Crikey Blogs’ resident clever bastard Possum has come up with the characteristically brilliant idea of inviting readers to guess the result of the next Newspoll and record their prediction in the form in the sidebar. The next poll will be a particularly fascinating case study as it involves the unknown quantity of the Malcolm Turnbull leadership factor. The results of the survey will thus provide a fascinating measure of how much collective wisdom there is in this particular crowd. My guess is: not very much.
Prove me wrong, readers!
368 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 … 8 » Show All
Tanner, in QT, said a Senate committee on taxation has listed some suggestions to taxation reform. One of them was that the states to have the power to collect income tax as well as the Feds. The Labor members of the committee voted against have this suggestion included, the Libs voted for it. So the “low tax” party wants us to be taxed more.
GP, this must make your blood boil surely.
have should be having
also in QT an independent report done for the Howard govt released yesterday agrees with the action Rudd has taken on Alcops.
No 51
Allowing the states to charge income taxes, I imagine, would be counterbalanced by commensurate reductions in federal income tax. That said, such change would require constitutional amendment and we all know how lowly the chances of success are in constitutional referendums.
Political wisdom has it that in times of economic upheavel people are more inclined to stick with the government of the time. Change is a real worry to them. That’s what was argued in past election build ups by the press and politicians. If that’s the case, how come some argue that this would not apply at the next federal election if economic circumstances remain challenging.?
So GP, you don’t have any problem with the “low tax party” even going down that road at all?
Aren’t you for getting rid of the states GP?
Actually, the states can levy income tax if they want – the only problem is that unless the Cth agrees to reduces federal income tax, the federal tax would be collected first and the state tax would be collected afterwards.
Any state government that chose that particular course of action (in the current economic environment) would surely be on the way out at the next election…
Since GP has not produced a source for his assertion that the Rudd/Reins are worth $200m, rather than the $60m which BRW says they are worth, I conclude that he made the figure up.
No 58
That’s right. My thinking is that the politics are unworkable and would only be ameliorated by constitutional change.
No 56
What are you talking about? Giving the states more fiscal autonomy does not mean I stand for higher taxes.
Of course, had it been the Labor Party voting for such a tax suggestion and the Libs voting against it Labor would be the worst party in the world in GP’s eyes. Not if it’s a Liberal suggestion though, all the ecuses around the place why it would work. Another “legal thieving” tax.
No 57
No.
I think you’d be right Adam
Of course, GP, that’s exactly how the system works in the US – there’s federal income tax and state income tax (at different rates). In fact, there are several states (Texas and Florida come to mind) that have no state income tax at all.
Whether this could translate to Australia is an interesting question – although, given the current federal-state fiscal relationship, I doubt whether such a suggestion would be taken seriously at all…
No 59
Read No 39. She stands to gain at least $100 million from the sale of her business. I confused the figures. Get over it.
The fact of the matter is that Rudd is an utter hypocrite for criticising Turnbull.
No 65
I think a tweaked US model would be good in Australia. By tweaked, I mean that specific responsibilities should be better clarified in the constitution, such that duplication is minimised.
Either way, the states require better revenue raising power; and further, the GST should be properly returned to the states. i.e. if NSW raises $15 billion in GST, they should get $15 billion back.
As far as I know Rudd hasn’t criticised Turnbull for being wealthy.
59, “Bueller? Bueller?”
I thank GP for withdrawing his false assertion. We now agree that the Turnbulls are more than twice as rich as the Rudd/Reins. I agree it doesn’t matter either way, since they all earned their money through honest toil (unless more facts about HIH prove otherwise in Turnbull’s case).
Now GP asserts that Rudd has criticised Turnbull for being rich. Do you have a source for that assertion?
Agreed
No 62
Not at all Gary. The fact that the Libs supported the motion for greater fiscal autonomy for the states conforms with long-held Liberal values. We support the federation model, which entails decentralised power and competition.
There is such a thing as national solidarity. Tas and SA have substantially weaker economies that the resource boom states, for various reasons, and I don’t think there can be any objection to the richer states subsidising them. What needs to stop is the transfer of funds from NSW and Vic to Qld and WA, which no longer need it.
No 70
Did you not watch QT yesterday, with all the petty class warfare? Adam, I know you’re partisan, but you’re certainly not blind or deaf.
Re: the the Stroganoff Affair, whatever the merits or otherwise of the complaints, I find it interesting that Annabel Crabb didn’t declare that the new Parliament House catering company is owned by the wife of fellow Fairfax journo Tony Wright.
SNIP: Disruptive, immature, poor quality comment deleted. Commenter banned – The Management.
No 76
Rolly, I would have thought taxation policy is very relevant. After all, it is legalised theft.
Easy stomach – MayoFeral, now that is going too far. Downer?
