So tony is taxing people an extra 800 dollars a year so he can buy more Joint strike fighters

Get Fucked tony

I’ll make it my personal mission to get rid of you

It’s not a tax. It’s a temporary levy.

If you call it a tax, that’d make Tony a liar………..

Not that he’s ever been caught telling porkies before…

false start – it hasn’t been announced yet.

Is this the one that only affects people earning over $80k pa? I vaguely heard something about it this morning.

Teleost said:

It’s not a tax. It’s a temporary levy.

If you call it a tax, that’d make Tony a liar………..

It’s not a carbon tax, it’s an ETS with an introductory fixed price :)

Well it’s a shame that he can’t just come out and say that they need a new tax to replace the lost revenue from the Carbon Tax, and the Mining Tax, but at least they are now starting to take measures to restore government revenue to somewhere closer to where it needs to be, that’s the main thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Well it’s a shame that he can’t just come out and say that they need a new tax to replace the lost revenue from the Carbon Tax, and the Mining Tax, but at least they are now starting to take measures to restore government revenue to somewhere closer to where it needs to be, that’s the main thing.

Butter wouldn’t melt…

>Well it’s a shame that he can’t just come out and say that they need a new tax to replace the lost revenue from the Carbon Tax, and the Mining Tax, but at least they are now starting to take measures to restore government revenue to somewhere closer to where it needs to be, that’s the main thing.

Looks a bit like a ‘budget promise emergency’ put that way.

Go limber up on the axe here, get some fires going. If someone could say something nasty I could probably get it cut in half the time, or twice as much in the usual time, nah should be good I’ll just think about my dwindling chances of getting the pension, put the axe right between Tony’s ears each time. Plenty wood to be cut between here and seventy.

I for one, think that if we desire government-funded services, we need to be taxed to pay for them.

Part of my general notion of a tax, is that society collectively pays for the services to be funded through the tax. Increasing taxes to pay for increased services is central to that notion.

I personally think that skewing services towards those that are least able to pay for them and skewing taxes towards those that are most able to pay them is sensible social policy.

Michael V said:

I personally think that skewing services towards those that are least able to pay for them and skewing taxes towards those that are most able to pay them is sensible social policy.

You commie pinko!

Michael V said:

I for one, think that if we desire government-funded services, we need to be taxed to pay for them.

Bingo. Everyone wants things from the government yet moan about paying taxes. How else do they think stuff is gonna get paid for?

Spending tax payer money wisely would be more cost effective

Why are we spending more money on a useless jet fighter??

It’s time for liberals to go – lock , stock and barrel

They’ve had their fun but its time to go

You need some demonstrations against tony abbot and the liberal party

Don’t buy from liberal supporting business

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

I personally think that skewing services towards those that are least able to pay for them and skewing taxes towards those that are most able to pay them is sensible social policy.

You commie pinko!

Ad hominem!

Play the ball, not the person.

;)

Michael V said:

Ad hominem!

Play the ball, not the person.

;)

Good evening Michael, and welcome to the internet.

As much as it pains me, I’ve got to agree with Wookie.

Why in the name of Dawg are we looking for a plane in the middle of an ocean?

How about we cut the lifetime benefits for pollies after they leave the job and cut the obscene salaries back to something reasonable? Being a politician is supposed to be about serving the community, not setting yourself up for life.

Let’s also pay them according to performance indicators such as number of promises kept/broken.

Teleost said:

As much as it pains me, I’ve got to agree with Wookie.

Why in the name of Dawg are we looking for a plane in the middle of an ocean?

How about we cut the lifetime benefits for pollies after they leave the job and cut the obscene salaries back to something reasonable? Being a politician is supposed to be about serving the community, not setting yourself up for life.

Let’s also pay them according to performance indicators such as number of promises kept/broken.

How come tony goes back to the old wages if the PM three years ago?

People like tony and joe hockey are parasites

Funny how no one claims to have voted for this government.

Divine Angel said:

Funny how no one claims to have voted for this government.

I didn’t I voted the pirate party – they are more honest

wookiemeister said:

Don’t buy from liberal supporting business

Yes. We found out today that in at least one case, their profits have been illegally donated to the Libs through a front company.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if they are all at it. /cynic

Divine Angel said:

Funny how no one claims to have voted for this government.

I did.

Why in the name of Dawg are we looking for a plane in the middle of an ocean?

so we can either blame or exhonerate the crew. i’m sure his wife and family wont want it to be said that he was responsible when he may not be.

so we can, hopefully, find out what actually went wrong and work towards preventing a repeat.

because it is in our S7R region and so our responsibility. same as if one of ours went down in someone elses.

invaluable training for the crews searching.

invaluable experience with some hi-tech gear.

because we are socially responsible and should lead by example.

probably more but that’ll do for now.

points to skunkie.

stone him! stone him!

party_pants said:

Michael V said:

Ad hominem!

Play the ball, not the person.

;)

Good evening Michael, and welcome to the internet.
Why thank you for your most courteous welcome. :)

Divine Angel said:

Funny how no one claims to have voted for this government.

PWM voted for them 7 times

I saw the $80,000 level this morning and thought..“Well, that won’t affect many people I know”
(Except my rich brother)

Why don’t they just retain and strengthen the mining tax (doing away with the associated expenditure), and retain the carbon tax which most people have been compensated for, do away with their silly PPL, and they won’t have to bring in ‘temporary’ levies, which we all know will eventually end up being permanent.

Why don’t they just retain and strengthen the mining tax (doing away with the associated expenditure), and retain the carbon tax which most people have been compensated for, do away with their silly PPL,…

‘cos.

rumpole said:

Why don’t they just retain and strengthen the mining tax (doing away with the associated expenditure), and retain the carbon tax which most people have been compensated for, do away with their silly PPL, and they won’t have to bring in ‘temporary’ levies, which we all know will eventually end up being permanent.

That would be a good idea, but considering their election campaign, I don’t think it’s really practical.

The little demographic problem we have here with baby boomers and retirement is nothing compared to Chinas future demographics. The one child bottleneck is moving through the system and in years to come they are going to have a huge problem with an ageing (and long lived) population supported by a much smaller and lower paid base.

I have no problem with taxation, in fact as a country we need to look at tax reform very seriously if we are to address the structural deficit in the budget. The issues I have with this particular matter are as follows:

- the LibNat’s election platform consisted of abolishing two very large taxation schemes and introducing one very large social welfare scheme. To then have to add in a levy because they can’t balance the books seems a little too much like having their cake and eating it too for my liking

- the LibNats were ruthless in their character assassination of both Rudd and Gillard when it came to honesty and keeping election promises, to now come out and suggest that this isn’t breaking an election promise is pure hiprocasy

diddly-squat said:

I have no problem with taxation, in fact as a country we need to look at tax reform very seriously if we are to address the structural deficit in the budget. The issues I have with this particular matter are as follows:

- the LibNat’s election platform consisted of abolishing two very large taxation schemes and introducing one very large social welfare scheme. To then have to add in a levy because they can’t balance the books seems a little too much like having their cake and eating it too for my liking

- the LibNats were ruthless in their character assassination of both Rudd and Gillard when it came to honesty and keeping election promises, to now come out and suggest that this isn’t breaking an election promise is pure hiprocasy

yes

diddly-squat said:

- the LibNats were ruthless in their character assassination of both Rudd and Gillard when it came to honesty and keeping election promises, to now come out and suggest that this isn’t breaking an election promise is pure hiprocasy

Well yeah. If they could call the QLD flood levy a new tax, and a carbon price with an introductory fixed rate a tax, then it’s very hard not to call a debt levy a new tax.

I think he may have to give up the new PPL as a compromise or face a back room party revolt.

Also, despite the party politics the ALP displayed during the last cycle, the Gillard govt actually worked very well with the minor parties and independents to achieve compromise and consensus. I’m not yet convinced that the LibNats will be as compromising when it comes to negotiating with the senate which means that they will have a pretty hard time getting the PPL scheme and their Direct Action plan over the line.

party_pants said:

diddly-squat said:

- the LibNats were ruthless in their character assassination of both Rudd and Gillard when it came to honesty and keeping election promises, to now come out and suggest that this isn’t breaking an election promise is pure hiprocasy

Well yeah. If they could call the QLD flood levy a new tax, and a carbon price with an introductory fixed rate a tax, then it’s very hard not to call a debt levy a new tax.

IKR, but instead TA has come out today and said that it isn’t braking a promise because the levy isn’t permanent – I mean, what tax is permanent?

party_pants said:

I think he may have to give up the new PPL as a compromise or face a back room party revolt.

Yup, gonna be an interesting budget and seeing which kites fly.

The unknown is what Clive Palmer will do. Everyone is expecting he is bluffing and will eventually roll over and vote with the Coalition. But I’m not so sure, it seems the hatred between them runs deep now. He might not be bluffing, he might be uncompromising.

diddly-squat said:

party_pants said:

diddly-squat said:

- the LibNats were ruthless in their character assassination of both Rudd and Gillard when it came to honesty and keeping election promises, to now come out and suggest that this isn’t breaking an election promise is pure hiprocasy

Well yeah. If they could call the QLD flood levy a new tax, and a carbon price with an introductory fixed rate a tax, then it’s very hard not to call a debt levy a new tax.

IKR, but instead TA has come out today and said that it isn’t braking a promise because the levy isn’t permanent – I mean, what tax is permanent?

what’s IKR?

party_pants said:

diddly-squat said:

party_pants said:

Well yeah. If they could call the QLD flood levy a new tax, and a carbon price with an introductory fixed rate a tax, then it’s very hard not to call a debt levy a new tax.

IKR, but instead TA has come out today and said that it isn’t braking a promise because the levy isn’t permanent – I mean, what tax is permanent?

what’s IKR?

I know, right

party_pants said:

I think he may have to give up the new PPL as a compromise or face a back room party revolt.

I highly doubt that the LibNats would risk an ALP style party room with hunt…. I think you’ll find that even the dissidents will fall into line when push comes to shove… The key will be working with the PUP, which I’m not sure is even possible in any meaningful way.

party_pants said:

diddly-squat said:

party_pants said:

Well yeah. If they could call the QLD flood levy a new tax, and a carbon price with an introductory fixed rate a tax, then it’s very hard not to call a debt levy a new tax.

IKR, but instead TA has come out today and said that it isn’t braking a promise because the levy isn’t permanent – I mean, what tax is permanent?

what’s IKR?

I know right

dv said:

party_pants said:

diddly-squat said:

IKR, but instead TA has come out today and said that it isn’t braking a promise because the levy isn’t permanent – I mean, what tax is permanent?

what’s IKR?

I know, right

Thanks, I thought it was just one of those OCDC things, but then everyone started using it.

I can see the benefits of a PPL being a mandated workplace entitlement at a fixed rate of income but to extend it so far is a political nightmare that should have been avoided.

What I would love to see is less finger pointing and more bipartisan agreement on true tax reform… I mean FFS we just had the Henry Review, maybe we could even implement a few of its recommendations…

Skunkworks said:

I can see the benefits of a PPL being a mandated workplace entitlement at a fixed rate of income but to extend it so far is a political nightmare that should have been avoided.

We already have a very good scheme in place, it seems ludicrous to go out and gold plate it.

Skunkworks said:

I can see the benefits of a PPL being a mandated workplace entitlement at a fixed rate of income but to extend it so far is a political nightmare that should have been avoided.

The thing that still irks me about it is is the argument over whether it is an entitlement or welfare. To me, if it’s paid for and administered by the state it’s a form of welfare. Taxes are collected from the bigger companies through an extra company tax, then resdistributed so employers of smaller companies that can’t afford it get the same as employees of large companies. That’s just taxation and redistribution to me: in other words: welfare.

… now i’m really gone.

diddly-squat said:

Skunkworks said:

I can see the benefits of a PPL being a mandated workplace entitlement at a fixed rate of income but to extend it so far is a political nightmare that should have been avoided.

We already have a very good scheme in place, it seems ludicrous to go out and gold plate it.

Well, they did that to get the “what’s in it for me” vote.

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

I can see the benefits of a PPL being a mandated workplace entitlement at a fixed rate of income but to extend it so far is a political nightmare that should have been avoided.

The thing that still irks me about it is is the argument over whether it is an entitlement or welfare. To me, if it’s paid for and administered by the state it’s a form of welfare. Taxes are collected from the bigger companies through an extra company tax, then resdistributed so employers of smaller companies that can’t afford it get the same as employees of large companies. That’s just taxation and redistribution to me: in other words: welfare.

Or: vote-buying.

Michael V said:

diddly-squat said:

Skunkworks said:

I can see the benefits of a PPL being a mandated workplace entitlement at a fixed rate of income but to extend it so far is a political nightmare that should have been avoided.

We already have a very good scheme in place, it seems ludicrous to go out and gold plate it.

Well, they did that to get the “what’s in it for me” vote.

I’m not sure why they did that TBH, I think it was actually meant as an inducement to young professional woman that generally smart enough to realise that TA has said some pretty st00pid shit in the past.

It’s just like how they rolled out the three twenty something daughters during the election…

party_pants said:

Skunkworks said:

I can see the benefits of a PPL being a mandated workplace entitlement at a fixed rate of income but to extend it so far is a political nightmare that should have been avoided.

The thing that still irks me about it is is the argument over whether it is an entitlement or welfare. To me, if it’s paid for and administered by the state it’s a form of welfare. Taxes are collected from the bigger companies through an extra company tax, then resdistributed so employers of smaller companies that can’t afford it get the same as employees of large companies. That’s just taxation and redistribution to me: in other words: welfare.

… now i’m really gone.

What annoys me in terms of the Coalition, and in fact Labor’s as well, PPL is that the rates are calculated solely on the woman’s salary.

What if she has a husband earning $300k pa ? Why should they get the same PPL as a husband and wife earning $150 k pa between them ?

The assumption seems to be that once the conception happens, the male buggers off somewhere and leaves the woman a single mother. This may happen occasionally, but for the most part is totally unrealistic.

Let’s face it The World is Fukt’ -OK

Teleost said:

It’s not a tax. It’s a temporary levy.

If you call it a tax, that’d make Tony a liar………..

temporary = permanent

levy = tax

1 Tony Abbott is a mindless robot

2 Tony Abbott is not environmentally friendly

3 Tony Abbott is a liar, see point 1

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1h6aqm_tony-abbott-receives-some-tough-questions-from-14-year-old-students_fun

>>>From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 524517
Subject: re: Tony gives the gift of a new tax

Well it’s a shame that he can’t just come out and say that they need a new tax to replace the lost revenue from the Carbon Tax, and the Mining Tax

but at least they are now starting to take measures to restore government revenue to somewhere closer to where it needs to be, that’s the main thing.
<<<

besides the fact that both the mining tax & carbon tax still remain,

its truly wonderful Rev, seeing you here, admitting that, the carbon tax was only ever implemented as a revenue raiser
for general government expenditure.

I haven’t been following the current media on this upcoming budget….

…so I just wanted to make this comment.

I think the Labor Government did a rather poor job of running the Australian economy.
They pretty much rode on the back of the commodities boom and the subsequent realestate boom.
Which was inbetween top level in house staff management issues and problems associated with personal ego trips.

Aquila said:

I haven’t been following the current media on this upcoming budget….

…so I just wanted to make this comment.

I think the Labor Government did a rather poor job of running the Australian economy.
They pretty much rode on the back of the commodities boom and the subsequent realestate boom.
Which was inbetween top level in house staff management issues and problems associated with personal ego trips.

they were hopeless

Gillard was one the worst managers the place has seen – she was right all the time regardless of anything to the contrary. I’m working under another like it at the moment. the only saving grace is that its possible to vote them out as a government.

the labor government took the debt – the liberal gov creates more taxes because they don’t have enough brains to know how to spend the money they do have.

Aquila said:

I haven’t been following the current media on this upcoming budget….

…so I just wanted to make this comment.

I think the Labor Government did a rather poor job of running the Australian economy.
They pretty much rode on the back of the commodities boom and the subsequent realestate boom.
Which was inbetween top level in house staff management issues and problems associated with personal ego trips.

It’s not quite that simple. The current problem is that we aren’t raising as much tax revenue as we did before the GFC. During the naughties booming company tax revenue was used to pay for income tax cuts that were with hindsight unsustainable. The ALP’s two biggest reforms, the Gonski education reforms and disabilitycare would be paid for if tax revenue was as it used to be.

And with regards general ALP management of the economy, the Rudd government listened to the experts in treasury and was thus able to limit the damage the GFC could have caused the economy which everyone agrees saved us from recession.

In an unexpected move, the commission also recommended that states be allowed to levy a portion of income tax.

Initially, the Federal Government would cut income taxes by an equivalent amount to the tax being raised by the states, but the states would then be free to lower or raise taxes in a bid to make them compete against each other to attract residents and investment.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-01/hold-implications-for-business-of-commission-of-audit-report/5423572?section=business

so all you would need to do is simply pack up house and move to avoid extra income tax ie move from the highest taxing state to the lowest paying state to lower your tax bill. well you could indeed move there but be elsewhere I suppose. we could see a drift of millions of people every time the state governments take it into their heads to raise taxes – nice one. as people leave a state then the taxes in that state would need to rise to meet the shortfall until most peoples wages are actually just tax.

it might just be easier to simply put all your money elsewhere in a much lower taxing bank account in another country – legally . theres nothing illegal with doing this as long as its declared I believe.

what we have here with the liberal government is going back to the 1970s where the labor government was taxing so much people started leaving the country and moving their money out. the liberal government is really just taxing the majority of people on a modest income, it won’t affect anyone on anything decent because they’ll just shift the money out the country.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/17/rupert-murdoch-receives-882m-tax-rebate

Rupert Murdoch’s empire receives $882m tax rebate from Australia

Payment revealed by News Corp in US likely to reignite debate over how much tax is paid by international corporations

Britain’s ‘invisible’ stealth fighter that has cost the taxpayer £1.3billion and can’t hide from enemy radar
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter can be spotted by Russian and Chinese radars
Ministry of Defence plans to buy 48 at a cost of £100million each
Experts say there has been a development in radar technology

Jets will fly from new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier in 2018

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619606/Britains-1-3bn-invisible-stealth-fighter-hide-enemy-radar.html#ixzz30kMUnFFz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook