s her prerogative – but she’s either incredibly gutsy or incredibly stupid if she picks that route.
I hope it’s “gutsy”. If only because the rage from the righties at an Anna re-election to the Premier’s office would be so sweet…
Apparently Mr Hockey would like advice on how to translate the DNA statement (it is in the nation’s DNA to be concerned about the underprivileged and the vulnerable) into new tax arrangements. Here are my suggestions, Joe:
1. Legislate to remove trusts.
2. Include the family home in assets for all purposes.
3. Remove capital-gains tax exemption from the family home.
4. Re-introduce death duties.
5. Get rid of international corporate profit shifting rorts.
6. Get rid of super rorts.
7. Get rid of negative gearing.
Problemo solved, Joe. You will be in a position to enact your DNA thingie about doing something for the vulnerable and the underprivileged.
PS: If Anna -does- dissolve Parliament, my advice to every Green in Queensland is this:
Hold your nose and vote Labor. Don’t reward Springborg with the Premier’s seat!
Normally, I’m all for (1)Green/(2)ALP voting, but there’s too much preference leakage from that for my liking. And I don’t think Springborg should be given any chance to pull an Abbott and get to sit on the Speaker’s right-hand side by wrecking the joint.
Little and Hird presser now
meher baba
[In my ideal universe, this would be the #1 change in any tax reform package. Now that Australia is getting out of the car-building industry, I am at a loss to conceive of any policy justification for it.]
You mean, aside from having a vocal lobby group with the ear of the current Treasurer?
That counts for a lot. 😛
kakuru @69:
[You mean, aside from having a vocal lobby group with the ear of the current Treasurer?]
Oh, it’s not just that – there are also all the people who rort the FBT in its current form, not just the auto manufacturers.
There’re a lot of mouths whispering into Hockey’s ear that changes to the FBT are baaaaaad, baaaaaad things.
Matt
[If Anna wants to tough it out, that’s her prerogative – but she’s either incredibly gutsy or incredibly stupid if she picks that route.]
Either Gordon quits parliament, or she goes to the Governor to dissolve parliament. As much as I think Billy Gordon should remain as a MP, the politics are fraught. Gordon is radioactive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11505346/Alexis-Tsipras-vows-to-stop-Greek-bleeding-as-creditors-continue-to-frustrate-Athens.html
[Greece’s prime minister has vowed not capitulate to the country’s eurozone creditors, reviving controversial calls for debt relief as his government battles to unlock bail-out cash.
Addressing his parliament on Monday evening, Alexis Tsipras said he would seek an “honest compromise” with Greece’s international paymasters, but warned he would not submit “unconditionally” to demands for further austerity on his stricken economy.
Mr Tsipras, who spoke after a frustrating day of progress between his government and officials from the Brussels Group, insisted he would stop “the Greek people’s bleeding” as he ruled out measures such as hiking VAT.
The Leftist premier also repeated his claims for Second World War reparations from Germany, and insisted on debt relief from Greece’s lenders.
Greek pleas for a bond-swap or outright haircut on its debt mountain have subsided following a February 20 agreement to extend its bail-out by four months.
But Mr Tsipras said he would now pursue a claim for debt forgiveness in order to maintain the sustainability of the country’s finances…
Despite reports Athens would submit a final comprehensive list of proposals to finance ministers on Monday, work on completing the revenue-raising measures has yet to be completed, according to European officials.
Speaking in Helsinki alongside her Finnish counterpart on Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel cautioned any final Greek blueprint had to “add up”.
“We will await the outcome of these discussions, but in the end the broad framework has to add up,” said Ms Merkel.]
Going nowhere fast…
Matt
[There’re a lot of mouths whispering into Hockey’s ear that changes to the FBT are baaaaaad, baaaaaad things.]
Is Melissa Babbage one of them?
briefly
Yes all the mud thrown at Greece by the Northern EU is having predictable results.
They claim they want Greece in the EU those Northern Eu countries have to prove it.
Negotiation is a two way street not a one way street.
No negotiation as the Greek PM has said according to reuters Greece has its limits it will not accept and the EU has to recognise that as much as Greece recognises the EU position,
Of course if the EU wants Greece out they can continue to throw mud and not negotiate in good faith.
