Attacks on tax lack facts

Steve says:

06:33am | 09/08/11

You’re trolling starts early everyday doesn’t it Erick? Unfortunately you are exactly the same as the people you despise - you can’t bare to listen to any other point but you’re own. Like the “Morally Superior Lefties” you love to hate, you believe that you’re intellectually superior, everything you say is right, there is no alternative point of view.

You do not have to comment on every article you know right? And you realise the world isn’t all black and white, and that you truly are one of the few people who view everything through this left and right prism don’t you?

Gregg says:

07:01am | 09/08/11

Erick, your posts seem to be getting just more and more embittered to the extent that if it’s not a gender aspect you have issue with, you just have this right/left mentality that sets the scene for abandoning any constructive discussion.

Just as an experiment, why do you not leave it until later in the mornings that you post and that could do major things:
1. It could make you feel one whole of a lot better having an extra 30 minutes or so shut eye.
2. And No point 2. is not that it will give the likes of Nossywhoever, Acca or the burrowing one pole position for the day but we might just get some better comments with minimum bile bias.

Now be a good fella and just give it a try for a few weeks or haven’t you got a holiday planned to some communication free remote location that taxes haven’t affected.

Ed says:

07:27am | 09/08/11

Seems Erick hit a few nerves early today… funny stuff. Don’t always agree with you, but got a chuckle out of this one…

On topic, it is usually us individuals in the highest tax bracket that complain the most about taxes… not for the actual paying of them… but because as successful people it is hard to watch your hard earned money being wasted by governments (of both left and right) with such little regard.

Especially as you know you could do a better job if you just took that pay cut and entered into politics.

Richo says:

08:21am | 09/08/11

Kearney wont pay more tax herself, just sucking up to get parachuted into a safe seat due to her union members losing jobs due to this mad gouging from Gillard, Brown and Oakshott. They never have had a proper job, why start now, Kearney et al.

Jane2 says:

08:49am | 09/08/11

Your right Erick, nothing is stopping me from paying more tax than I have to so I do, but if Im one of the highly paid lefties then Australia better look out because my Salary is right smack on the median. (although I think that is higly paid after years in retail!)

Its a state of mind, you can think you are paying too much while collecting benefits you dont need (because you are entitled to it) or you can pay extra so your parents can get the pension.

I went to public school prep to Yr 12, I had subsidised university (anyone who doesnt think HESC/HELP is subsidised should ask the full fee paying students what they are paying for the same education). I had my tonsils out in a public hospital. I get subsidised medical visits through Medicare.

I am only 40 but by my estimates I have recieved well over $300,000 of taxpayer funded benefits to date, I pay rough $20,000 in tax per year and use another $1,000+ per year of sevices (in good health otherwise that figure would be a lot higher). I think I am now at the break even point for what I have recieved in my youth but I am now paying my dues for my old age.

You want the services of society, you have to pay taxes and paying above what is required helps out you more than hurts you.

nihonin says:

08:51am | 09/08/11

I like this comment: ‘We’ve seen, with the Resources Super Profits Tax, how a few huge multinational companies were able to exert undue influence through misleading advertising campaigns.’

All you have to do is replace ‘huge multinational companies’ with unions and you pretty much have the same concerning anti Workchoices advertising.

Michael says:

09:19am | 09/08/11

So Gregg are you suggesting that Nossy, Badger and Acotrel are all under the mind control of Erick and are forced to post the things they do because Erick’s powers are too much for them to show any self control or independent thought at all?

You are indeed a mighty man Erick

Trevor says:

09:21am | 09/08/11

Why don’t you start up a Tea Party in Australia then Erick? You can play brinksmanship with defaulting on our debts, lose our credit rating and basically stuff the entire economy and the country’s future for some cheap political shots! Poor littel diddums has lived through the most prosperous time in human history and doesn’t want to contribute for his kids future.

ZSRenn says:

09:50am | 09/08/11

@ Richo: Safe Labor seat? I love an oxymoron in the morning. Cheers!
@ Steve and Gregg: I think she doth protest too much.
@ Jane2 I don’t know how who live with yourself after such a spend. I am 52 and would not have used 1/6 of this amount. You should defiantly ease your conscience by paying more tax. Thanks for coming out in favor of Erick’s idea.
@ Ged I don’t mind paying taxes, but what I don’t like, is my tax payer money being wasted on bureaucracy, and then needing to be taxed more, because of it.

Gregg says:

09:59am | 09/08/11

@Michael
” So Gregg are you suggesting that Nossy, Badger and Acotrel are all under the mind control of Erick and are forced to post the things they do because Erick’s powers are too much for them to show any self control or independent thought at all? “

No mind control at all Mickey but as much as Erick has extreme bias at times, so do the three musketeers if not more often and dueling ad nauseum does not always give best results as far as good constructive views being aired.
No harm in us having a paradigm and group hugs either.

Bob Real says:

10:00am | 09/08/11

Trevor, - You contribute to your children’s future by building wealth for them not by paying tax for the government (left or right, right or left) to waste. The problems with tax as it stands are a) It goes into a giant slush fund called consolidated revenue for the govt to waste on whatever they find necessary to cling to power. b) If the government wastes it all and wants more they don’t have to seek the people’s approval they can just go and raise more. c) the burden is unfairly distributed with a small number of high performing individuals paying for everyone else.

Erick says:

10:08am | 09/08/11

Straw man alert! Nowhere did I suggest that we should pay no taxes at all, or less than our fair share.

I’m just pointing out that those who want to raise taxes have a fine opportunity to lead by example. That’s if they’re sincere.

Jane says:

10:11am | 09/08/11

ZSRenn

I agree with Jane2 though would say that most 22 year olds have already cost that much already if not more. Few Australian pay their way although they think they pay too much. Jane2 may not have inlcuded GST, Tobacco tax, liquor tax, stamp duties ect but then those taxes are voluntary.

Tom says:

10:27am | 09/08/11

Steve, thanks for unveiling the latest dishonest tactic of the left. Your lot now label anyone who disagrees with you as a troll, however factual or well argued their points may be. No lie is to great when it is done in the name of socialism. You people are genuine freaks.

Erick out-debates you every time and your weak mantra driven idiot bloggers are looking very naked up there.

As for Ged, that great protector of Aussie workers, “She’s got a ticket to ride and she don’t care”

Steve says:

10:51am | 09/08/11

Tom.

After I say not everyone views the world through a left or right prism like some, you proceed to call me a lefty. And apparently a Socialist - I must say that is quite a compelling argument, I and everyone should take lessons on how to structure a logical argument from yourself (i.e. label people left or right wing, Socialist or Facist)

You missed the whole point. You failed champ. Well done!

ZSRenn says:

11:35am | 09/08/11

@ Seano. Why do you disguise yourself with a new name everyday? I guess “Champ” it is for two reasons
1. You never win an argument and need to hide your embarrassment.
2. You want to look like many commentators, so readers believe more than one idiot thinks the way you do.

Tom says:

11:49am | 09/08/11

Steve, I will stand corrected, but I cannot recall you ever attacking persephone, acetrol, seano, bobw with the same sort of condescending amateur psycho-crap you reserved for Erick. I naturally assumed you were from the left.

But hey, keep up your stupid ad hominems, Steve and leave the debating to the adults. They are a source of irritation which is all you seem to have.

Tom says:

01:13pm | 09/08/11

ZSRenn, good call? I should have picked out his “Champ”. Sshh ..., ATM might hear you.

AdamC says:

01:27pm | 09/08/11

Sometimes Erick just nails it. You can tell when he does because the first few replies are from hilarious dummy-spitters who clearly haven’t had time to come up with a counter-argument before venting. Steve and Gregg were worth the price of admission. Bravo, Erick!

Tim says:

01:44pm | 09/08/11

Adam C,
I think this is one of Erick’s worst efforts.
Sure it was funny but when you boil it down there wasn’t really a serious point.
I agree with Ged that our tax system could be much simpler, I just think that we’d disagree on the way of doing it.
Erick’s point that those who argue for higher taxes should go first is less than useless in a serious debate about tax reform.

Mankind says:

04:32pm | 09/08/11

@ZSRenn

Or

3) You’ve made a huge assumption and are wrong. As with most right wing trolls you ranting on about particular people and get personal rather attack the point.

So on that basis how is it that you’ve ever beaten anyone in an argument…..champ?

BTW….the point made by Steve is perfectly valid and clear to anyone with half a brain. Erick as usual has misrepresented the left side of the debate to gain attention, trolling. And before you start if you want to play the game that way, how is it that Abbott’s cheques to business are going to funded? Hmmm….perhaps we need a Highly Paid Righties for Higher Taxes party incase Abbott is elected.

jf says:

04:59pm | 09/08/11

Jane2 says:08:49am | 09/08/11

“I went to public school prep to Yr 12, I had subsidised university (anyone who doesnt think HESC/HELP is subsidised should ask the full fee paying students what they are paying for the same education). I had my tonsils out in a public hospital. I get subsidised medical visits through Medicare.

I am only 40 but by my estimates I have recieved well over $300,000 of taxpayer funded benefits to date, I pay rough $20,000 in tax per year and use another $1,000+ per year of sevices (in good health otherwise that figure would be a lot higher). I think I am now at the break even point for what I have recieved in my youth but I am now paying my dues for my old age.”

Rather than being an argument justifying higher tax it should be used as an example as to why tax rates should be lowered.

Wouldn’t it be better if all that money was left in your own hand rather than taken from you, seived through the public service and then used to pay for services that you could have paid for yourself had the money not been taken from you in the first place.

Tax should be to provide public services that can not be provided efficiently by the private sector and as a safety net for the genuinely less fortunate.

Erick is right says:

06:07pm | 09/08/11

Ged isn’t talking about the common good. Ged is talking about stealing money from a group of people richer than herself. If she was as selfless as she shamefully pretends, she’d give all her spare cash to the government and have a family of hobos living in bunk beds in her house.

Instead, she’s got locks on her doors, home contents insurance and a no-doubt healthy bank balance. Altruistic, she is NOT.

Phil says:

07:01pm | 09/08/11

Erick You have nailed it once again.

Ged fails to see that the only incentive I needed when I finished year 10 was to get a job. Yes many class mates being dole bludgers cleared more than I did, but I studied, paid my taxes and dues and now clear well over 100k per year. Its called hard work. You cannot get ahead without it.

Most low and middle income earners effectively pay no taxes or get a net taxation benefit for the services they receive. That is ok some years but cannot always go on this way. Without the high achievers that the author hates and the big companies making profits most of the services would not be available or the tax paid by others below would be greater.

As Kerry Packer famously quoted, why wouldnt I legally minimise my taxes you lot (the government “labor at the time”) do such a shithouse job of spending it.

I note from the authors previous pieces of tax, its always lets pay more taxes except for my members, cause hey they have sworn to be underachievers in life and only get below the minimum wage.

If the government wanted credibility on the carbon tax they would have a much smaller amount per ton say $ 5 and user pays no compensation for anyone. But no its wealth redistribution dressed up in drag as climate action.

LC says:

08:03pm | 09/08/11

@Steve,

A troll is someone who goes about posting in a manner likely to get a rise from others.

Remember Sarah Bath? What she posted is more akin to trolling.
http://www.google.com.au/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=site:thepunch.com.au+Sarah+Bath&btnG=Search

Has he put forth an unachievable and impractical idea that’ll never be implemented? Yes. Lots of people would have put forth ideas which fit this description in ThePunch’s history. But it doesn’t mean he, or any other person who does or has done so, is a troll.

Mankind says:

10:06pm | 09/08/11

He’s done it to get a rise out of “lefties” by misrepresenting their position in a apparently “comical” if you’ve had the full lobotomy way. There’s no sensible point in there. Therefore he’s a troll.

Jane says:

08:15am | 09/08/11

I do get angry at times with people screeching at how their taxes are paying for this and that when you can see they probably are still net takers. Before we even start paying tax as adults we have cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands then before we even start whittling that down we are after FHBG, Baby bonuses, family assistance, negative gearing then in retirement often for 30 years they contribute nothing. I wonder sometimes how many of us actually pay more than we take. No wonder we need immigrants, mother of all ponzi schemes.

JohnB says:

08:56am | 09/08/11

“mother of all ponzi schemes. “

If only the collective voters could understand this concept…we wouldn’t be heading to certain disaster…

Tubesteak says:

09:01am | 09/08/11

Super D
You are right. Most of the lower and middle class are net takers. 50% of the tax revenue comes from the top 10% of income earners (this would mainly be companies and super funds).

Our tax system needs a complete overhaul and simplification (and this comes from someone who works in tax!).

We need a system where there is a flat PAYG tax rate with a high tax-free threshold and a higher GST with a broader base. This would be the fairest system as all people would have the same tax burden. There would be no favouring of one over another.

All middle-class welfare should be abolished.

As for negative gearing, Ged did get it somewhat right. Negative gearing should only be allowed up to the amount of income earned on a passive investment.

Broullet says:

01:30pm | 09/08/11

@Tubesteak - very sensible. I agree. A system that treats everyone the same. Very fair.

Phil says:

07:13pm | 09/08/11

Jane

You need to consider that whilst my children are in private education now and yes various forms of government subsidise the school, my taxes of over 100K per annum pay for this, their medical treatment and other benefits. When I was young my parents would have paid more in taxes than they got back and that includes 4 heart ops for my old man.

In any particular year its ok to be a net recipient of taxes, but not every year. Yes we need a safety net, but we also need to kick many not all up the arse and get them working better, more efficiently thus earning more and paying more in taxes.

The authors dumb statement about disincentive, I thought feeding the family paying the rent or mortgage or getting ahead was an incentive.

Nilbog says:

07:30am | 09/08/11

Cue the freak out from the usual lefty commentors in 3… 2… 1…

Tax guy says:

09:06am | 09/08/11

You’d rather a government of sweetness and light that introduced the biggest tax in Australia’s history and then sat on it to the tune of 20 billion?
20 billion surplus means 20 billion of your taxes they have taken and kept and not spent on infrastructure, schools, defence, communications, elderly care…
Taxes are not ‘profit’ or ‘income’ - they’re not dividends, they cant be repaid via share distributions (as much as the previous government tried).
Taxes are for…. SPENDING. It’s the only reason they are raised and the only purpose to which they should be put.

This is not a left-right, liberal-labor point either… taxes should not exist unless they are accompanied by corresponding expenditure on public - PUBLIC - operations and assets.

Tom says:

11:18am | 09/08/11

No Tax Guy, “Taxes are for…. SPENDING.”? Not if you don’t raise them in the first place. ATM would rather the tax not be raised. So would we all.

But I suspect you already knew that and were trying a bit of smart-arsery to take it down a different path.

Tubesteak says:

11:30am | 09/08/11

Tax guy
Brilliantly said.

A govt with a surplus merely means they’ve taken our money and done nothing with it. A govt with a deficit merely means they are giving more back than they are taking.

The first case means we have nothing to show for our labours. The second case means there may be some issues regarding paying for the spending. As long as it is brought down to zero over the budget cycle then we are fine. Costello said this.

Tom says:

12:00pm | 09/08/11

Tubesteak “A govt with a deficit merely means they are giving more back than they are taking.”

Whoopee mate, let’s all live in Greece. They are such a giving government. They gave financial ruin to their country. I mean Tube, how giving can you get?

Sorry Tube, yours was the most vaccuous blog I have ever read on this site.

Jane says:

12:29pm | 09/08/11

Tom.
Tax guy is correct. A surplus means we have been over taxed or the money is not being spent on where it shoud be. During the later years of Liberal the states were under funded while Federal sat on surplus and was giving money away to middle class for houses and babies,. So education and health became run down leading to the problems we have now such as too many unskilled workers.

Greece has a massive tax evasion culture. Not over taxed at all if companies and the rich actually paid the taxes they should. So the greek worker is subsiding the rich and now the rest of the EU will be paying as well. The same what we are doing, propping up US business via our stock market losses ,they evade tax meaning US cannot repay debt. We all pay for corporate greed.

Tom says:

01:04pm | 09/08/11

Jane, of all the ALP tripe I have ever heard, yours is the most disingenuous. You sound like the old bloke in the car telling his grandson that the Great Wall of China was built by the Emperor Nasi Goreng to keep the rabbits out of China.

It is hard to know where to begin but Commonwealth funding for “education and health” increased during the Liberals time in government.

No Jane, your ALP rewritten version of history is Orwellian gibberish. Your mantra might go down well at the Newtown caucus meetings, but it falls way short in the real world. PS: Australians don’t want your stupid tax.

Mickey T says:

01:36pm | 09/08/11

@ Tax guy / Tubesteak / Jane - Well said, pretty basic…for most, obviously too hard for some to understand?

@ Tom - “yours was the most vaccuous blog I have ever read on this site” - vaccuous?? - Glass / stones / break Etc.

Tom says:

01:54pm | 09/08/11

Nilbog, wrong there were 4. Tax guy / Tubesteak / Jane and Mickey T. Its only taxpayers money. Ya know, the rich people’s money. Hey, spend it like water.

Don’t mention wastefulness in spending. It pushes the buttons of the left.
Don’t mention overspending a budget. It pushes the buttons of the left.

@MickeyT, if you agree with a statement like “A govt with a deficit merely means they are giving more back than they are taking.” ... I suggest you do some remedial economics for dummies.

Tubesteak says:

04:29pm | 09/08/11

Tom
If you had a clue about budget cycles, deficits, surpluses, expansionary fiscal policy, contractionary fiscal policy then you would be highly embarrassed by your comment.

Unfortunately, you seem to be living proof of “ignorance is bliss”.

I suggest you get a clue or STFU.

Disraeli says:

09:06am | 09/08/11

Check the by-line potted bio. Linked at the top left, every Punch piece
http://www.thepunch.com.au/author-bios/ged-kearney-/

Hers is one of the falling proportion on The Punch that are actually informative.

Always worth checking, for what they say. Or don’t say.

Nilbog says:

10:04am | 09/08/11

I don’t want to click on the link… just tell me… and do it NOW!!

Just kidding, I took a gander, not much there of note to be honest…

Expat Ozzie says:

09:21am | 09/08/11

Dash: “Ask the top 10percent of taxpayers who pay over 50percent of the PAYG tax revenue to have a proportional say at the table!”

You must struggle allot with the concept of democracy and equality there Dash.

fml says:

10:16am | 09/08/11

On the issue of immigration, everyone says the government has to do what the majority want, why not on taxes too?

Glen M says:

11:12am | 09/08/11

@ Ex Pat Ozzie ,  If you want to argue democracy and equality then you must be in favor of a flat tax rate for all or a consumption tax. With the GST off the table and the review full of labor ministers and union representatives a fair and democratic outcome from this sham is not a possibility.
For Ged to state that all sections of the community have been invited is simply distorting the truth.

Expate Ozzie says:

11:36am | 09/08/11

Glen M: I think you have missed my point. Dash seems to think that the top 10% should have 50% of the say on this issue. All areas of society should have the same weight in this regardless of how much you like them or not. I’m no fan of Unions I’ve never been a member of one but neither am I fan of distorted logic.

As for the GST I think it should be on the table since we have it. It should be included in the mix but I’m not a fan of a flat tax it’s a black and white solution to a grey world.

Jim says:

11:53am | 09/08/11

OK Expat Ozzie - let’s put it another way. How about we take the top 10% OUT of an area and see what unfolds?

It will happen in the Hunter Valley next year.

Hope you like tumbleweeds…

Glen M says:

01:07pm | 09/08/11

I think the issue is that the article claims that this tax review will be a fair and equitable discussion with all members of the community represented. The writer claims that mining represenatives had more power and influence than they should have in the mining tax debate. Making claims that this tax summit will have representives from all members of the community is simply not true , it is a distortion of the facts. This is no different to the supposed inter-government panel on climate change. This is simple window dressing and to claim it as a serious tax summit is laughable. 
Considering this is a “TAX” summit I have no problem with those who actually pay the most in tax being fairly represented at the table.

Babe in the Woods says:

12:43pm | 09/08/11

Absolutely agree with you Cry in my Gin.  I pay a hell of a lot of tax as I work pretty damn hard.  Then I see it handled worse than a sailor on the town does whilst the bludgers sit on their backsides and ask for more.

VVS says:

11:27am | 09/08/11

Game. Set. Match - Gregg. Better luck next time, Ged.

Mickey T says:

07:01pm | 09/08/11

Do you have decent working conditions Sarah?

Babe in the Woods says:

12:54pm | 09/08/11

@JohnB, you run for a seat and you have my vote!

Andrew says:

01:25pm | 09/08/11

Maybe we should pay them to the same level that would get in the corporate world, and then we can hold them to higher account.

JohnB says:

01:35pm | 09/08/11

@Andrew…Absolutely…Pay them 3 times, reduce their numbers.

Accountability…..

A lie would simply mean…See you later…The share holders don’t like that, and we won’t tolerate it..

JohnB says:

01:59pm | 09/08/11

@Babe in the Woods…Unfortunately in Australia, if you’re not from either party you get eaten alive. I wouldn’t do it to my kids, my partner, or my mates, or myself….

Look at Dick Smith, made a doco with mostly his money, went on QandA…Next thing he’s being labelled a racist because he can see that a high population is not in our interests. How dare he go against the ridiculous (ill thought out) left machine.

Somehow this has to change…Like her or not, Pauline Hanson paid a price for sticking her head out. We should have never put up with that. That was a bad day for democracy and a bad day for Australia.

Lisa H. says:

03:50pm | 09/08/11

The three tiers of government add up to a very expensive, time-consuming and stiflingly restrictive set of rules and costs.
They don’t call Australia the Nanny state for nothing.
And all that rule-making costs bucket loads of cash.

The productivity commission enquiry into retail… how much did that cost? And the prevailing answers laid the blame squarely at the foot of ...government over-regulation.

Those of us running a business are having heart attacks growing the money trees to keep this ridiculously overgoverned system going!

When - and how - will this Great Australian Government dream end?

Jane says:

08:56am | 09/08/11

It is the best policy we have been offered though. Australia demanded climate change action in 2007 so both parties made a bipartisan pledge to reduce emissions by 2020. It will cost any way you look at it and this policy is cheaper than Liberals. Why dumpt this and chosoe their policy when we will then pay the polluters? Facts are so evry useful, try them one day.

JohnB says:

09:14am | 09/08/11

If you took the time to understand the “facts” Jane. You’d see it’s a scam.

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

09:31am | 09/08/11

@ Jane

Thanks for your comments. Yes yes facts in the proposed carbon tax are very important.

Start with the data from the Productivity Commission facts, the cost of electricity generation last year broke down this way: coal power $79 per megawatt hour; gas $97; wind, $1502; solar $4004. See: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/labor-all-tied-up-in-red-and-green-tape-20110724-1hv8i.html

Based on these figures the abstract Economic Principle that if you tax a big CO2 emitter it will change from coal to a renewable like wind and solar is impossible. This is a big LIE.

If you look at the US Agency at http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CH,&syid=2005&eyid=2009&unit=MMTCD you will find that in 2008 to 2009 the annual INCREASE in CO2 emission was more than DOUBLE the annual TOTAL CO2 emission in Australia. This trend will continue. Professor Blandy of South Australia had pointed out the lies in the Treasury Model on carbon tax that China and India will do something serious in the next ten years.

I can spend the whole day documenting the lies and lies behind the carbon tax.

Expat Ozzie says:

09:50am | 09/08/11

Dr B S Goh:  “coal power $79 per megawatt hour; gas $97; wind, $1502; solar $4004.”

Of course these figures will change as more wind and solar is used also as the technology improves in these fields. A case in point the remarkable drop in the price of computer parts as world wide usage has increased and computer technology has improved. This is despite the remarkable increase in complexity of computer hardware. I always find arguments like these a little hard to swallow. Bit diappointed as you usually have some good points to present Dr B S Goh.

Gregg says:

09:50am | 09/08/11

@Jane
No, Australia did not demand climate change action but we did have politicians being drawn into making commitments because of minority noise and an idiot called Kevin Rudd.

Aside from Hopenhagen being a real fun fest, a much more broader view of climate change has emerged in the last few years and the so called ” science is in ” belief is being held to be less believable by more and more people such that a Carbon Tax is now not wanted by most Australians for a number of reasons.

A coalition policy offers far more flexibility and the possibility of scaling back action and that may be quite appropriate if the ever evolving scientific knowledge means a new questioning of climate change is warranted.
For instance, nature has many cycles that sees warming and Ice Ages and just because humans with all our industriousness may be upping CO2 might rais base line temperatures marginally, if that also has an effect of reducing the severity of the next Ice Age, would that not be a good thing?

Meanwhile, I’d trust a farmer more than a politician or some Treasurey boffin doing some modelling on dodgy figures - http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/carbon-tax-will-milk-dairies/story-e6freuy9-1226110437341

Jane says:

09:56am | 09/08/11

Dr B S Goh, I would more likely swap to solar as a consumer. Not only to provide for my own needs but also to get paid for electricy production. Plus getting a tax cut. bonus. Under Direct Action, well what can one say, nobody endorses. I hear so many say that the Carbon Tax will not do this or that but the goal is 5% by 2020, not to outdo China. It is that simple. A commitment has been made to cut emisisons 5% by 2020 and it is bipartisan. It has nothing to do with outdoing China, or trying to say as individals we have a much higher enititlement than Chinese people. It is about the best way to achieve an etched in stone promise made at the request of the Australian people. I doubt either Abbot or Gillard even believe in climate change but they have the responsibilty to bring in a policy whether they like it or not. Democracy at work whether it suits you or not. So all I want to see is the best policy implemented sooner rather than later as it will become only more costly as 2020 grows ever closer .

stevem says:

10:15am | 09/08/11

Jane you say “best policy we have been offered”. No, we’re having it rammed down our throats - no offer involved. The vast majority don’t want it and can see through the rhetoric that it’s only the biggest polluters that will pay.
These mythical big polluters are our biggest producers which is obvious if you consider that pollution is a side effect of production rather than something these companies do for fun. They are also our biggest employers.
This tax hits their production costs, damages their competitiveness and WILL make them look at moving their production offshore. This will also move their employment and pollution offshore. You can bet they won’t be moving to a country that takes their humanitarian or environmental concerns as seriously as Australia.
This tax, in many ways, is like a tariff on Australian production. Nobody else on the planet is stupid enough to give foreign companies an advantage over their own yet this is exactly what the government proposes.
We need to protect the environment. We also need to ensure we don’t disadvantage ourselves in the process.

JohnB says:

10:20am | 09/08/11

@Jane….“the goal is 5% by 2020” How are we going to achieve that at trhe same time as increasing our population?

@Jane…“So all I want to see is the best policy implemented”.....I’d believe anything Labor said, if they had the conviction to stop the most destructive environmental issue by a trizillion miles…Over population. Until that’s on the table, it’s all BS. Anyone thinking differently should head to the $2 shop and pick up a calculator.

@Gregg…“Hopenhagen” That BS fest has absolutely no credibility. The most PC morons on the planet, all hosted and funded by big business. Not a mention of the biggest problem looming; gross over population..We’re kidding ourselves; or more so, letting the biggest kidders, kid us.

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

10:31am | 09/08/11

@ Expat Ozzie.

Thanks for your comments. I am not against solar energy in the LONG RUN. But the long run at present seems very far away.

All I am asking for is that the Govt should have real cost effective actions and do not waste money on schemes which are just based on dreams rather than reality.

I am in fact doing a bit of work Consulting for an innovative solar energy company.

According to Productivity Commission electricity generation emits 36% of CO2 emission in Australia. Based on the facts I know including a big Energy Report from New York which I read in the past few days, coal has been the fastest source of energy for electricity, globally, in the past ten years and is expected to continue for the forseeable future.

Based on these facts and energy trends the best way to manage CO2 emission from our coal power stations is for a Govt policy to encourage the replacement of old stations by new ones which emit less CO2 emission.

A good interesting research on this practical and effective policy was done by Jo Nova at: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/lower-co2-emissions-by-wait-for-it-building-new-coal-plants/

Andrew says:

10:44am | 09/08/11

Greg,

Do we remember this in regards to the dairy industry.
There was the 11¢-a-litre tax on milk, imposed to help the dairy industry restructure following deregulation. This agrarian socialist hit on consumers was introduced in 2000, and continued through the bountiful years when the budget was bursting with money. It was repealed by the Rudd government only in 2009, after collecting $1.75 billion, which was distributed to producers.

Expat Ozzie says:

11:28am | 09/08/11

Dr B S Goh: At least I can get a well worded response from you unlike some other political rubbish that is posted on this site. There are others that I’ve had a good conversation with here but they are few and far between.

Anyway I don’t agree with the long run view of solar energy or other renewable techs unless of course investment in those areas continues to be lackluster. I’m not talking from an ideological view point, I’ve said before I’m not interested in politics I think it’s little more then overhead. As an aside I don’t like the Carbon tax but I don’t like the Direct Action plan either, what a sad state when you have to choose between the lesser of evils! History has shown on many occasions that tech can develop at inc-readable rates if the brains, money and commitment are directed at it, Aircraft technology especially during World War 2 is a good example as previously stated the development of computers is another. Computers are especially amazing considering that in the early days the majority of thinking was that only the biggest corporations and governments would be able to afford one. Now even your smart phone is a far more powerful computer then those first devices.

Although I agree with the upgrading of coal power stations I’m often disappointed at the lack of money that flows in to R&D in Oz these days. My main concern is that Oz is riding the back of a mining boom that everyone thinks will carry us for ever much like the riding of the sheep’s back until wool prices plummeted. If Oz does not get into R&D and manufacture of higher tech industries to complement it’s already impressive resources then I’m afraid we leave ourselves vulnerable.
Coal is the fastest source of energy as it’s a well developed tech. It makes sense that it is used to such an extent. If I was tasked with supplying a very large population with electricity over a very short time span in order to maintain economic growth I’d choose coal also. who wouldn’t it’s cheep and quick to setup with few overheads that are difficult to manage e.g radio active waist from nuclear comes to mind. I also know China and India are an industrious lot and are very keen to reduce there dependence on other countries for the national security particularly energy and minerals. They have large scale investment in green power R&D and generation and no doubt will make breakthroughs in these areas. Oz risks a real chance of falling behind the rest of the world when these breakthroughs occur and they will occur.

I’m afraid this increasing adverseness to risk that Ozzie’s are displaying means we will be left behind in many areas, we seem to be stagnating if you will. We used to be at the forefront of technology we even had one of the first computers in the world now we just import everything and export coal and iron ore.

Gregg says:

12:25pm | 09/08/11

@Doc and Expat Ozzie,
Coal fired power stations design improvements has been a long time enduring ativity of most power station operators I suspect if what was occurring at the SECV is anything to go by.
Yes they had their own quite large R&D branch, The Herman Research Laboratories it was called then, possibly operating under a different name with privatisation of the SECV in the 1990s and that was in addition to a significantly sized Power and Fuel departments based in Melbourne and having a sole focus on design.

Not only would best available design principles of the time be considered in keeping with budgettary concerns but even that old dirty smelly power station called Hazelwood has had significant upgrades to turbines during it’s life to improve power ratings and efficiency.

Depending on what article you want to read, average coal fired power station efficiency will be about 30% and that obviously creeping up as older power stations are retired and newer ones come on line or there are in fact upgrades done, actual figures also dependent on coal grade or quality as well.

But before we go all gung ho on how well we can improve efficiency, you need to do a bit more reading and research on what is happening for it is not quite as simple as a better design giving a 30% increase in efficiency and any thoughts of that are still mere thoughts and your run of the mill new coal fired power stations will likely be around 33% if that and when in pristine new condition without boiler and heat exchanger tube fouling - yep, every so often boilers need to be taken off line and in go a team of cleaners to defoul boilers, not the best of jobs either.
Have a look at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station
http://www.worldcoal.org/coal-the-environment/coal-use-the-environment/improving-efficiencies/
for some background info and then http://www.vgb.org/en/research_project232.html as the latest state of the art proposal and at this stage emphasis is on proposed objective for there can be an awful big difference between wishful thinking and practical outcomes on a project of this nature - Certainly an area of vagueness Ozzie Expat.

But hey, any improvement, even 1% - 2% can only be for the better when it is only going to be full coal steaming ahead for most of the planet for some time to come.

I re-iterate, what is it that Australia decides to do this decade for by the end of the decade, there’re gong to be shortages problems and replacement power stations need to have planning commenced quickly if they are to be up and running by the end of the decade.
Labor shortage is going to be massive for much of the skilled older construction workforces engaged on powerstations 15 - 20 years ago will either already be retired, near retirement or overseas or in the mining sector so having a suitable skilled workforce may even mean more of a China inroad here with perhaps a Chinese company being contracted for a full turn key project, a closed site if you like with Chinese workers and you can imagine how the Unions will just love that! , but that is what happens when you dismantle a countries skill base and have Greens not wanting things to move ahead.
Even Julia is just talking of Moving Ahead and there neds to be more than talk.

Send emails to your elected representatives of whatever party/inmdependence they are and ask the question - ” Where will replacement power come from for ageing power stations “
In Victoria, that is something the SECV would have always been taking the pulse on but it is not so simple now with an eastern seaboard power grid and politics a bigger part of the equation.
None the less, answers need to be developed.

Jane says:

12:48pm | 09/08/11

John, I believe it is to reduce 5% on year 2000 levels. the bottom line , despite all these theories and hot air is that we do have only two choices as ETS has already been rejected and Abbot says Carbon tax is better anyway. The people have made a massive issue out of JuLIAR so neither party will even dare going back on the pledge now. We have two options, that is it. No politician is even considering option 3 aloud. I prefer the best option available now. Get a poltician to make another offer I will reconsider but they better do it this week. MPs will have to consider reality, not “maybe something else will come up”  or play games because they are too cowardly to come out and say they will not accept any policy at all going back on the party decisionl or defer once again. That is holding the public in contempt.

Expat Ozzie says:

04:09pm | 09/08/11

Gregg: Couldn’t agree more with the efficiency improvements coal has seen over the years and don’t get me wrong I’m not advocating the immediate kill off of coal fired power. I think the real solution as usual falls somewhere in the middle, a mix of power generation.

Small improvements in efficiency and reductions of pollutants have very large scale effects when viewed across the globe. We have a Mrk 5 2ltr petrol VW Golf. I’m stall amazed the thing can 7ltrs per 100k’s and still puts out more power then my old HQ 253 did that used something like 14trs/100km’s. Technology is always improving and the advances in some of these fields are quite astounding diesel engines come to mind.

My chief concern is that Oz as a nation does not fall behind in the green power generation field. It will emerge and we should be at the forefront of it.

The labor shortage is already occurring. Many areas of the economy are suffering from it and it’s been a problem for more then the last 10 years or so. So has the problem of not building new power generation but Oz isn’t the only one guilty there. I believe part of problem is poor design rules for new building, things like double glazing and who was the idiot the thought housing without eves was a good idea in a hot country. Along with power generation smart methods of power reduction should also be employed. This is an area Oz is very poor at dealing with.

Always nice to here from you Gregg, sorry I didn’t reply the other day re the Rail/NBN dialog. I had it al typed out and along my 2.5year old and turned off the computer. She’s just figured out buttons!!

Michael says:

09:33am | 09/08/11

Foreign Invasion by our largest invstor…China, to protect their assets from our failed society.

fml says:

10:21am | 09/08/11

Is labor going to force people to sell their farms? obviously not. You obviously have issues with tax dollars being spent on welfare recipients, how do you suppose they save the farmers without spending tax money?
Are farmers the biggest welfare recipients of all??

I suggest if you are not cut out to be a farmer, jog on to a new job.

JohnB says:

11:04am | 09/08/11

“Is labor going to force people to sell their farms?”

What are you talking about fml?...

I’m saying farms should not be sold to foreign owners. We will most certainly need them in years to come. A declining yield of 7% a year means harvests will halve in ten years. At the same time population explodes…If your sums don’t scream danger, danger, danger…Then, I can’t help you.

Gregg says:

11:27am | 09/08/11

@fml
So are you a farmer?
As for ” Is labor going to force people to sell their farms? “
Of course they will not openly but what do you think forever increasing borrowings and debt will do, not to mention taxes being increased.
Go and have a look at what average farm debt is and see how many have gone bankrupt.
” You obviously have issues with tax dollars being spent on welfare recipients, ” and that is not the sole issue for welfare spending will always have a place in a reasonable government spending but along with that goes the responsibility of balanced taxation and budgetting.
I think you may have mis-read the intent of JB’s post for I doubt he is saying that farmers are a welfare issue but more of them like a lot of our industry failing being the result of over taxation.

fml says:

01:04pm | 09/08/11

Gregg,

Youve misread my post, i am saying farmers are a welfare issue.

JohnB,

You obviously do not want your tax being wasted, i know you dont want the farmers to be sold, i am asking how can they be saved with out taxes being spent?

And if you are for taxes being spent on incompetent farmers who continually ask for handouts, why not individuals who are contributors to society?

I just hate the typical rant of i dont want to spend my taxes, but then propose situations which require taxes to be spent on situations which are beneficial to themselves. I think we can get along just fine with importing food from overseas.

JohnB says:

02:14pm | 09/08/11

Oh okay I get your point fml….

I absolutely don’t agree with “I think we can get along just fine with importing food from overseas”.....The global population increases by 80 million a year. It is in our interest to even temporarily leave our farm land unproductive…i.e. abandoned as opposed to selling it to overseas….

Incidentally, WHY would foreigners want to buy it if you can’t make a dollar out of it? Or, are they reading what’s coming far better than us clowns living in paradise (for now that is)?

We need out of the box solutions. Not temporary windfalls that bite us later.

“handouts, why not individuals who are contributors to society”  ...............I don’t see much of that in the arena I work in….

JohnB says:

02:18pm | 09/08/11

Hey, hey, fml…Here’s an idea….

Government buys farms… Unemployed work there.

Solved.

fml says:

02:50pm | 09/08/11

Works for me JohnB,

Could be a good little money earner for the government and create a base standard for the cost of food which would be win, win. Of course you would have the usual suspects yelling socialism etc etc.

Andrew says:

10:50am | 09/08/11

Get a family trust going, easy way to reduce your tax liability.

Gregg says:

01:18pm | 09/08/11

@Dash,
Agree in principle with a lot of what you say but re
” I also do not understand why any individual in this country should have to pay a higher perentage of their income in tax than corporates? Corporates pay a flat 30% and yet there are invividuals paying 35%, 38%, 40% of their income in tax! “
You need to look at that from the perspective of there not being a Mr and Mrs Company only paying 30% and that just a notional ammount.

The companies have shareholders or even if it is a private company, the income after taxation is distributed to the share holders/owners with some being re-invested.
So take for instance a company earns 100M and pays 30% or 30M and another 30M gets re-invested in new equipment or whatever.
40M is distributed as income to owners and then if an owner is on the 40% rate, the 30% already paid is taken into account but that income from the compamy is still part on an individuals income for tax to be paid.

The ATO is always out to get the black marketeers and by the same token there are lots of tradies who get hardly done by contractors, they possibly also being hardly done by developers who go bust after having been driving around in fancy cars for a bit.
Probably more the developers than contractors who do not pay up actually.

AdamC says:

01:34pm | 09/08/11

Dash, I don’t agree with your points about the corporate rate, but I do agree that lefties seem always to fixate on those already bearing most of the tax burden and try to squeeze them even more. The carbon tax compensation is an excellent example of this mentality. Rather than fully compensate trade exposed emitters so that they could still fairly compete in the world market, Labor instead chucked the money at pensioners and the welfare set. It’s ridiculous.

It is also infuriating.

Andrew says:

04:10pm | 09/08/11

First 40k should be tax free then flat 0 for everything after that, including captial gains etc. Nice an easy fix. Get rid of the GST.

Andrew says:

04:35pm | 09/08/11

Flat 30% i meant.

Luke says:

11:50am | 09/08/11

This and your previous comment mirror my own thoughts. Something big will happen, not just in Australia, but world-wide. It has begun (riots and civil unrest is escalating, it’s even getting London now) and it is spreading. It’s not long before it gets to our shores. You can even see it in the comments of general news stories.

The pressures of propping up multi-billion dollar industries while they rape individuals, the fact that the only people ‘running’ this place are self-protecting politicians who allow corruption and lies, and the way that the media plays the political game to keep everyone in the dark, will reach a critical point.

I don’t think it will be soon, but something will happen. It will get messy, and it will be painful, but for a brief time (before the rot gets back in) things will be a little nicer for the populations.

Gregg says:

12:38pm | 09/08/11

We can all join the convoy!
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/the-convoy-of-no-confidence-is-amassing-towards-canberra/
It should become the greatest ” here is a message for the nervous labor backbenches and two especially traitorous independents “

Fancy Windsor being on a Climate Change junket fact finder to the UK when they already have these climate change funfests.
Like really Julia! and then he has the gall to say even though he expects Labor to be defeated at the next election he is going to stick with Julia.

JohnB says:

01:13pm | 09/08/11

That’s great Gregg. What a fantastic initiative. The only concern I have with just another election, is we’ll end with a majority Coalition gov. That’s no good either….We need a new political system where career politicians are a thing of the past. Where they are accountable, numbers at 20% of today, pay them double, no pension, no travel. Stay in Canberra and do the job…No pay backs, get even’s, back stabbing, pork barreling….Dreaming I know, but surely it should be our aim to head towards that.

What absolutely must happen is stop this ridiculous ponzi growth model…populate while improving each persons quality of living…The biggest oxymoron ever. We are losing quality with EVERY extra person. How have we been conned in to this?

Do many people see the concept is doomed. Where does it end? Surely we can see what’s happened in the US and Europe to think, hey, it doesn’t work….What happens when emerging growth slows and our resources are no longer in high demand? We’ll be in big trouble like the UK, Europe and the US…But worse..We don’t do anything else other than mining.

Lisa H. says:

06:44pm | 09/08/11

I get really tired of the class-based hysteria peddled by the left.
Only recently I learned that about 40 pr cent of families (that’s ‘workers’) pay no net tax whatsoever, once the churn has been accounted for.
The bigger payers are expected to shoulder the heavy lifting and say nothing!
How does providing a tax cut at the top end of town equal a ‘subsidy’ for the rich, in anyone’s language? A small discount on your bill is still a bill.

Gregg says:

01:03am | 10/08/11

@Jane,
Thedanger with google Jane is you can read too much BS.
First off you need to appreciate that corporations usually have shareholders and the many super funds in Australia will hold shares in Australian companies as well as overseas companies and it is shareholders who get profits distributed as dividends after taxation and any other special expenditure provisions like new plant etc.

And then as for corporations going country shopping, any corporations operating in Australia will pay both company tax and any royalties here in Australia, regardless of where they might have a HO or their shareholders are.

Sure a lot of manufacturing companies will set up shop in countries where labour is cheap and a country government might strike a deal with them for the provision of employment that otherwise might not have occurred, just as some companies in Australia negotiate deals for bulk power fees, Aluminium smelting being one example.
But as for companies stealing our wealth, that is not happening and even for resources companies, they are paying taxes and royalties, the freedom of other companies to go wherever much the same as freedom of individuals.

Jane says:

10:07am | 09/08/11

Nossy, . Liberal Party policy is worse, we will pay the polluters to stop their evil ways and treasury has cost it at twice the cost as Carbon tax. Liberal Party reponse, we will sack the economists who suggest it. There is a pledge made by both parties to reduce emissions,If no carbon tax it will be ETS or direct action.  No politcial party has said no action, just they fight over which policy.  So your waffle about China Russia is redundant.

nossy says:

12:17pm | 09/08/11

@Jane - good points Jane IF Abbott really had any intention of going ahead with his “Direct Action Plan” but honestly the “slows” are out - did you see Joe Hockey the other day saying thet may close down the Climate Change Ministery?  And note how very little attention is paid to Abbotts plan - its a no goer Jane and Abbott is having a ball booting Gillards do nothing Carbon Tax to high heaven!

Gregg says:

01:34pm | 09/08/11

@ Nossyontheleft
Didn’t you tell her to bring the thongs Nossy, not just so she’d fit in like but there’s probably a damm lot less energy going into making them.
@Jane
You seem to refuse to consider Jane that
1. Do treasurey do not always do things right.
2. Coalition have a policy that will allow more flexibility re implementation and any implementation needs to be considered amidst whatever the global climate and economic climates are at the time, something Labor are definitely not considering.
3. Rather than rely on a pledge being rock solid at this stage, how about you wait and see what is said as policy come election time.
4. Climate change in 5 -10 years could quite easily be up there with deployment to Afghanistan as history that should be forgettable if it were not so sad.
5. The direction China and a lot of other countries are heading in will make Australia’s attempt contribute just a little more to us becoming redundant.

nossy says:

04:12pm | 09/08/11

@Gregg   - good one Gregg - like a man with a sense of humour - yes alas poor Jane!

Andrew says:

01:33pm | 09/08/11

The scariest part is that Tony Abbott and co got sucked into this climate change farce, and have committed to the 5% reduction by 2020.
Im worried that he will judged to the same lying standard after he wins the election and changes his mind.

Anubis says:

04:19pm | 09/08/11

@ Andrew - An international commitment for Australia to cut emissions by 5% was set out at Copenhagen. Although not legally binding both major parties adopted it. Why, I don’t know, but that is why the Liberals also have a commitment to 5% cut. (Or so I am led to believe)

BigAngryRon says:

03:39pm | 09/08/11

As an accountant, I can tell you if he ever gets audited he is completely screwed. Whoever let those deductions through is taking the Mickey. I have no problems with legitimate claims though, why should someone who spent $10,000 extra earning their income be penalised?

Jax says:

10:28am | 10/08/11

I had to pay to go to Uni, I have to pay for a car to get me to work and back everyday and the petrol/maintenance costs that go with it.  I have to wear shoes and clothes to work.  But these are not available deductions to white collar workers.  Ultimately we have the same expenses in earning our income, but the tax rules for ‘sub-contractors’ are completely different to someone earning a salary.

JohnB says:

12:29pm | 09/08/11

Absolutely Steve…When a union I was affiliated with a few decades ago began to champion unemployed, I resigned from it. Stick to your members issues Ged. That other future safe seat candidate Howes is even worse. Endorsing a carbon tax he clearly doesn’t understand.

Since when, or rather, how is it members interest to have union officials that are socialists? We earn the money and the officials find stupid ways for the government to spend it.

Gregg says:

01:57pm | 09/08/11

@ Doc,
There’s always going to be cheaper products available in Asia, the labor cost being the prime driver and as for lighting, they are a dime a dozen , http://www.innovations.com.au/Product_Detail.aspx?ParentCategoryID=164&CategoryID=31&ProductID=91751 , http://www.myshopping.com.au/ZM—1149080545_Garden , and http://www.bunnings.com.au/products_product_twin-head-solar-security-sensor-light_2112.aspx showing a few examples of the even higher powered units you would need for street lighting.

All relatively cheap, manufactured in Asia somewhere no doubt and probably also guaranteed to not be performing so well after a few years or even earlier.

Ditto Solar heating and whilst we have had solar HWS around for decades, as people afford larger capacity generation, some may consider using the power for their own home heating though there are better alternatives in Australia with the power buy back schemes.
Again, when the units stop performing down the track, I can hear the squeals now of people being told they have defaulted on their generation contract and are charged money.

But why should we be paying for people in other countries when governments there have a responsibility to manage their countries and economies.
Australia is not the planets piggy bank despite the impression you seem to have.

Expat Ozzie says:

03:46pm | 09/08/11

Dr B S Goh: “Hence a good cost effective way to use solar energy to reduce global CO2 emission is for Australia to fund the installation of solar heaters in Nepal and Bhutan rather than in Australia.” An elegant solution but I can already imagine the political out cry from that one.

I’ve always believed R&D is the key to these technologies as it is for most. The battery one is a huge area that needs allot of development. I’ve always found it interesting that it’s easier to continuously generate then it is to store energy. My gut tells me we wont do anything serious about it until it’s to late and I’m not even talking about AGW here more around oil and gas reserves. We only really react when our backs are against the wall. I think conservatism is built into us.

Personally I think we will move to these technologies as the cost of production invariably reduces.  The problem your facing is of course the largest problem and that’s the shear cost of labor in Oz verses those other counties. It’s a big problem especially from a manufacturing perspective not at all easy to solve.

Thank-you for the insight it’s always nice to hear from direct personnel experience without the political point scoring bull that usually turns up here.

Gregg: “But why should we be paying for people in other countries when governments there have a responsibility to manage their countries and economies.” This one I hear allot I even used to agree I mean whats in it for me?? Well I moved to Asia for work purposes and now I’ve seen the other-side of the fence I’m a little more open minded. The checkout chicks here earn the Oz equivalent of $1.50 an hour. You might be thinking that in their country that’s probably a far wage seeing as things are cheaper there and everything, well that’s not really true. Food is generally cheaper but the quality is often crap. If you want stuff that isn’t a knock off copy then your going to pay for it since companies like Apple and Sony have global pricing now. For me the biggest gain we get from helping is hopefully a long term solution to the boat people problem and increased international security. These of course are very long term goals but then as they say Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Gregg says:

01:38am | 10/08/11

@Expat Ozzie
” Gregg: “But why should we be paying for people in other countries when governments there have a responsibility to manage their countries and economies.” This one I hear allot I even used to agree I mean whats in it for me?? Well I moved to Asia for work purposes and now I’ve seen the other-side of the fence I’m a little more open minded. The checkout chicks here earn the Oz equivalent of $1.50 an hour. You might be thinking that in their country that’s probably a far wage seeing as things are cheaper there and everything, well that’s not really true. Food is generally cheaper but the quality is often crap. “
My own experience in Asia is limited to a few months, mainly Vietnam and sure, lifestyle is very different and I got to meet plenty of locals, visited a guy who had just had a stomach operation in hospital and their hospital wards had openings but no glazing/doors etc. and even doctors in Vietnam might have been on something like only $15/month in the early nineties, and nothing like $1.50/h for anyone.
We could say that is communism but people were pretty happy with their lot and I always remember them as one of the most cheerful poples I have ever had the privilege of knowing, really good people that had me coming away wondering why the hell we were ever involved in attempting to kill them but that was the Reds under the Beds carryover.
They had basic lives, still comfortable and that was their culture, one that included daily trips to the market for very little by way of refrigeration and given time that will change.
The WTO level playing filds principles and minimal tariffs bringing manufacturers is one catalyst for change and gradually other cheap labour countries will likely get on board.
Meanwhile, the previously developed countries will have less manufacturing and employment in that area, thus Australia being so unhealthily dependent on the resources sector - too many eggs in one basket.
We’re gradually moving to where we’ll have more and more of our own problems and I doubt whether we’ll be getting hand outs from other countries.

Meanwhile, there is some good work being done in older hospital equipment and the like being made available and probably a lot more could be done in that area.
As for ” hopefully a long term solution to the boat people problem and increased international security. ”
Our foreign aid and that of other nations probably gets so gobbled up in administration etc. that I cannot really see any ammount making a huge difference, especially when there are going to be far greater factors like over population and demand for resources as drivers.
. even when sent aid to Sri Lanka at the time of the tsunami, some greedy buggers wanted considerable duty to be paid on gifts before whatever was sent could be distributed.
. and though not all countries are the same, we give aid to Indonesia and they have some of the planets wealthiest people, not to mention the corruption which is pretty endemic throughout Asia.
So yeah, there are some things that can be done but we still have many of our own suffering too.
And getting back to taxes, we really need to be careful about what gets applied for the long term good.

Dr B S Goh, Australian in Asia says:

06:02pm | 09/08/11

@ Seaside Socialista.

Yes we ALL want to move away from the carbon tax. It is good to see that the PM has retreated and she is now not saying anymore on the carbon tax in public. I hope she wakes up soon to the fact that she has been conned by sexy Economics hocus pocus principles.

The dangers from the carbon tax is not now and in its present form. It is the fact that there are escalating consequences once it is in place.

This is the best time to stop this insidious tax.

Lisa H. says:

07:08pm | 09/08/11

Your statements gloss over the reality that high taxes can and do dissuade or even prevent people from being as productive as possible.
Tax laws create many distinct artificial barriers to investment and employment… why not at least discuss this?

Some taxes are just plain unfair - the income tax on a TPD (total and permanent disability) insurance payout through the superannuation system is one of the most unfair concepts I have ever heard of. Talk about discriminating against the permanently disabled!

There is also the extra, unpaid work done by small business people in collecting and administering tax, on behalf of the business and on behalf of employees.

Why are all these efforts not worthy of recognition when extolling the virtues - or otherwise - of our tax system?
When small business people are working 20 hour days at a per-hour pittance, why is ‘off limits’ to discuss such things, or even - god forbid - the productivity of our hefty government?

Why must tax remain discussed in the language of class war?

LC says:

08:35pm | 09/08/11

@ Dr. Goh

It does not matter that she ended her carbon tax tour prematurely. She’ll push it though parliament anyway, she has the numbers required to do so in both houses, and she needs to do so otherwise she’ll lose the support of the Green member in the lower house, and need to go to an early election.

Yes, it’ll bite them on the ass come next election, but by then the economic damage which could take decades to undo will be done.

Sony B Goode says:

09:45am | 10/08/11

The spirit level is a fraud based on cherry picked data,  it is socialist garbage on the right to live off other people’s money. Well the US has a debt of $14 trillion but has future unfunded liabilities of $60 trillion.

Other people’s money is running out. Peak government is not far away now.