The Politics Thread 2022

[zim]

The invasion begins:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-16/ ... /101446700

[Sid]

The invasion begins:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-16/ ... /101446700

ACT can have that land and NSW can have Civic Park in return

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Coastalraider]

Maybe try and get Seifert oval in the deal?

[FuiFui BradBrad]

An interesting idea I could get behind. What do you all think

[Dr Zaius]

It's an interesting concept Fui. I'm willing to entertain it. There would have to be a lot details drilled down on obviously. I'm not sure about the for life part. Maybe to a set age.

One concern is whether the head of state can remain out of politics. The heir from a young age is schooled on their responsibilities, and in particular the need for neutrality. The Queen offered counsel to the PM, but never opinion. Charles has been an activist for several causes, but has indicated that has come to an end. In saying that, I can't think of an example where the GG has mouthed off or meddled, other than the Whitlam sacking.

[FuiFui BradBrad]

Well… he also meddled in luxury construction in the ACT region.

[Dr Zaius]

Well… he also meddled in luxury construction in the ACT region.

Who, what, where, when?

[FuiFui BradBrad]

Well… he also meddled in luxury construction in the ACT region.

Who, what, where, when?

Governor general David Hurley apologises for video praising builder who renovated his home: https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-n ... d-his-home

[Dr Zaius]

Well… he also meddled in luxury construction in the ACT region.

Who, what, where, when?

Governor general David Hurley apologises for video praising builder who renovated his home: https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-n ... d-his-home

Oof

[Rick]

I think for something like this to work it would need to grow organically until it become an alternative. This is not something that you can just bring in tomorrow and assume will work.

A similar alternative would be to increase the role of the Australian of the year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gangrenous]

So, the UK pissing their economy into the wind with their version of stage 3 tax cuts.

Can we stop voting for conservatives and pretending they’re awesome at economics yet?

[T_R]

So, the UK pissing their economy into the wind with their version of stage 3 tax cuts.

Can we stop voting for conservatives and pretending they’re awesome at economics yet?

GS is predicting 20%+ inflation for them next year.

This is getting ugly.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

[Mickey_Raider]

Will be interesting to see how mature our political discourse is when inflation is still at 5-7% and 25 billion per year is about to be added to the inflation pudding.

[gangrenous]

So, the UK pissing their economy into the wind with their version of stage 3 tax cuts.

Can we stop voting for conservatives and pretending they’re awesome at economics yet?

GS is predicting 20%+ inflation for them next year.

This is getting ugly.

Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk

Yikes

[Botman]

Alex Jones getting a **** anvil dropped on his miserable **** **** brought me a great deal of joy this morning.
It's staggering to me how the parents have managed to restrain themselves. I dont know if i were in their position if i could sit in a court room, with that POS sitting metres away and not jump the railing and strangle him to death.

He is one of the most vile human beings to ever draw breath

[samvucago]

I think for something like this to work it would need to grow organically until it become an alternative. This is not something that you can just bring in tomorrow and assume will work.

A similar alternative would be to increase the role of the Australian of the year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please think of the children when you say such things. The Australian of the Year has in the most part been a populist dip of the lid to whatever ideological cause is trending at the time or for whatever sportsperson achieved beyond their capabilities. Winners of this should enjoy their 12 month spotlight and never be heard from again.

[Rick]

In hindsight I am happy with a Governed General.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[papabear]

So, the UK pissing their economy into the wind with their version of stage 3 tax cuts.

Can we stop voting for conservatives and pretending they’re awesome at economics yet?

You have your favored government in - focusing on the opposition will only detract from whatever achievements /failures Labor has or will have.

For the record UKs tax changes
- increase in company tax
- decrease in top tax rate from 45% - 40%

Both of which I personally agree with and tbh I would be more aggresive with. Although apparently these are now getting scrapped.

Australias tax changes.
- no increase in company tax (in fact it decreased - I pay this and I disagree with it).This has already been done.
- decrease in the tax rate for those earning between 45 - 180k to 30% from 32.5 and 37 (ie a removal of a bracket and a reduction.

Just making the above clear as the top marginal tax rate does not change as it does in the UK - i.e. australias tax changes help the vast majority of workers (voters for all parties) not just the high earners like the UK (they also had some other small changes to lower rates too).

Again - I am for simplifying the tax system, the brackets and different rates cause unneccessary and funny shifts of money then if we just had one simple system and whilst I disagree with the downward shift in company tax - I would put it back to 30% - I agree with movements of income tax towards 30%.

I am interested to see if Labor folds and bows to news corp and leftist pressure on this.

IMO - if labor want to be seen as responsible they should:-
- immediately increase the company tax rate back to 30%
- continue with the planned income tax cuts.
- have a look at what level you need the GST at you reach a beautiful equilibrium where every dollar GST / Personal Income / Company profits are all taxed at the same percentage.

[gangrenous]

So, the UK pissing their economy into the wind with their version of stage 3 tax cuts.

Can we stop voting for conservatives and pretending they’re awesome at economics yet?

You have your favored government in - focusing on the opposition will only detract from whatever achievements /failures Labor has or will have.

Settle down there. I don’t think one post about the UK government by me is in danger of tarnishing Labor’s achievements

For the record UKs tax changes
- increase in company tax
- decrease in top tax rate from 45% - 40%

Both of which I personally agree with and tbh I would be more aggresive with. Although apparently these are now getting scrapped.

Not sure you’ve got a lot of company there.

Just making the above clear as the top marginal tax rate does not change as it does in the UK - i.e. australias tax changes help the vast majority of workers (voters for all parties) not just the high earners like the UK (they also had some other small changes to lower rates too).

Yea and no. Helps the majority in that they have more money on paper. Doesn’t help the majority in that the bulk of that benefit goes to the upper end wage earners and so the net benefit is more debatable as you’re losing government expenditure, facing inflation, competing with others with greater increase in purchase power.

Again - I am for simplifying the tax system, the brackets and different rates cause unneccessary and funny shifts of money then if we just had one simple system and whilst I disagree with the downward shift in company tax - I would put it back to 30% - I agree with movements of income tax towards 30%.

I’m not. I think progression beyond a flat rate is a good thing.

Increasing company tax sounds good to me.

[papabear]

So, the UK pissing their economy into the wind with their version of stage 3 tax cuts.

Can we stop voting for conservatives and pretending they’re awesome at economics yet?

You have your favored government in - focusing on the opposition will only detract from whatever achievements /failures Labor has or will have.

Settle down there. I don’t think one post about the UK government by me is in danger of tarnishing Labor’s achievements

For the record UKs tax changes
- increase in company tax
- decrease in top tax rate from 45% - 40%

Both of which I personally agree with and tbh I would be more aggresive with. Although apparently these are now getting scrapped.

Not sure you’ve got a lot of company there.

Just making the above clear as the top marginal tax rate does not change as it does in the UK - i.e. australias tax changes help the vast majority of workers (voters for all parties) not just the high earners like the UK (they also had some other small changes to lower rates too).

Yea and no. Helps the majority in that they have more money on paper. Doesn’t help the majority in that the bulk of that benefit goes to the upper end wage earners and so the net benefit is more debatable as you’re losing government expenditure, facing inflation, competing with others with greater increase in purchase power.

Again - I am for simplifying the tax system, the brackets and different rates cause unneccessary and funny shifts of money then if we just had one simple system and whilst I disagree with the downward shift in company tax - I would put it back to 30% - I agree with movements of income tax towards 30%.

I’m not. I think progression beyond a flat rate is a good thing.

Increasing company tax sounds good to me.

The problem with too much progression above the company tax rate is it incentives moving money into structures that attract the company tax rate and have money in that space instead of the individual.

Taxes shouldnt just move in one direction - they should and can go in both directions depending on the needs of an economy at the time. Whilst generally, I tend to agree on the notion that decreasing taxes in an inflation heavy environment is not the best timing. That has to be wieghed against the structural problems of the tax system that should be fixed.

Most people are on a wage between 45-200k with the middle probably somewhere in the middle and obviously it helps those earning closer to the 200k more then those earning closer to the 45k. That said, a fair percentage of those earning closer to the 45k now, will sooner or later whether by inflation, luck , or self improvement will be earning closer to 200k soon enough.

The people it hurts are:-
- pensioners
- boomers / retirees
- other welfare assistance people

People on fixed incomes are stuck there.

The people it helps are those on wages... its not make or break for either of those groups but I think it is rebalancing it slightly where it should be.

Regarding labors achievements and your continuing rants on previous governments (dont get me wrong hardcore coalition fanatics do this to about long gone labor governments) is it detracts from the political conversation of the day, labor are in a honeymoon period right now having just retaken government, I think there is more quality conversation to be had about what they do or dont do then tired old red v blue conversations.

Another interesting thing for the budget is what labor does with the NDIS - from the outside looking in with some anecdotal experience this just appears to be a big circus rort from builders to providers to me. It will be interesting if Labor can finally get it moving in a more austere, common sense, practical direction.

[gangrenous]

Most people are on a wage between 45-200k with the middle probably somewhere in the middle and obviously it helps those earning closer to the 200k more then those earning closer to the 45k. That said, a fair percentage of those earning closer to the 45k now, will sooner or later whether by inflation, luck , or self improvement will be earning closer to 200k soon enough.

Just a quick one - a person on 45k in 2024 sees $0 from the change and if they get a 5% pay rise every year will make it to 200k by 2054.

In 2034 they’ll have made it to about 73k and over that period they’ll have benefited to the tune of about 3k, while someone on 200k will have kept an extra 90k. Meanwhile the government budget will have been reduced 254 Billion, or roughly 10k per person.


Someone on 75k under a similar calculation would roughly break even if they landed the 5% p.a. Need to tighten the range on who this truly benefits.

[-PJ-]

Liz Truss does 45 days as UK PM and resigns.

Great work Liz.

[Botman]

I saw a great tweet about that, which said:

"Who was the UK Prime Minister when Queen Queen Elizabeth II passed?" is going to be god tier level trivia question in 20-30 years time

[Sid]

Betoota with more Raiders news
"UK Prime Minister Liz Truss Pulls a Mal Meninga"


Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[-PJ-]

She still gets the lifetime PM pension I hope.

[gangrenous]

I saw a great tweet about that, which said:

"Who was the UK Prime Minister when Queen Queen Elizabeth II passed?" is going to be god tier level trivia question in 20-30 years time

I love that she’s the shortest serving PM yet still served under more monarchs than anyone since Churchill

[papabear]

Most people are on a wage between 45-200k with the middle probably somewhere in the middle and obviously it helps those earning closer to the 200k more then those earning closer to the 45k. That said, a fair percentage of those earning closer to the 45k now, will sooner or later whether by inflation, luck , or self improvement will be earning closer to 200k soon enough.

Just a quick one - a person on 45k in 2024 sees $0 from the change and if they get a 5% pay rise every year will make it to 200k by 2054.

In 2034 they’ll have made it to about 73k and over that period they’ll have benefited to the tune of about 3k, while someone on 200k will have kept an extra 90k. Meanwhile the government budget will have been reduced 254 Billion, or roughly 10k per person.


Someone on 75k under a similar calculation would roughly break even if they landed the 5% p.a. Need to tighten the range on who this truly benefits.

Ill try to stay quick as well

someone on 45k pays 5,092 tax with no medicare levy 11% effective tax rate

someone on 200k pays 59,667 tax with medicare levy $4000k ish 31% effective tax rate

Over a ten year period person two by your standards with no changes to income tax pays 580k more income tax. Has paid an effective tax rate of 20% higher then person 1.

Of course any reasonable tax cuts are going to see the people paying more taxes save more money.

