Australia could be split into different tax zones under a new plan by Tony Abbott to develop economies in northern areas of the country. An Abbott Government would use tax incentives to lure private sector workers to cities such as Darwin, Cairns and Karratha, while also forcibly relocating tens of thousands of public sector jobs from areas such as western Sydney. In a leaked document, called Vision 2030 and obtained by the Daily Telegraph, plans to split the country into two different personal tax zones at the Tropic of Capricorn were revealed. The draft policy has reportedly already been sent to State Premiers and the Northern Territory Chief Minister. Mr Abbott hopes tax incentives and relocation of government employees will increase populations in the Top End and create a new food bowl. The policy also includes plans to relocate some Federal departments and defence facilities to the north, News Limited reports. The document has also revealed an Abbott Government would slash $800 million from the foreign aid budget to build a tropical health medical centre in far-north Queensland. http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Top..._Abbotts_plan_to_cut_Australia_in_half_070213 This was Gina Rinehart's idea Was not this idea already tried with the labour government in moving government employees to places like albury wodonga - I read that this idea was considered to be a failure. I have heard that the Chinese government has cities that are free trade zones - or to that effect so that reduced taxes and charges attracts people and capital to those places. Why not try this instead of spending government money trying to force a solution that the private market does not want at present? Any takers?
Will the national defence policy still be based on the "Brisbane Line" strategy? Personally, this will be a pretty unpopular view on this board but I believe: 1) We should stop growing our population - focusing more on how to sustain the existing one. 2) We should get nukes - not so we can threaten other nations but to secure our borders through M.A.D. Point 1 is unfeasible. This is because just like the monetary system relies on the continuous expansion of debt to properly function, the current global economic system we have relies on continual growth. If an economy shrinks in this day and age - it is a catastrophic failure that must be avoided at all cost. Sustainability isn't even a consideration. Point 2 is too controversial. We make ourselves a potential nuclear target, probably sour our relations with Indonesia and SE Asia (not to mention China) and we may begin a nuclear arms race in the western Pacific. But with a country as big as ours, with a population as small as ours, facing the growth of massive military powers to our north this century, do we really want to leave our defence in the hands of the US? As French Admiral de Joybert explained concerning France's nuclear arsenal: "Sir, I have no quarrel with you, but I warn you in advance and with all possible clarity that if you invade me, I shall answer at the only credible level for my scale, which is the nuclear level. Whatever your defenses, you shan't prevent at least some of my missiles from reaching your home and cause the devastation that you know. So, renounce your endeavour and let us stay good friends." The Chinese may hoot and holler if we ever got missiles or subs that could hit Beijing, but you can be sure they would always tread cautiously around us.
I would prefer to see a state like WA or QLD succeed from the commonwealth and implement their own low flat tax policy and end of socialism. Watch the most productive flood there while the socialist wallow in poverty.
It is a beat-up. Some press guy found a random document from a study and decided to make up a headline that it was Tony Abbott's policy. Gutter journalism again. On the other hand it's good to see that other ideas and avenues of administering the economy that are outside the box are being studied.
How about a state with no welfare payouts, no medicare, no GST, a low flat tax, and dropping about 80% of the current civil legislation. If they did that I'd be there in a flash.
if they wanna create another food bowl why dont they build a big water irrigation system from the northern territory south. theres no lack of water up there so funneling it down this way would solve alot of problems. or they could fix the murray darling basin. apparently its to do with something they built at the end of the river that fubar'd the whole thing but ive got no idea.
Yes there are but we live in Australia. When I came to Australia in 1974 there was very little Welfare. If you didn't work you were a bludger. It was a nation of small businesses and full employment. Both Parties have conned the public with the so called free trade nonsense. We don't need government assistance. Its not only the unions that are on the government teat so is big business. As I have said before financial independence is not what our political hacks want they want to control us. Big business, unions and govenment are public enemy #1 in my books. Kind Regards non recourse
I agree. This is the type of nation building project we should strive for. Diverting water from the plentiful north to the parched south. Farmers, consumers and the health of Murray Darling system would benefit. There would also be short-medium term employment generated. Interestingly Gaddafi did something similar in Libya and it was a huge positive for his country.
Is that where the yanks got the H2O to use in water boarding the "terrorists"(sic) Kind Regards non recourse
Interesting idea first mooted in the Bradfield Scheme (where water from the South Johnstone River south-west of Innisfail Qld would only have to be pumped upwards 120m to send it in to the west flowing streams which lead to the Murray Darling but............Would it not be better to leave the water in the north and irrigate land on the spot? The rapidly expanding markets for food are in Asia,which is much closer to established ports like Cairns, Townsville and Darwin. Why would you want to send water south to "rescue" farms in areas that for decades could at best be described as "marginal farming country"? For donkeys years, the bulk of resource revenues from the north of Australia have been spent in southern centres like Brisbane and Perth. Anyone who lives north of the Tropic of Capricorn and travels to these "southern capitals" could attest to this. Government revenues generated in the north are rarely spent in the north, and usually are "pilfered" for use in the south. In north Queensland we have one of the worst sections of the national highway in the country, and yet we continually see frivolous state government spending in the south-east corner of this state on roads, bridges and pedestrian walkways. If a greater percentage of the revenue from the tropics, was spent in the tropics, then some of the enormous potential up here might be realised. Besides that, it is a fantastic area to live in.
No thanks. They have a progressive tax system too. On a more serious note. Something closer to home is Lord Howe & Norfolk Island, which has no income tax (0%), no GST, no welfare payouts, and Lord Howe is still technically part of Australia.
Eh credit where credit is due for the current government.They did at least not enact a full ban on development in Tasmanian Tarkine forest just yesterday because of worries about employment in the area.
Yeh you'd hate it if everyone paid the same for the same services. Such a radical idea having to pay your own way these days.
Yes hardly any welfare in 74,,,But we did have #10 pound subsidies tickets to Australia. Take no notice of this post.. I'm only stirring. Regards Errol 43
No there aren't any... Places like Somalia - where there is no rule of law - may be "like" that according to your fertile imagination, but that's only because you have no idea what you're talking about the best of times
Depends, do you mean water from FNQ or from the Northern Territory. Problem with NT is its' seasonal. And it's all so far away from everything else, both FNQ and NT. Murray Darling, it used to be an estruarine system further inland than today. Conventional (northern hemisphere?) logic years ago dictated that stopping the flow of salty water up the river would allow the fresh water to flow further downstream. Well no, it's not like a European or American or Chinese river. Much like our mountains are not like European or American or Chinese mountains. And we still don't accept that with our rivers. All the talk in the media and from universities of the silting of the mouth of the Murray are not because of lack of fresh water but because of lack of sea water being able to flush the river silt free. Just like the early explorers crossing the Great Dividing Range, we need to tailor our thinking to the land we live in and be a little unconventional. Onto the original topic, if it was a genuine plan I'd support it. If we do need people 'up there' there should be incentives.
