You know it adds up: Labor are innumerate

Dave B says:

08:42am | 16/08/10

Driving a truck or digging a ditch. Ideal preparation for leadership of the country.
No lawyers in the Liberal ranks either, I suppose.

Apart from that, a well reasoned comment.

shane says:

08:49am | 16/08/10

same for libs. Be honest. Increaseing numbers of our politicians largely come from a background of political staffers, on both sides. Or some other cushy, removed from the world position in waiting. They’re all as bad as each other.

James1 says:

10:27am | 16/08/10

So true of both sides of politics.  All lawyers, speech writers and political staffers to a (wo)man.

peteM says:

10:52am | 16/08/10

Yeah good point but now it doesn’t matter. The maths is Labor plus Liberal = 1. I can count and I went to a public school and dugs some ditches!

Chewy says:

11:14am | 16/08/10

Well said Eric, Labors biggest problem is the shallow gene pool effect and very few have a business or importantly a small business background.

Jezza says:

12:33pm | 16/08/10

Eric, my daughter is a lawyer with a second degree in commerce. She spent six years at University to get these degrees & went without any frills whilst doing it.  It was long hard hours of study whilst also working 15 hours a week to help pay her rent & food & other bills. It’s NOT the fault of lawyers that governments make bad policiy or throw money around like confetti.  It’s politicians who make the laws NOT lawyers. So put the blame where it belongs & that’s on the Politicians, the unions & the big money men who back these political parties. Furthermore I know for a fact that my daughter often works gratis for people who have no access to the law because they are too poor.  But I agree that far too may union hacks are going into politics but have never lived in the real world of daily struggle just to survive.

ImaWestie says:

01:08pm | 16/08/10

@Jezzy, the point remains: lawyers never made anything in their lives, they just arrange the transfer of $$ from someone elses’ bank account to their own.

Sickemrex says:

02:39pm | 16/08/10

Did Mr Abbott dig ditches outside the seminary, then?

Ed says:

04:55pm | 16/08/10

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one to help them out of a tight situation…

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

11:43pm | 16/08/10

Dave B, far more Liberal MPs have done real Manual Labour thn the loony lefties ever have.

jf says:

06:28pm | 24/08/10

Idiots. It has got nothing to do with digging ditches and everything to do with experience of the real world.

That is outside the sheltered workshop of universities, political parties and corporate employment and experience with running a business or taking some sort of risk. Having to rely on practicallity and pragmatism to get by.

We need more people that have spend time digging ditches for clients of their own plumbing business than graduates with multiple degrees in law and political science or from the sheltered workshops of University or the unions.

To many of our current politicians and public servants have got the mentality of “well that may be so, but does it work in theory”.

And I note that the our current Labor Government has less than twenty years of true commercial experience. Truly frightening. Not to mention arrogant of them to foist them on the tax-paying public.

gil4d says:

11:07am | 16/08/10

would you be speaking about the people who left this country 20 billion in the black russ ?

Davo says:

11:41am | 16/08/10

’Labor – L-a-b-o-r’ is the short form name of the Australian Labor Party’. ‘labour – l-a-b-o-u-r’ is physical toil done for wages. ‘Labour – L-a-b-o-u-r’ is the short form name of the British Labour Party.

Dave B says:

08:24pm | 16/08/10

Too right. Easy to build up a surplus by neglecting to spend money on education, health, etc etc.

Russ says:

09:22pm | 16/08/10

John Howard, Peter Costello? Nope. Don’t see hide nor hair of them.
I see Abbott and Hockey, Joyce and the Bishops. And Robb is still hanging around, but probably not for long.

Heath Karl says:

06:38pm | 16/08/10

“I’m talking about earning or creating by providing value to an employer or customer.”

That is perhaps the most illogical assesment of the nature of capital, ever.. What drug is this dope on? Either you are a margnialist, and you believe wealth is created in a miracle of trade, or you are a socialist and you believe labour is the source of wealth. This imbecile thinks you create value by providing value. Even marginalists would laugh at the absurdity of your logic, and at the suggestion that the service provided by unions is not a service at all, its just ‘gettting’ money.

Ben Power can whinge all he likes about taxation, which he calls ‘other peoples money’ but the fact is taxation is not the problem, profit is. The national GDP is about a trillion dollars. There are about 10 million workers. The average wage is 1000/wk. That means in a year Australian workers recieve 500 billion for 1 trillion produced. Where is the other full 500 billion? The rich have taken it as surplus value, profit. So cry all you like about big bad government wasting other peoples money, the bigger issue is the much larger portion of value appropriated by the owners of companies for no exchange of product or service. They are the ones who are just ‘gettting’ rich.

