Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[redandblack]

To debate the issue, yes, I definitely think people on lower incomes should get more compensationthan someone on more than $150K,

Yes, that's a mild form of wealth redistribution.

If you're against wealth redistribution, why don't you post more against the vast bulk of wealth redistribution to the wealthy, such as superannuation law, obscene executive salaries, etc, etc?

The facts of wealth redistribution is that it is undeniably going from the poor to the rich.

Fact.

[Jimmy_041]

I definitely think people on lower incomes should get more compensation than someone on more than $150K - why?

My point is that I see this tax only as blatant wealth redistribution and it clouds the issue.

You want people earning over $150k to pay more tax? Increase the tax rate for them
You want people earning less than $150k to not pay less tax? Cut the tax rate for them

You want everyone to get on the same page? Cut the political crap out of it

[Bat Pad]

To debate the issue, yes, I definitely think people on lower incomes should get more compensationthan someone on more than $150K,

Yes, that's a mild form of wealth redistribution.

If you're against wealth redistribution, why don't you post more against the vast bulk of wealth redistribution to the wealthy, such as superannuation law, obscene executive salaries, etc, etc?

The facts of wealth redistribution is that it is undeniably going from the poor to the rich.

Fact.

So simply paying people for their work is now wealth distribution?

[redandblack]

Batpad, I'm talking about the provisions of the Taxation Act that allowed people to claim deductions and/or get low tax income relating to superannuation contributions of $100,000 a year or more.

I don't know many low income earners who can afford that.

I could also refer to many other similar sections of superannuation taxation law.

As for inflated executive salaries, I have no problem with executives being paid fairly for their work if they do a good job. I do have a problem with obscenely inflated bonuses and salary increases when they don't.

It is taking money from shareholders. For example, Rupert Murdoch got a salary of about $38 million last year and his company performed shockingly.

Qantas haven't paid a dividend for years. The shareholders vote an increase because they're dominated by the large institutional funds, who just look after each other.

[Bat Pad]

Batpad, I'm talking about the provisions of the Taxation Act that allowed people to claim deductions and/or get low tax income relating to superannuation contributions of $100,000 a year or more.

I don't know many low income earners who can afford that.

I could also refer to many other similar sections of superannuation taxation law.

As for inflated executive salaries, I have no problem with executives being paid fairly for their work if they do a good job. I do have a problem with obscenely inflated bonuses and salary increases when they don't.

It is taking money from shareholders. For example, Rupert Murdoch got a salary of about $38 million last year and his company performed shockingly.

Qantas haven't paid a dividend for years. The shareholders vote an increase because they're dominated by the large institutional funds, who just look after each other.

But how is that re-distributing wealth from low income earners in any of the examples you mentioned? How is that taking money out of the pockets of low income earners?

Shareholders aren't obligated to be shareholders, to claim over paying executives is wealth distribution is utterly ludicrous. By your logic, under paying executives is also wealth distribution as all salaries in the company comes out of a pool that could be given to shareholders.

[redandblack]

Well, with superannuation, it takes money from all taxpayers and gives it to the wealthy claiming large super deductions.

With salaries, the large salary goes the (already) wealthy, it reduces profits by that amount, it reduces dividends by that amount and it consequently reduces the amount available for superannuation returns to lower income workers, not counting the difference the amount (multiplied by thousands of companies) would make if it was circulating in the general economy.

If it's not wealth redistribution, then the carbon tax is hardly wealth redistribution.

With the carbon tax, companies will pass on the costs, most people will be minimally better off or at least level and higher earners will be slightly worse off. The differences are minimal, but such things are part of the established economy over history, so I'd suggest picking one thing to blame as wealth redistribution and ignoring other larger redistributions is only looking at part of the story.

I suppose the answer to whether wealth is being redistributed is to look at the share of the nation's income and wealth and see what the official figures say.

They say that the richest people are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Not surprising, but them paying a few dollars more than the poor with the carbon tax doesn't upset me much.