Same as if you cut the price of chocolate - the chocolate eaters benefit the most!

[gangrenous]

That’s not the point though. You’re pitching it as advantageous to that whole affected 45k-200k bracket, but it’s not.

What the lower incomes get back in hand is exceeded by what they’ll lose in government spending, inflation, loss of spending power.

If you’re making the separate argument about how much people in different parts of the spectrum pay, I don’t see a problem with the numbers you quoted. What’s the justification in changing that balance? I don’t see a lot of people struggling to live adequately on 200k, but people on 45k I sure see struggle. What’s the value to our society in tilting that further? Particularly at a time of increasing inflation? I don’t see a better society for us that way.

[dubby]

This is such a miserable thread

[FuiFui BradBrad]

I saw a great tweet about that, which said:

"Who was the UK Prime Minister when Queen Queen Elizabeth II passed?" is going to be god tier level trivia question in 20-30 years time

I love that she’s the shortest serving PM yet still served under more monarchs than anyone since Churchill

Saw this on Reddit also

[Dr Zaius]

I saw a great tweet about that, which said:

"Who was the UK Prime Minister when Queen Queen Elizabeth II passed?" is going to be god tier level trivia question in 20-30 years time

I love that she’s the shortest serving PM yet still served under more monarchs than anyone since Churchill

Saw this on Reddit also

Bahahahahaha

[BJ]

Boris back in the running for PM. You have to laugh how completely broken UK politics currently is.

First a sham Brexit process, than years of policy and party debacle trying to implement an unclear agenda from the Brexit vote.

[papabear]

That’s not the point though. You’re pitching it as advantageous to that whole affected 45k-200k bracket, but it’s not.

What the lower incomes get back in hand is exceeded by what they’ll lose in government spending, inflation, loss of spending power.

If you’re making the separate argument about how much people in different parts of the spectrum pay, I don’t see a problem with the numbers you quoted. What’s the justification in changing that balance? I don’t see a lot of people struggling to live adequately on 200k, but people on 45k I sure see struggle. What’s the value to our society in tilting that further? Particularly at a time of increasing inflation? I don’t see a better society for us that way.

I am not pitching anything.

I am explaining my rationale as to why I think certain tax methods would be advantagous for the nation.

Fundamentally you are about reducing the tax burden on low income earners and increasing it on higher tax payers as much as possible.

Fundamentally, I am about making tax as easy to pay and fair across the whole regime (company / individual / GST etc etc) as possible.

They are mutually exclusive positions.

For the record, I think a far higher proportion of funds should be directed in programs that assist those who need it more (i.e. lower income brackets).

I do not think the current team system is effective / efficient or respected.

I agree though that 200k income earners will get a bigger reduction in their tax bill then 45k income earners.

My justification is primarily -
- people earn money and pay tax, I know of so many people who organise their affairs to minimise tax not maximise earnings. People under the current system are not as incentivised to maximise their earnings (and pay more tax) then under different systems in different regimes, you can argue until you are blue in the face about the guy paying 11% income tax should be getting a bigger tax break but it is not persuasive to me and I dont think it will be persuasive to those making the decisions. People generally, drive their companies as hard as they can go as 30% tax rate (now lower) wasnt seen as a burden but they wont pump so much money back through themselves opting for different structures in respect of the money.
- now isnt the best time (could quite possibly be the worst time - though if they just pushed them all through when announced that would have been a better climate) however structurally we now rely way to much on income taxes and not enough on GST / Company tax - so sooner or later these changes should be made.
- re how much people are earning, I am not making this because i fundamentally think 45k-200k people are in the mud financially, some people will really need this change, others it wont make much of a difference, I dont think it will tilt who is carrying the burden that much but I am more suggesting it due to point 1.



That all said many governments have fallen under news limited campaigns before and news limited is campaigning on this one so labor might fall under it and you and rupert murdoch may get what you both want and the changes to be scrapped.

I am all good however it plays out, however voting labor again is not on the cards if they don't hold strong on this front, I can cop a delay for timing but if they scrap it and go back to playing off wage earners against eachother I am back off the labor train.

[gangrenous]

I am not pitching anything.

I am explaining my rationale as to why I think certain tax methods would be advantagous for the nation.

In doing so you implied it was beneficial for people earning over 45k. I’m challenging that.

Fundamentally you are about reducing the tax burden on low income earners and increasing it on higher tax payers as much as possible.

Fundamentally, I am about making tax as easy to pay and fair across the whole regime (company / individual / GST etc etc) as possible.

I don’t agree with this characterisation.

I’m certainly also open to arguments about simplifying the tax system and increasing revenue from other sources like GST/company tax. In that way they are not mutually exclusive positions.

In your phrasing of my position, I’d replace “as much as possible” with something using “fair” which you kindly ascribed to your position.

My justification is primarily -
- people earn money and pay tax, I know of so many people who organise their affairs to minimise tax not maximise earnings. People under the current system are not as incentivised to maximise their earnings (and pay more tax) then under different systems in different regimes, you can argue until you are blue in the face about the guy paying 11% income tax should be getting a bigger tax break but it is not persuasive to me and I dont think it will be persuasive to those making the decisions. People generally, drive their companies as hard as they can go as 30% tax rate (now lower) wasnt seen as a burden but they wont pump so much money back through themselves opting for different structures in respect of the money.

Can you give an example of someone minimising their tax at the expense of earnings that is repaired by this change?

On the second half. I’m not arguing for the guy paying 11% to get a bigger tax break. I’m asking the justification for reducing the tax burden of those above. Also I don’t think you actually believe there’s a problem with the 11% tax this person pays.

Fundamentally you believe that every dollar earned should be taxed the same for simplicity, and assuming that your social support systems are basically repaying the tax for low-income earners (bringing them back to 11%) perhaps we’re not as far away as we seem.

If that’s true I think our only difference is that I do think that it should become exponentially more difficult to build wealth. I think there’s levels of wealth which if you want to keep growing beyond that there should become increasingly diminishing returns, and that leads to a better society.

[papabear]

In respect to the levels of wealth I agree with you.

The blokes/ladies earning 45k-200k is not in that stratosphere. After ten/twenty years after tax and life expenses you are lucky to have a couple of 100k on those wages if that. If you want a another tax band adjusted to inflation at say 500k per year or 1m per year I would listen. If you wanted some sort of wealth tax I would listen.

I personally would look at just doing a simple low percentage transaction tax that covers everything and you could remove a lot of other taxes, in such a fashion it would hammer those whom move larger sums of money around. The lower income people arent doing this.

In terms of how wealth gets moved around. People high enough in their business negotiate or come to a salary and structure it how they like between profit and income.

As soon as you have profit you are paying less tax as opposed to income. For example plumber john:-

His company outside of his wages earns 600k profit.

He should be doing as follows:-
- 180k wage to him ($51,667 tax)
- 180k wage/profit distribution to his wife ($51,667 tax)
-340k distribution to holding company.(25% tax 85k)
Total tax paid approximately 188k give or take 30%

Now if you have a flatter tax rate for john and his wife and increase the company tax rate you have an income of 600k lets say at 40% above 180k you have $51667 + (420k * .4 = 168k) totalling 220k.
I think what you see is the wife still getting 180k him paying himself 420 so 51,667 + 240*.4 = 96k so tax paid is 51667 +51667 +96k = total tax paid 192000 thus the govt probably ends up with 4k more tax because you dont muck around with companys and structures at that point, and if hes having trouble with his misses the govt takes a fair chunk more.

The problem you have now is the company tax rate is to low and imo any rate exceeding 40% is seen as far too punitive that people are just not going to pay it.

Does the changes do what "i" want - no, but they are in the right direction.

As I said up the company tax rate / up the GST / flatten tax income tax rates - if people earning below a certain amount are penalised to heavily funnel some money back to them through whether it be welfare payments or other tax breaks...