Your Husband says:

06:33pm | 24/08/10

Union hacks, class action lawyers, political advisers and academics.

Sounds spot on to me Wifey.

Now iron my shirt - I have work to do.

And make yourself pretty for later - you have work to do.

Dave B says:

08:47am | 16/08/10

Hello Tony! Glad you could take time off the bicycle and your Parliamentary duties to contribute to this discussion.

Glen says:

10:35am | 16/08/10

No, he’s a “jounalist”

libertarian vegetarian says:

09:09am | 16/08/10

Reg, you personify what this article is about. Because you have never been in business, you belive that business is all about how to rort the customer. This is because people like you belive that employers and employees are at war and that employees should rort their employer.
Had you ever been in business you would understand that you can’t just raise your price willy-nilly, customers will just purchase from your competitor instead. When the market is good, you can raise your prices to what the market can bear and make hay while the sun shines. Then when things are not so good you have a buffer so you won’t have to lay off employees or close down altogether.
This is why schemes like pink batts and solar panels are such a farce. They are a form of price fixing, taking away all competition from the market. Of course the bad operators are drawn to these schemes, they don’t have to have a superior product or service to attract customers because the govt is paying for it all.

Dash says:

09:53am | 16/08/10

Hi Reg, I had to reply because I agree with you (shock horror!). At least some of what you have written. The government (Red or Blue) need to do something to address the inequality of the current tax system which allows business owners to rip off the PAYG tax payer! No individual in this country should have to pay more than the corporate rate in tax for starters. If corporates can split their income , then PAYG tax payers should be able to do the same. And do something to capture those dealing in the cash economy and not paying their own way. As a father of three, and a significant PAYG taxpayer that’s entitled to nothing, I’m sick of seeing family business owners split their incomes, declare only half of what they earn and claim benefits! Increase the GST (you can’t avoid consumption) but give something back to the poor PAYG taxpayer (like they did recently in NZ). If Labor do that (and there is no way they will) even I’d vote for them!

libertarian vegetarian says:

10:58am | 16/08/10

@Dash, your point is valid, your solutions not so.  What about a system that allows families to act as a business and lodge a tax return for the household rather than the individual.  Currently if a single income household earns say $80000pa they pay much more tax than a household where the $80000 is split between the two. In addition to this, the dual income household is accessing far more taxpayer funded benefits in the form of subsised child care and now maternity leave payments. 
Increasing the GST will not benefit any PAYG employee, as it is direct tax on business turnover rather than profit. The customer who is making a price based purchasing decision does not care that 10% (or 15 or 20%) is GST, they just care about what they are actually paying out. You can’t avoid all comsumption, but you can certainly dramatically decrease it and raising the GST is a sure fire way to send all those business who are making just enough to make being in business worthwhile, straight to the wall

Dash says:

12:14pm | 16/08/10

Hi Libertarian, as an accountant I feel deeply hurt by your suggestion that my tax views are not valid (only joking). Under my suggestion, the tax take on PAYG taxpayers would not really change much (I do say the PAYG tax rates need to be reduced) but it would give people the power to decide where to spend. More importantly though, it captures those dealing in the cash economy since you cannot avoid consumption. And it broadens the tax base which is very important. With an ageing population and more people retiring, the PAYG tax take will not be enough at current levels, and I would argue that a rise in GST is inevitable as a reult. NZ recently increased their GST to 15% but at the same time they reduced their PAYG tax rates. The top marginal tax bracket there is only 33%. That seems to me to be a much fairer system. It also reduces the descrepency between the corporate tax rate and the top marginal rate which is criminal in this country. I agree 100% with your view on taxing familiy income as opposed to individuals. That would prove the ALP is for working families (but of course in reality they are not). This should also happen because at the moment family businesses are at an advantage over PAYG taxpayers as you outline in your post. The tragedy is that the Labor government refused to let Henry consider the GST. The suggestion that it was a “root and branch” review is therefore nonsense, as is the suggestion that it was independent. In any case Labor have done nothing to address these issues. At least the LNP are talking about flattening the PAYG tax scales as suggested by Henry. Corporate profit should not change if the GST increases. Consumption should not really be reduced to levels that send businesses to the wall. This has not been the case in the other Western nations that all have GST rates higher than ours. Of course the other question is the legitimacy of Labor stealing part of the GST revenue from the Labor states without the approval of the people who voted for it to all go to the states. I think that is unconstitutional but that’s another discussion.

Jezza says:

12:41pm | 16/08/10

Dash, I agree that the GST should be a lot higher &  wages & pensions increased to cover this, & other taxes abandoned. A bigger GST will lessen th e ‘black economy’  & make it fairer on all.

Melanzana says:

01:33pm | 16/08/10

Reg - I am a small business owner who certainly doesn’t whack on margins anywhere near that.  If we even tried, the market would just reject the product.  The customer has the ability to shop around, get quotes in writing etc, so perhaps you should do your homework next time before commiting to suppliers to avoid getting screwed.  There will always be one or two dodgy operators, but it doesn’t mean that’s the business whole generally.  As Ben said, every dollar is a battle to earn, so you really do appreciate when you earn a few.

Libertarian vegetarian says:

04:44pm | 16/08/10

Rather than raising the GST rate, a more equitable solution to broadening the ‘revenue base’ would be to remove the exemptions. It is unfair to expect one section of the business community to have to deal with the GST and not others. Decrease the PAYG tax rate, raise the pensions.  Removing the exemptions may actually decrease compliance costs also.

Andrew says:

07:38am | 17/08/10

Which ‘exemptions’ exactly should be removed?  Perhaps tradies can no longer claim their tools?  Education expenses?  An awful lot of deductions are legitimate, and should be kept.  Some, obviously, are rorts, but a blanket ‘throw away all deductions’ is ridiculous.  The proposal to raise the GST and reduce income tax is MUCH fairer, as it taxes those it should - those that consume (ie, spend) the most.  Doing ‘cash jobs’ for mates will no longer matter as much, because that money will be taxed when it’s spent.  And GST is completely fair, it doesn’t discriminate between any business sector, it affects all consumers equally.  And with the current exemptions for ‘necessities’ such as food, it’s a real win for low income earners who, if their claims of living on the bare essentials are correct, will pay almost zero tax.

libertarian vegetarian says:

07:39pm | 17/08/10

Exemptions are not the same as deductions.  Currently food, bank fees, bottled water and probably a few other things I can’t remember are exempt from GST. So if you run a fruit shop or (shudder) butcher, or you sell that ‘necessity’ - bottled water for the office cooler, you don’t have to charge GST. If you removed the exemptions from all these, lowered PAYG rates, upped the pensions and possibly upped the tax free threshold, you would be collecting off those who earn their income in the cash economy without unfairly making some businesses charge GST but not others. And surely having GST on everything would streamline accounting and reduce costs in that area, so the base price of products may be reduced.

fairsfair says:

08:54am | 16/08/10

Yep, KRudd had his gallbladder out - can we all make an effort to stop using the word Bile?

Something tells me (like my current lifestyle, bank balance and quailty of life) that research, pie graphs and a laser pointer were not required to demonstrate the premise of this article to the average aussie.

I watched Mark Latham last night too - and though he lacks the polish of someone who has a journalism degree and only used footage of another journalist (good old Lozza) using the word “Bile” - over actually saying it himself - he did a good job. I didn’t agree with everything he said - but it was a balanced piece that said a lot of things that I was thinking and waiting for the media to say since this campaign began. I don’t think likening the author to ML is the insult that you intended.

As a ‘former journalist’ formally get your head our of the clouds.

Michael K says:

10:00am | 16/08/10

Excellent point. The mere fact the Federal Labor Government proposed ‘fibre to the home’ over ‘fibre to the node’ highlights their recklessness with the public purse. FTTN would have suited Australia’s current needs and saved many billions of dollars while also leaving open the opportunity to expand the network to FTTH in the future. I am very surprised that the LIberal opposition did not support a FTTN roll-out rather than the underwhelming broadband policy they have proposed.

LT says:

05:02pm | 16/08/10

Worst state government in the country and can’t win a state of origin… yep NSW is like hell on earth at the moment

The King says:

05:27pm | 16/08/10

They could always ask Malcolm Turnbull.
He’s made plenty

Good onya Malcolm

AdamC says:

09:30am | 16/08/10

I agree, Economist, while the ALP are particularly egregious, governments in general havea shocking attitude to money. Mainly, of course, because they get to spend money that isn’t theirs. The incentives to be careful, prudent or frugal simply aren’t there, especially when a government gets political kudos for it efforts with bags of money and a baseball bat.

Having said that, Ausralia was very fortunate that it had 10 years of a fiscally conservative Coalition government, unlike the Brits, who had a decade of ‘New Labour’. Unfortunately, there was noting new about Labour’s fiscal follies!

Economist says:

12:31pm | 16/08/10

AdamC, I agree up tp a point. I’d argue that the Coalition were not that fiscally conservative. I seem to recall for numerous budgets Costello announcing that Treasury forecasts for the previous year were under so they had 10s of billions of dollars to give income tax cuts. The problem was that it was business providing the extra tax revenue, the tax cuts should have gone to them (though I can’t really complain as a recipient of the tax cuts. I also think they took the soft option in getting us out of Labor’s debt by selling assets. Yes, they did well out of the sale of Tesltra, given the current share price, but no so well on gold and real estate which was sold at the bottom end of the market. Not exactly a tough decision comapred with cuts to programs.

However having clarified this, I’dargue the Coalition did a brilliant job in getting the GST up. Despite it being an unpopular tax, this was a great acheivement and they did leave a surplus.

Ben Power says:

01:59pm | 16/08/10

i accept that all sides have the ability to waste money
the longer they stay in power the greater the tendency to develop contempt for taxpayer money
but i think labor is a special case
and that’s because they’ve become so far removed from the earning and creation of money
the liberals have values, such as individual enterprise, that help counter the tendency i mentioned above

Economist says:

03:33pm | 16/08/10

Well Ben that’s all well and good, but you skirt over the issue and provide little detail in your examples. Simply stating that something is a waste is not an example to support your argument. As far as the stimulus goes have a read of George Megalogenis’ blog. You leave yourself open to ridicule by ignoring the fact that there are examples of Laborites with their own businesses, look at the Rudd family for instance. And there are examples of Liberals on boards where the company has gone under and were reliant on the public purse i.e. ABC Learning.

Also when you see articles from the opposition Immigration spokesman attacking businesses to appeal to the mob it undermines your message. http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/if-an-election-means-siding-with-the-mob-then-hand-me-a-pitchfork/

Michael K says:

11:13am | 16/08/10

The funny thing is the majority of the BER projects did not get under way until after the threat of the GFC had all but passed. Afterall, there are still 2000 schools waiting for their projects to begin (or $7 billion worth of unallocated BER funding left in the vault). If there are question marks about whether the BER shielded the economy and the building sector from devestation then I think it is appropriate to shine the spotlight on what schools ACTUALLY received from the $42 billion dollars. As an educator at both primary and tertiary level I can tell you the entire program was a monumental waste. It was not forward-thinking: school halls, canteens and COLAs do not make an education revolution. This money was required to establish open-learning spaces that harnessed the value communities could contribute to schools; collaborative learning environments; an open-ended, multifaceted curriculum driven by meeting the needs of the knowledge economy; and a valid attempt at reducing class sizes. Instead, we get classrooms which are modelled around the same template that existed over 100 years ago. The BER contributed buildings to schools that would fit seamlessly —minus the modern facade—into our grandparents’ schools. Doesn’t that seem a bit troubling to you?

If the BER did not help insulate the Australian economy to the extent warrented by the vast Government stimulus and it did not future-proof our schools, then it signals a complete lack of policy-vision on the part of Labor. Rudd and Co. were too trigger-happy in their response to the GFC of 2008, and the BER is just one example of them underthinking the task required of them. In this context even a 5% over-spend is not justified.

Super D says:

11:14am | 16/08/10

Actually Andy what the BER report found was that the State governments paid 5-6% more than what they normally pay for buildings.  It also found that normally the state governments pay about 20% more compared to catholic and independent schools.  The rush job just added a little more to their bog standard overpaying.

xyz says:

05:27pm | 16/08/10

ibast, I couldn’t agree more. I think Powers is also after Andrew Bolt’s job as well… they never let the truth get in the way of a good story!

Dave B says:

08:45pm | 16/08/10

Undermining (excuse pun)  Commie Pinko governments by funding anti -government advertising campaigns.

Surprised you needed to ask.

Nicole says:

12:21pm | 16/08/10

Hear hear Reg. Our health system is up sh!t creek and they want to throw around $43billion on an NBN. Insane to say the least.

Nicole says:

12:48pm | 16/08/10

OOOpppss I meant Ray.

Ben Power says:

01:54pm | 16/08/10

good point
we all keep hearing labor saved us from the GFC
but they were using taxpayers money
so everyone who pays taxes helped save us from the GFC, not just labor

antman says:

01:29pm | 16/08/10

No, Semiotic; most small businesses are sole traders or partnerships. Check out the Corporations Act (or any decent dictionary) for the definition of a corporation.

LT says:

05:12pm | 16/08/10

Hate to be the one to correct you antman, but a corporation can be a partner in a partnership. It is a separate legal entity and can be a partner with other corporations, or with individuals. There’s an even spread of sole traders and companies (proprietary) and trusts that operate small businesses, partnerships not so much these days.

Most people recommend companies or trusts with corporate trustees to take advantage of the corporate veil, therefore most advisors do not recommend sole trading. But they still are around in significant numbers.

Also, I doubt you have read the definition of corporation in section 57A of the Corps Act given your post. But go and take a look on Austlii

Housewife49 says:

03:54pm | 16/08/10

You do understand that your taxes support the education your children have? And you’re not surely claiming you don’t get tax benefits for the children, are you?

As for resenting the working class, pet, well, do get a grip. Thats almost as silly as Ben’s whole tirade. It’s just what you youngsters call a rant, dear, really, isn’t it.

Rach says:

04:36pm | 16/08/10

I understand my taxes pay for SOME of my children’s education, I put in the rest. My taxes also pay for the welfare people down the street, who not only don’t pay tax, but pay nothing for their children’s education… I’d like to add Julia also wants to give them $800 a year for school uniforms. We will get nothing….
No, we don’t get FTB A or B… I suggest you look up the payments and thresholds before you comment.

And as for your comments on my views of the Labor party resenting the working class. Try actually making an argument rather than just trying to belittle someone.  To the Labor party, if you work and earn money, you’re seen as an easy target, who clearly doesn’t deserve that money. If you don’t work, you get handouts. Simple as that…

bella starkey says:

04:39pm | 16/08/10

Rach, These people down the street seem to be bothering you an awful lot. Have you considered moving?

Jack says:

04:56pm | 16/08/10

Housewife49, her examples aren’t that hard to comprehend. Husband and wife work 40 hours a week, earn $60,000 each (below average wage), that’s a combined household income of $120,000, so over the FTB limits. Out of that they pay tax, medicare levy, commercial rent/ mortgage, rates, private health, private schoold fees, have to pay full priced pharmacy goods. There’s not much left after that after paying those bills.
The welfare family down the road however, only one of them works, say gets $50,000 a year, but they get by, cause they live in government housing, send their kids to public schools, don’t pay private health insurance, get FTB A & B, full rate of CCR, have a health care card so they have discounted pharmacy products, get bulk billed, they got several stimulous handouts….
Can you see a patern here? You work and earn money, Labor gives you nothing. You don’t work, they give you everything.

James says:

04:58pm | 16/08/10

Bella, you’ll find the welfare family Rach is refering to is on most streets.

Chris says:

05:03pm | 16/08/10

Rach I hear ya! My brother and his misses, bums on welfare, but keep popping out kids. They get so much money from the government. We work hard, pay everything ourselves, no government handouts for us.

Jenny says:

05:11pm | 16/08/10

My cousin lives in government housing, never worked full time. When they had their kids, they spent the baby bonus on a new plasma. They had nothing else to spend their money on, the government gives them everything. We have a mortgage, and needed every cent of it to pay the bills when I stopped working full time.
Totally agree, the government rewards the welfare class, not the working class.

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:38pm | 16/08/10

Little hazy on history here, after all it was John Howard who boosted the FTB A&B, introduced the Baby Bonus, First Home Buyers Grant and created the middle class welfare state. All Labor did was continue the Grand tradition. Try being a single or childless couple PAYE taxpayer who is entitled to absolutely nothing from the state.

Housewife49 says:

07:49am | 17/08/10

Goodness what a whacking.  Anyone would think I’d never worked or paid the taxes, that supported your family and your children’s schooling.

I don’t want to know how much income you have, dear. That’s your business.

Seems to me though that at these levels,  http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/ftb_b_iat.htm
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/ftb_a_iat.htm,one could be just a little bit more charitable in one’s attitude.  After all, school fees and families, all a matter of personal choice, aren’t they?

In real poverty,  there’s very little choice at all, sadly.