I'm sure they'll find other ways to finish in front.

[Jimmy_041]

Batpad, I'm talking about the provisions of the Taxation Act that allowed people to claim deductions and/or get low tax income relating to superannuation contributions of $100,000 a year or more.

I don't know many low income earners who can afford that.

I could also refer to many other similar sections of superannuation taxation law.

As for inflated executive salaries, I have no problem with executives being paid fairly for their work if they do a good job. I do have a problem with obscenely inflated bonuses and salary increases when they don't.

It is taking money from shareholders. For example, Rupert Murdoch got a salary of about $38 million last year and his company performed shockingly.

Qantas haven't paid a dividend for years. The shareholders vote an increase because they're dominated by the large institutional funds, who just look after each other.

The last time some smart bloke brought in a super tax for higher earners, he achieved nothing but employ more public servants.
He taxed super on the way in, whilst it was in there, and on the way out. He then told everyone Australia's savings were not high enough. He achieved nothing.

[Jimmy_041]

It's simple really.

Stop calling it a carbon tax & call it a Robin Hood tax instead.

At least she can be truthful for a change

[redandblack]

Well, it's a first step towards a Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme, supported by all parties at the 2007 election.

I really think the difficulties of minority government are being overlooked in all this.

As for lying, I'd say she didn't lie. Amongst other things she said there would be no carbon tax under the government I lead.

I keep reading from right-wing posters that Bob Brown is the real PM, so I suppose you're saying Julia doesn't lead the governemnt.

QED: she didn't lie

[Bat Pad]

Well, with superannuation, it takes money from all taxpayers and gives it to the wealthy claiming large super deductions.

With salaries, the large salary goes the (already) wealthy, it reduces profits by that amount, it reduces dividends by that amount and it consequently reduces the amount available for superannuation returns to lower income workers, not counting the difference the amount (multiplied by thousands of companies) would make if it was circulating in the general economy.

If it's not wealth redistribution, then the carbon tax is hardly wealth redistribution.

With the carbon tax, companies will pass on the costs, most people will be minimally better off or at least level and higher earners will be slightly worse off. The differences are minimal, but such things are part of the established economy over history, so I'd suggest picking one thing to blame as wealth redistribution and ignoring other larger redistributions is only looking at part of the story.

I suppose the answer to whether wealth is being redistributed is to look at the share of the nation's income and wealth and see what the official figures say.

They say that the richest people are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Not surprising, but them paying a few dollars more than the poor with the carbon tax doesn't upset me much.

I'm sure they'll find other ways to finish in front.

The only way the superannuation laws could be classed as wealth distribution is if there was a corresponding increase in tax on low income earners to finance the decrease in tax for the people who made the payment. There wasn't.

Once again, by your logic any salary in a company is classed as wealth distribution, as it would have been made available to the shareholders, even a cleaner on minimum wage. How much that salary amounts to is completely irrelevant to your argument.

In the case of the Carbon Tax, isn't the compensation to low imcome earners provided for directly from dividends from the tax, which due to that compensation will only be worn by high income earners? Therefore, a decrease in finance for one section of the population to pay directly for and increase in finance for another (as, according to you some families will actually be better off under the tax). Surely you can see how that is Apples and Oranges compared to examples you brought up.

And how can you now claim that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, after creating a thread about how well this government is doing? Which is it, are the low income earners better or worse off now than they were? Does the government have any accountability for that, remembering they have been in government for over 4 years now.

[redandblack]

BP, with respect, your first two paragraphs aren't logical, IMO. Let's just agree to differ about wealth redistribution.

As for para (3), again you are cherry-picking. There are a huge number of economic factors which relate to levels of incomes for all people. I'll give you more detail as soon as I can.

I'm not 'claiming' the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. It's a fact. It's happening worldwide, hence the Occupy Wall Street type protests. Unless you're one of the richer people, I can only guess why you would support them getting a greater share of the world's wealth and income. In the US, executive salaries are now hundreds of times higher than average wages. That is a disgrace, why would anyone support that state of affairs?

As for the Government, the economy is doing remarkably well and both low and high wage earners are better off than they were. It was reported today that Australians are now the richest people in the world, while the rest of the world struggles. As you say, Labor have been in for 4 years now, so they can take credit for that.

I'll just be happy that interest rates were cut yesterday.

Good debate though, BP.

[Bat Pad]

I will let others decide whether or not my first two paragraphs are logical.

Cherry Picking? This discussion was regarding the Carbon Tax and wealth distribution, so that is what I discussed. The discussion had nothing to do with why some people earn more than others. Honestly, a ridiculous comment in the context of this discussion.

What does America, or anywhere other than Australia have to do with anything I wrote? I was clearly refering to Australia, which you go on to point out the poor aren't getting poorer, so that paragraph is once again completely irrelevant to the discussion.

On a personal note I don't spend too much time worrying about how much other people earn, provided they aren't taking their earnings out of my pocket without providing me a service of equal value. You are yet to provide an arguement with any validity to show that this occurs through the superannuation laws and executive salaries we discussed(although it certainly occurs when Governments of any stripe waste my taxes). Andrew Forrest for example was paying I believe around $70 Million in tax a year, which I am guessing is a few hundred thousand times more than any of us on this forum pay. So instead of feeling entitled to know how much he earns and wanting a larger slice of it perhaps you could just say thank you and move on, it will probably give you a lot less worry in your life.

[redandblack]

I don't think Andrew Forrest's company, Fortescue, has paid any income tax in recent years.

I don't spend any time worrying about what others earn, only to debate why some are happy to defend the high earners, while berating the lower earners.

As for the superannuation laws, giving massive tax deductions for wealthy taxpayers to put away millions is a far greater wealth redistribution than the carbon tax will ever be. I am well aware of the superannuation tax laws.

BP, I'm happy to debate the issue, as we both are, but is it really necessary to get personal about it? I don't take any notice of the mindless personal abuse thrown at me by one or two on here, but I respect your views and your last sentence presumes that you know how I feel and is wrong.

[Bat Pad]

I don't think Andrew Forrest's company, Fortescue, has paid any income tax in recent years. You specifically mentioned executive salaries, I was responding to that, so that is irrelevant.

I don't spend any time worrying about what others earn, only to debate why some are happy to defend the high earners, while berating the lower earners. Why is earning a high income indefensible? I assume you are not refering to me regarding the low income earners, I have done no such thing.

As for the superannuation laws, giving massive tax deductions for wealthy taxpayers to put away millions is a far greater wealth redistribution than the carbon tax will ever be. I am well aware of the superannuation tax laws. It is simply not wealth distribution unless you are taking it from someone else. A tax deduction is not wealth distribution unless to balance the reduction in takings another group is taxed higher to make up the reduction. This has not/does not occur, in fact low income taxes have decreased

BP, I'm happy to debate the issue, as we both are, but is it really necessary to get personal about it? I don't take any notice of the mindless personal abuse thrown at me by one or two on here, but I respect your views and your last sentence presumes that you know how I feel and is wrong.

Personal? Where? I only commented on what was written, not the author. I apologise for being presumptuous regarding the last sentence.

[redandblack]

BP, no problem, I was only referring to the last sentence about being personal, as you've acknowledged, nothing else.

I also have no problem with your arguments, we just disagree.

The only thing I'll say is that there is one pool of money available to taxpayers. If you take more of that pool to give massive suoerannuation tax deductions, the pool is then smaller and there is less to share.

[once_were_warriors]

The rich are getting richer, the poor get the picture, the bombs never hit ya when you're down so low.

They should sort out savings accounts as well.
I own a share for more than a year , I get a 50% discount on capital gains well I sell.
I own a investment property, i get a 50% discount on capital gains if I sell it after a year.
I have 10K in a savings account and make $450 in interest for the year yet I pay full tote odds in tax.

Majority of Australians have any spare cash in a savings account and get flogged for it.

I would like the government to change this irregularity.

[Bat Pad]

That pool of money isn't available to taxpayers in the pure sense. It is available to the parliament to do with as they see fit.

Actually paying public servants instead of using them as slave labour also takes money out of the public pool, do you consider that Wealth Distribution?

With the Carbon Tax the revenue is placed into a pool, provided for by companies, and a portion of that pool is set aside specifically to be given to low income earners (in this case as compensation) which in turn will leave some of them with more money than they would have had.

The difference between paying a public servant, and what occurs with the carbon tax is that the public service are receiving funds for providing a service. With the Carbon tax the low income earners are receiving funds without providing a service.

This is the difference between Wage Labour and Wealth Distribution.

I'm not saying all Wealth Distribution is a bad thing either, the dole for example as a general rule is nescessary.

The argument some people are making on this forum is that the Carbon Tax is being used for the sole purpose of Wealth Distribution, and not to cause a reduction in CO2 emissions (not an argument I necessarily agree with). Had the compensation been based on how much you emit as opposed to how much you earn this argument would be less easy to make.

So back to The Superannuation, the service provided is contributing to your own Superannuation and ensuring you are less likely to require public funding once you retire (you may feel this is hardly justification for the tax deduction, but that does not change what the policy is).

Had the compensation been based on emmissions as opposed to annual income, the service provided would have been reducing emmissions for your increase in revenue.

[redandblack]

I agree with some of that, BP.

I disagree with some, but I think I'll leave it there and agree to disagree on those points.

[Jimmy_041]

That pool of money isn't available to taxpayers in the pure sense. It is available to the parliament to do with as they see fit.

Actually paying public servants instead of using them as slave labour also takes money out of the public pool, do you consider that Wealth Distribution?

With the Carbon Tax the revenue is placed into a pool, provided for by companies, and a portion of that pool is set aside specifically to be given to low income earners (in this case as compensation) which in turn will leave some of them with more money than they would have had.

The difference between paying a public servant, and what occurs with the carbon tax is that the public service are receiving funds for providing a service. With the Carbon tax the low income earners are receiving funds without providing a service.

This is the difference between Wage Labour and Wealth Distribution.

I'm not saying all Wealth Distribution is a bad thing either, the dole for example as a general rule is nescessary.

The argument some people are making on this forum is that the Carbon Tax is being used for the sole purpose of Wealth Distribution, and not to cause a reduction in CO2 emissions (not an argument I necessarily agree with). Had the compensation been based on how much you emit as opposed to how much you earn this argument would be less easy to make.

So back to The Superannuation, the service provided is contributing to your own Superannuation and ensuring you are less likely to require public funding once you retire (you may feel this is hardly justification for the tax deduction, but that does not change what the policy is).

Had the compensation been based on emmissions as opposed to annual income, the service provided would have been reducing emmissions for your increase in revenue.

Not the sole, nor the main, purpose, but it certainly reeks of political ideology.
This government wanted a bipartisan approach & then politicised it.
Totally agree with your last statement BP
But, OK, give us the extra money - we can go out & get that second car, plasma or fridge with it

[Jimmy_041]

I don't think Andrew Forrest's company, Fortescue, has paid any income tax in recent years.

I don't spend any time worrying about what others earn, only to debate why some are happy to defend the high earners, while berating the lower earners.

As for the superannuation laws, giving massive tax deductions for wealthy taxpayers to put away millions is a far greater wealth redistribution than the carbon tax will ever be. I am well aware of the superannuation tax laws.

BP, I'm happy to debate the issue, as we both are, but is it really necessary to get personal about it? I don't take any notice of the mindless personal abuse thrown at me by one or two on here, but I respect your views and your last sentence presumes that you know how I feel and is wrong.

USD312m