No 75
An excellent gravatar MayoFeral.
Someone was reporting on another thread about the price of Costello’s book being slashed. I can tell you that I was at PH today for QT and the bookshop there is still selling it at full price but don’t know how many copies they have sold
…..
Rolly, your post I’m afraid, adds nothing of relevance to the actualities of human existence. How about contributing instead of criticising?
I have yesterday’s QT Hansard in front of me, GP. Can you direct me to the place where Rudd criticises Turnbull for being rich? I don’t seem to be able to find it.
I thought so GP. We need constant reminding of how lucky we all are that the blithering idiot is no longer endangering this country.
But you gotta feel sorry for those poor Cypriots. They’ve already suffered so much!
That’s Kim Jong-Il, surely.
82, and again “Bueller? Bueller?”
No 82
As leader of the party, Rudd endorses the blather that came out of Gillard, Albanese and Tanner.
I thank GP for withdrawing his assertion that Rudd criticised Turnbull for being rich in QT yesterday. That’s two withdrawals in an hour – not bad going.
What Rudd actually said:
the honourable member
who is now the Leader of the Opposition barely a year
ago sat in the cabinet when the then member for
Longman brought forward a proposal to increase the
base rate of the pension by $30 – and it is reported in
the national daily. My question back to the Leader of
the Opposition, in his newfound interest in compassion,
is: why did he not act then? Why did he not put
his hand up, why did the member for Curtin not put her
hand up and why did the member for Higgins not put
his hand up to act on the matter when they had the opportunity
to do so?
What Rudd actually said:
I would say to the Leader of the Opposition,
and he knows exactly what I am talking about,
that, if he was really serious about pension reform in
the 12 years that the Liberal Party was in office—and
let us narrow it right down to the shorter period that he
was in cabinet—why was the matter of pensioner reform
raised only last year, 12 months ago? You did not
do a thing to adjust the pension.
What Rudd actually said:
There is nothing like the member for
Wentworth rising in high dudgeon, I always say. It is a
piece of theatre from central casting as confected as the
member for Wentworth’s recent discovery of compassion
compassion for pensioners – which did not exist as of four
months ago.
I’m willing to put my prognositication on the line. I think there will not be a Talcum bounce in the next newspoll – reflected in TPP.
My guess is that it will be 57-43. Talcum will have a preferred PM of low 20s. While us political tragics and the MSM may be interested in every nuance, the average punter will think “so what”. Replacing Brenda will make no difference.
This may finally get the Liberals to realise that they are the problem, whoever leads is irrelevant.
My humble opinion.
Quite so, Gary @ 81. No more from him.
Now GP says it was Gillard, Albanese and Tanner who criticised Turnbull for being rich in QT yesterday. Perhaps he can direct to the place in Hansard where they said this.
No 93
From Albanese:
No 93
From Tanner:
Tanner continued:
Herald-Sun, 24 February 2008, claims Turnbull to be “Australia’s richest politician … estimated to be worth $150 million”.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23266269-661,00.html
Gary Bruce: I think the idea of a fragmented income tax system is a stupid idea and would only serve bureaucrats and tax collectors. I can see the issues now as each state panders to the electorate’s perceptions of low tax in the same way as Queensland promotes low petrol costs without daylight savings. I guess Tanner needs to find something to try and put his stamp on. Besides State governments can get their share by milking the GST which is in effect also a tax on income.
I will concede Albanese’s comments could be interpreted that way, although he is mainly criticising Turnbull for being a hypocrite rather than for being rich per se.
Tanner’s comments are in fact the exact opposite of what GP alleges. When he says “the Australian people are less interested in whether you come from privilege than whether you represent privilege,” he is saying, the point is not that Turnbull is rich, it is that he defends the privileged.
And Gillard?
What Gillard said in QT about Turnbull yesterday:
It seems remarkable to me that the Leader of the
Opposition can come into the parliament today with
concern about the circumstances of Australians when,
as a cabinet minister in the Howard government, hardworking
Australians would have been not just standing
at his door but pounding on his door to tell him about
the rip-offs under Work Choices. What did the Leader
of the Opposition do about that? Absolutely nothing,
except endorse industrial relations extremism.
The Leader of the Opposition said: ‘Work Choices
was the single most important reform to workplace
relations in any of our lifetimes.’ The Leader of the
Opposition might change in terms of who has the job,
but one thing never changes about the Liberal Party:
they are and always will be the party of Work Choices.
It is a big test for the Leader
of the Opposition. He says he is concerned about Australians.
He wants us to believe him to be a compassionate
man. He supported rip-offs of Australian working
families when they were in government. What we
are waiting to see is whether he is going to support
those rip-offs in opposition. I am not heartened, having
looked at what the Leader of the Opposition has had to
say in other circumstances about workplace relations.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 … 8 » Show All