FYI, here are Australia’s income tax rates in 1950/60/70/80:
https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf
Average annual (male) wages were about $1,000, $2,000, $4,000 and $11,000 respectively in those years:
http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/frequency/occ-paper-8.html
Key differences to now included scales having many more steps, including rates applying only to people who were very ‘comfortable’ (10 to 20 times the average income).
Matt @ 65
[If Anna wants to tough it out, that’s her prerogative – but she’s either incredibly gutsy or incredibly stupid if she picks that route.]
I cannot imagine that will happen. That said, if she gets the support of the KAP and can run a stable government for three years, I cannot imagine she will ask for the Parliament to be dissolved just because Billy Gordon refuses to resign his seat or, if he does, go to a general election rather than just a by-election. It will smack too much of opportunism.
I posted the following earlier today on the previous thread. I think it’s still relevant. Indeed, the reaction of Peter Wellington to being drawn into the Courier Mail LNP smear, supports it:
[I wouldn’t be surprised to see Queensland go back to the polls in the near future.
The key is for AP to let it get to the point where the uncommitted voters accept that the Parliament has become unworkable but not to the point where it looks like AP is clinging to power despite not being able to make Parliament work.
The thing is that if KAP supports the LNP, the LNP will have 44 votes, Labor 43 and two will be in play (Wellington and Gordon). Given that both parties have said they will not ‘accept’ Gordon’s vote, neither party could use it as a basis for forming government without being tainted to an extent that even the CM would struggle to justify. Wellington could support the LNP on the basis that going to another election is undesirable, but my guess is that he would not, especially given the personal abuse he is copping over the Gordon issue from the conservatives. The CM, as a mouthpiece for the LNP, has really overplayed its hand here.
The bottom line is that I cannot see Springborg being able to form a government, even with the KAP support, because it can only get 44 votes in what has effectively become an 88 seat parliament. That said, it would all hinge on Wellington, unless Gordon resigns his seat.
In this case, AP will still be Premier and would have to advise a fresh election, which would be granted forthwith. So the best advantage is for AP to be seen to be acting with due speed, but not precipitately. Despite the efforts of the Borg and the CM to pretend otherwise, she appears to have done just that so far.
And the result of an early election? I don’t pretend to understand how Queenslanders think. However, I suspect their electoral behaviour is not so far from the rest of us as they and others would like us to think. They would have the choice between a new Premier who has been at least OK and has not really done anything wrong or a recycled LNP old guard who has failed to convince the electorate before that he is Premier material.
So, I think those who cast their votes for Labor at the last election will do so again – even though Campbell has gone and privatisation is off the table. And a few more votes beside may be garnered by Labor as those who voted LNP last time but with no great conviction decide to give Labor a ‘fair go’.
As another point, I have assumed that KAP will support the LNP. However, a new election could see them with much less leverage if either of the major parties gets a majority. It is in their interests to hang on to a hung parliament and be seen to get as much for their agenda as possible. In this situation, they are much better placed if they get half of something over the course of a three year Labor term than all of nothing from an unstable and ultimately truncated LNP government.]
I can’t see Gordon supporting the LNP ..and Palaszczuk has done the right thing by requesting his resignation from the ALP..
..so why shouldn’t Gordon stay and represent his constituency?
Markus
[so why shouldn’t Gordon stay and represent his constituency?]
Agree.
…”Markus”??? 🙂
markjs
Not only that. The speaker was very angry with the Courier Mail in his presser. With the Independent Speaker attacking the courier Mail for trying to destabilise the government from the get go it limits how much they can attack the government
Even newspapers and their editors can get into serious trouble over contempt of parliament.
markjs
[..so why shouldn’t Gordon stay and represent his constituency?]
Legally, it’s fine. Politically, it’s poison for Palaszczuk.
Briefly and Peter Cavanagh of ad hominem predilection
Trusts provide a level of flexibility in income management not available to workers who are paid regularly each week, fortnight or month, with PAYG tax deducted.
In their simplest advantage mode, distributions can be made at a time “convenient” to the beneficiary.
Anyway, I was commenting on what Sloppy Joe said, and his defence of the extremely wealthy sector, namely that they pay their fair share of tax.
Trusts of course are but one example of their tax “minimisation” avenues. “Farms”, “plantations” and large superannuation contributions are other “minimisation” schemes that have been widely used.
Betcha don’t like those facts, Peter Cavanagh.
guytaur..
Now the Parliamentary Clerk has given his advice to the Speaker, I think this issue will die down ..can’t see Gordon resigning his seat ..or Palaszczuk going to an election..
The more Murdoch’s sh*t-sheet howls with outrage ..the more Mr Wellington will dig in..
kakaru
No all Labor has to do is say we have done all we can legally. If Queenslanders want more then they can tell their MP’s they want a referendum to change the law.
kakaru..
I don’t agree ..Palaszczuk has played it straight down the line & people will appreciate that..
[74
guytaur]
What a preposterously wrong description of events.
guytaur @ 80
[The speaker was very angry with the Courier Mail in his presser.]
Of more concern to those opposed to Labor was his anger at the Borg for releasing/leaking his response to to the ex-partner and spinning it for political purposes. Effectively, the LNP have cut off their options for government. Even with the supporter of the Katter boys they would need Wellington to come on board in order to form a stable government. I cannot imagine Wellington supporting the Borg in any circumstances now.
No doubt some polling in the works from Gordon’s electorate, including internal ones on this issue.
My opinion. It will all be about how Premier Palaszczuks’ message is reported to the people. We here, and a lot of others have appreciated her straight bat approach but give it a few days to a couple of weeks and see how the likes of the Murdoch Rags handle the matter.
We now all know where the Speaker stands and how he feels about the reporting.
I hope he doesn’t go quiet on the matter and keeps letting us Queenslanders know of his opinions re the Member for Cook
I reckon Abbott/Liberals are going to pull the trigger on a double dissolution election.
Abbott has made the statement that the budget repair is done and debt is now manageable. And is done without the billions blocked in the Senate – so the rhetoric about the blocking damaging the budget is a sham. Being used to discredit the Opposition and others in the Senate
We then have the Liberals coming out with proposed tax changes that include tax cuts for all including business.
Yet they are still not negotiating on the cuts to universities or the deregulation of universities. They will use this as the trigger for the DD
[”Markus”]
I think you mentioned your OH calls you that.
(Markus Aurelias was someone who’s bits and pieces I’ve read a lot of over the years)
[“In the life of a man, his time is but a moment, his being an incessant flux, his sense a dim rushlight, his body a prey of worms, his soul an unquiet eddy, his fortune dark, his fame doubtful. In short, all that is body is as coursing waters, all that is of the soul as dreams and vapors.” ]
briefly
Not at all. It shows your ignorance of the significance of elections.
Briefly
[Greece’s prime minister has vowed not capitulate to the country’s eurozone creditors…]
Which he is negotiating to do as we speak
[…reviving controversial calls for debt relief as his government battles to unlock bail-out cash.]
He ran on this in the elections. Then he confirmed after the elections that this was SYRIAZAN policy. But then publicly announced that this was no longer SYRIZAN policy.
[Addressing his parliament on Monday evening, Alexis Tsipras said he would seek an “honest compromise” with Greece’s international paymasters,…]
A bit cheeky of Mr Tsipras to be talking ‘honesty when his trail of bad faith stretches from the day SYRIZA promulgated impossible, bad faith, election promises.
[…but warned he would not submit “unconditionally” to demands for further austerity on his stricken economy.]
The Eurogroup was willing to put up with the existing agreement. Why is Mr Tsipras talking about ‘further austerity’? Given the major trust deficit he and the elegant Mr Varoufakis have built up, what is Tsipras talking about?
[Mr Tsipras, who spoke after a frustrating day of progress between his government and officials from the Brussels Group, insisted he would stop “the Greek people’s bleeding” as he ruled out measures such as hiking VAT.]
Mr Tsipras is frustrated? Poor thing.
[The Leftist premier also repeated his claims for Second World War reparations from Germany,…]
To which the Germans have politely replied, wtte, ‘Piss off.’
‘…and insisted on debt relief from Greece’s lenders.’
Sure. Those Nazis MUST give SYRIZA debt relief.
‘Greek pleas for a bond-swap or outright haircut on its debt mountain have subsided following a February 20 agreement to extend its bail-out by four months.’
Except that the above contains essentially one request, one insistence and one moral blackmail attempt at just that.
[But Mr Tsipras said he would now pursue a claim for debt forgiveness in order to maintain the sustainability of the country’s finances…]
The greeks are withdrawing up to 400 million euros a day from the greek banks. So the greeks don’t trust Mr Tsipras.
[Despite reports Athens would submit a final comprehensive list of proposals to finance ministers on Monday, work on completing the revenue-raising measures has yet to be completed, according to European officials.]
Meh. The greeks have been stuffing the negotiating group around since day 1. No-one quite knows whether this is Varoufakian game theory in action, SYRIZAN incompetence or SYRIZAN bad faith.
[Speaking in Helsinki alongside her Finnish counterpart on Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel cautioned any final Greek blueprint had to “add up”.]
In other words, get your act together Mr Tsipras. If not, your cliff is over there.
[82
psyclaw
Trusts of course are but one example of their tax “minimisation” avenues.]
That has not been my experience. Trusts just make things confused. Beyond a fairly low threshold, it is more tax effective to retain earnings inside a company and pay company tax than to distribute income through a trust to an individual where it will be taxed as personal income – that is, taxed at rates higher than the company rate.
In the good old days – maybe 20 years ago – trusts may have offered advantages. But this is really no longer the case.
There are other problems too. A trust doesn’t have any capital of its own, so it’s difficult to bring in new capital. They are a complete nuisance.
The politics of the Queensland situation are that Palaszczuk will remain Premier whilst she can command a majority on the floor of Parliament.
If she can’t then the Governor will ask the other side to have a go. If that doesn’t work, then you’ll have an election.
If both major Parties have said they will reject the vote of Gordon, then the status quo remains.
Labor may cut a deal with the Katter Party or strike a deal with a rebel LNP representative (a la SA).
So, there is a bit to play out from here.
CTar1..
Ah, yes ..what a good memory you have. Markus is a term of endearment in our household.. I think 😉
[93
Boerwar
Briefly]
Considering the consequences of default, Syriza have been remarkably dilatory.
[Legally, it’s fine. Politically, it’s poison for Palaszczuk.]
Ethically, it’s fine as well. I don’t think anyone’s claiming that Gordon has misused his office, after all.
[92
guytaur
briefly
Not at all. It shows your ignorance of the significance of elections.]
Quite the contrary. It’s always been obvious that Syriza would not be able to keep their promises to both the Greek electorate and Greece’s creditors. They seemed to think they could finesse their way through the disjunction. Maybe they still can. But it’s not looking that way.
Syriza provoked the election and won office. Now they have to use it. Unfortunately for the people of Greece, it’s appears that Syriza have wasted their chances. Syriza purportedly do not wish for a “rupture” – a Euro exit. But everything they’ve done has brought rupture closer. They are opposed to “austerity” and yet the austerity they will endure if Greece defaults will be far more severe than anything they have so far experienced. Sryiza have completely, utterly, abjectly misjudged their situation.
Briefly
Fair comment.
But it all depends on scale and circumstances, and on a family trust as one component of a tax minimisation scheme.
In your scenario above, if A is the only person actually employed, then B and C add in two tax free thresholds. Than if all three make deductible super contribs, then quite a few bucks are saved.
Then if A, B, and C each have a few negatively geared properties, then the tax man could end up with 3/4 of 5/8 of SFA.
But again, my point is that Joe refuted that such things go on amongst the honourable, ethical and moral super rich.
BTW, ever wondered who actually owns those hundreds/thousands of $ half mill+ cruisers tied up in marinas all over the country …. the ones that cost $5K to fuel up for a Sunday drive. They very much enhance the lifestyle of the super rich.
I have an idea that they are not bought/owned/paid off outright by individuals using after-tax dollars. Joe would disagree with me, I’m sure….. and Peter Cavanagh too.