The Turnbull Government

Tisme · 14 December 2016

SirRumpole said:
You're right , Swan's mining tax was wrong because it was Labor's idea.

According to the LNP :-

Labor mining tax bad

Liberal extra payments to see the doctor good.

Phew, thank Christmas for that!!

For a moment there my faith in the LNP was shattered... they are the bastions of truth, justice and the strayan way you know. I'm sure I'm talking to the converted here Rumpole, but don't you just feel someone has wrapped you in a snug blanket on a cold day when you dream , as often I do, of the fellowship and goodwill that exudes day after day from LNP ...... and their soldiers in parliament looking after our great nation.....sigh I feel invigorated and CAN DO!!!!

SirRumpole · 14 December 2016

Tisme said:
Phew, thank Christmas for that!!

For a moment there my faith in the LNP was shattered... they are the bastions of truth, justice and the strayan way you know. I'm sure I'm talking to the converted here Rumpole, but don't you just feel someone has wrapped you in a snug blanket on a cold day when you dream , as often I do, of the fellowship and goodwill that exudes day after day from LNP ...... and their soldiers in parliament looking after our great nation.....sigh I feel invigorated and CAN DO!!!!

Yep, it gives me such a warm feeling inside, like wetting one's pants.

Tisme · 14 December 2016

SirRumpole said:
Yep, it gives me such a warm feeling inside, like wetting one's pants.

You excited tooo!!!

sptrawler · 14 December 2016

SirRumpole said:
You're right , Swan's mining tax was wrong because it was Labor's idea.

No Swans mining tax was wrong because it wasn't a tax on the resource, it was a tax on profits, which was dumb.

As with most of their policy, it was ill conceived, poorly thought out and appallingly implemented.

SirRumpole · 14 December 2016

sptrawler said:
No Swans mining tax was wrong because it wasn't a tax on the resource, it was a tax on profits, which was dumb.

As with most of their policy, it was ill conceived, poorly thought out and appallingly implemented.

Has the LNP proposed a tax on the resource ?

They didn't attack Swan's tax for "doing it the wrong way", they attacked it per se as an assault on capitalism and for allegedly drying up investment.

noco · 14 December 2016

SirRumpole said:
Has the LNP proposed a tax on the resource ?

They didn't attack Swan's tax for "doing it the wrong way", they attacked it per se as an assault on capitalism and for allegedly drying up investment.

The gooses mining tax cost more to administer than monies received.

The gooses mining tax was supposed finance NDIS and Gonski.....Labor left both unfunded and the Libs had to pick up the tab.

Just another Labor stuff up.

sptrawler · 14 December 2016

SirRumpole said:
Has the LNP proposed a tax on the resource ?

They didn't attack Swan's tax for "doing it the wrong way", they attacked it per se as an assault on capitalism and for allegedly drying up investment.

i don't personally care what the LNP did or didn't do, they are proving to be no better than Labor were.
Our politics are in an appalling state, both major parties are a disgrace IMO, they all stand for nothing but personal gain from what I can see.

The only way for Australia to get fair compensation for our resources, is to tax them on a volume basis.IMO

The only person in Australian politics pushing that is W.A's Brendan Grylls, and instead of supporting him all of our politicians are backing away from the issue.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-13/brendon-grylls-fighting-two-front-war-on-mining-tax/8117518

Our resources should be bench marked against the rest of the World, to determine the extraction/shipping cost and if appropriate a tax applied, which still maintains competitiveness.

SirRumpole · 14 December 2016

sptrawler said:
i don't personally care what the LNP did or didn't do, they are proving to be no better than Labor were.
Our politics are in an appalling state, both major parties are a disgrace IMO, they all stand for nothing but personal gain from what I can see.

The only way for Australia to get fair compensation for our resources, is to tax them on a volume basis.IMO

The only person in Australian politics pushing that is W.A's Brendan Grylls, and instead of supporting him all of our politicians are backing away from the issue.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-13/brendon-grylls-fighting-two-front-war-on-mining-tax/8117518

Our resources should be bench marked against the rest of the World, to determine the extraction/shipping cost and if appropriate a tax applied, which still maintains competitiveness.

Hang on to your hat, I agree, except maybe the tax should be as a percentage of the current price, not on volume.

That allows for price fluctuations and means government revenue is proportional to company revenue.

sptrawler · 14 December 2016

SirRumpole said:
Hang on to your hat, I agree, except maybe the tax should be as a percentage of the current price, not on volume.

That allows for price fluctuations and means government revenue is proportional to company revenue.

I disagree, prices can be manipulated, same as profits.
Our resources are one of the cheapest to extract in the World, which is why overseas miners were annoyed when BHP and RIO were selling ore at ridiculously low prices.
BHP and Rio say their Iron ore recovery cost is around $20/ton, which means they still make a profit when the price fell to $30/ton. If a $5 or even a $3/ ton tax was applied, that would be passed on to the buyer. They still need iron ore and ours would still be the cheapest.

When the resource has been stripped, do you think the mining companies will stay around to pay our welfare?

Australia hasn't got the population, or tax base, to be able to generate enough money to develop our economy. The only way we can get the money, is to sell everything to China, because they have the money to develop our infrastructure.

The only other way, is to make more money from what we sell and develop our own infrastructure. The only option we have is to tax the resources removed, we only have one shot at this.IMO.

sptrawler · 14 December 2016

I see Abbott is telling it as it is, he will cop the wrath of the media and the Labor Party, again.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...acks-a-bit-of-depression-20161214-gtasat.html

"We have to wake up to ourselves," Mr Abbott told Sydney radio station 2GB.

"This idea that you can be unemployed on benefits in a town where you can't get fruit pickers...it's just wrong."

"If people are doing the best they can for themselves and for their families and it is literally impossible for them to find work, fair enough. [But] we were far too ready to put people on the DSP [disability support pension], with bad backs, a bit of depression and so on. These are not permanent conditions."

Tisme · 14 December 2016

sptrawler said:
I see Abbott is telling it as it is, he will cop the wrath of the media and the Labor Party, again.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...acks-a-bit-of-depression-20161214-gtasat.html

"We have to wake up to ourselves," Mr Abbott told Sydney radio station 2GB.

"This idea that you can be unemployed on benefits in a town where you can't get fruit pickers...it's just wrong."

"If people are doing the best they can for themselves and for their families and it is literally impossible for them to find work, fair enough. [But] we were far too ready to put people on the DSP [disability support pension], with bad backs, a bit of depression and so on. These are not permanent conditions."

I don't think many would argue with his logic, if so maybe only by degrees.

sptrawler · 14 December 2016

Tisme said:
I don't think many would argue with his logic, if so maybe only by degrees.

It would be nice, if your statement was true, but it was this logic that had him replaced by Turnbull.

SirRumpole · 14 December 2016

Tisme said:
I don't think many would argue with his logic, if so maybe only by degrees.

Refuse a job (within 50 km) -> off the dole for 6 months.

Quit a job without valid excuse -> ditto.

Tisme · 14 December 2016

sptrawler said:
It would be nice, if your statement was true, but it was this logic that had him replaced by Turnbull.

I think he was given the bump for other reasons: 1) his peers were fed up with Credlin 2) the public weren't seeing any fruition of promises (as absurd as they were) 3) the press had wrung out every ounce of favours and the govt was still heading south as a cogent policy and outcomes unit.

sptrawler · 14 December 2016

SirRumpole said:
Refuse a job (within 50 km) -> off the dole for 6 months.

Quit a job without valid excuse -> ditto.

Again as I said above, Abbott was saying these things when he was prime minister, everyone shouted him down and he was subsequently replaced.

Now that the $hit is really hitting the fan, everyone wants strong sensible leadership, because people are realising their ar$es are in a sling.

Well best of luck.

sptrawler · 14 December 2016

Tisme said:
I think he was given the bump for other reasons: 1) his peers were fed up with Credlin 2) the public weren't seeing any fruition of promises (as absurd as they were) 3) the press had wrung out every ounce of favours and the govt was still heading south as a cogent policy and outcomes unit.

He was the only alternative, to more of the same, now with Turnbull and Shorten we get more of the same.

Whether people realise it or not, we are at the crossroads, unless we create new ways of increasing the tax reciepts, we will have to allow more foreign ownership to supply capital for infrastructure.

It isn't rocket science, we have a first world living standard, with a third World resources based economy.:1zhelp:

Abbott was given the bump, because the left wing press hated him, simple.

SirRumpole · 14 December 2016

sptrawler said:
Again as I said above, Abbott was saying these things when he was prime minister, everyone shouted him down and he was subsequently replaced.

He was saying other things as well, like waiting 6 months for the dole regardless of whether someone could find a job or not. That's basically unfair and there is a difference between that and refusing a job offer.

Abbott was given the bump, because the left wing press hated him, simple.

Are you calling Nikki Savva "Left Wing" ?

sptrawler · 14 December 2016

SirRumpole said:
He was saying other things as well, like waiting 6 months for the dole regardless of whether someone could find a job or not. That's basically unfair and there is a difference between that and refusing a job offer.

Are you calling Nikki Savva "Left Wing" ?

Well lets put it this way, I have a son who has a trade and is middle aged, he doesn't want a job.

I want the Government, to tell him, there is a job here, we will pay for you to get there and if you don't take it you get sod all.

He is lazy, he won't listen, and he can live o.k with his mates.

Well I don't think that really helps our Country.

By the way, he tells me to just chill out a bit more, maybe it's me.lol

Also I don't know who Nikki Savva is, never heard of her.

Tisme · 14 December 2016

sptrawler said:
Abbott was given the bump, because the left wing press hated him, simple.

This clipping suggests it was disobeying Murdoch that forced the public, peer and press calls for his head:

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/when-tony-abbott-crossed-the-line,7334

SirRumpole · 14 December 2016

I had my doubts about Morrison's abilities as Treasurer, and finance experts agree.

Scott Morrison's household debt remarks labelled 'inane and stupid' by finance experts

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-14/morrison-debt-remarks-inane-stupid/8121086

Several finance experts have been scathing about Scott Morrison's comments today on large amounts of household debt.
Key points:

Scott Morrison says Australians should take comfort that rising asset prices are offsetting big debts
Analysts have called his comments "inane", "stupid" and "shallow"
They warn asset prices will not stay high forever

Treasurer Scott Morrison told a gathering in Sydney today that households carrying large amounts of debt should take some comfort from rising asset prices, including house prices.

Investment expert Roger Montgomery, who manages more than $1 billion worth of funds, did not hold back in his criticism.

"I think that is one of the most inane and stupid things I have ever heard," he said.

Mr Montgomery argued the very reason for the rise in asset prices is due to the debt used to buy it.

He said it would not take much for highly indebted Australians to be caught out, unable to service their financial commitments.

"The reality is that firstly, if house prices are elevated because of debt, there should be no comfort in the price of a house ”” it's elevated simply because of the debt.

"When interest rates start going up ”” and they will as soon as, in some cases February for some of the banks ”” investors are going to find they won't have a tenant, or they won't have a tenant and they'll have higher interest rates to pay, and that debt will come home to roost."

Urbis economist Nicki Hutley was also surprised by the remarks.

"I think it probably is a little bit of a shallow statement," she said.

The Turnbull Government

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

SirRumpole

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

sptrawler

SirRumpole

noco

sptrawler

SirRumpole

sptrawler

sptrawler

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

sptrawler

SirRumpole

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

sptrawler

sptrawler

SirRumpole

sptrawler

Tisme

Apathetic at Best

SirRumpole

Similar threads

The Turnbull Government

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

Apathetic at Best

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency