Swan puts congestion tax (and other taxes!) on agenda for summit

Auspm,

Then why did he withdraw it?

 

Where's the incentive to work harder?
Currently, three to four months of each year, I work to give the govt everything I earn. To redistribute to those who have less? If they did something good with the money, I wouldn't be as upset. But it's wasted. And now they want more? WTF!?

Removing Negative gearing was a political disaster about twenty-odd years ago. Not sure if it'll get through again.

I thought my taxes already contributed to the shoddy state of our roads? Why do we need another tax for more shoddy roads?

It's wealth redistribution. And that's socialism by any definition.
There's absolutely no incentive to work harder. No incentive to study harder. No incentive to be entrepreneurial. Become a serf. Be a slave to the govt. They'll give you your daily bread. The system is rooted.
Honestly, why are we here?

 

Pressure from the industry representatives in political circles.

Over 90% of all Negatively Geared property in Australia is on established property, not new and yet most capital cities in Australia boast vacancy rates under 5% and many under half that.

The NG system is an utter failure, but to explain properly why would take pages. The industry blames local councils and lack of land, but it's (again) another industry propaganda lie.

Did you read the article?

I try and steer clear of this subject on SS, but my knowledge on it and the history behind it is detailed.

 

You are misreading what the author wrote. If you are a US citizen, you are forever responsible for US taxes on your income. If you give up your citizenship and your future income is not earned within the US, your future income will not be subject to US taxation. However, the US will not allow anyone to give up their citizenship, unless they provide proof of having a second citizenship. And if you are worth 10 million or more, the US will mark-to-market your assets and tax you on the gain.

 

Libertarian philosophy would have everything in private ownership and some form of usage charge would be expected for consuming a scarce resource (road space). Under those assumptions a congestion charge would seem to be a better option than a tax on random actions that have no relationship to the central state - eg car purchase and ownership.

 

I am a personal advocate of Laissez-faire economics Dwayne. I have absolutely no issue with the profit motive, but it has to be conducted with mutual party incentive and agreement.

Taxation under any form is theft at the point of a gun, which is what the governmental system we suffer under purports as just.

This is not just a political, social or even economic issue to me, but a moral one.

Our political system is one of slavery. Our economic system is one of theft. There is no moral justice behind the motive of the looters in power, other than to dictate terms to you in such a fashion that you must sacrifice your own values for others.

That's what taxation is.

But it's a superficial issue in the context of discussing why I believe it's wrong.

 

I guess that depends what you call a tax and what you call a usage charge. Is the difference solely based on who is doing the billing? Are university fees a tax?

 

A tax is a paid amount without agreement from the person taxed to pay, a charge is optional, pending agreement for the amount asked for the service/good provided.

Fine line of distinction, depending on how you interpret both.

 

Any concept of a "congestion tax" on public/Commonwealth roads is unconstitutional.

I think it is 45c/litre for fuel excise; this is primarily used to pay for road construction and maintenance... and they want more??

The federal government is BLEEDING in a massive deficit, and ignored practically all the recommendations in the Henry Tax Review. This rubbish summit is just about working out how to increase taxes with minimum backlash from electors.

 

I think that is the most important factor in determining if the (possible) changes are both legitimate and worthwhile: is it a "tax" or is it a "toll" (fee-for-service)?

If you want to catch a bus or a train or a ferry, you have to buy a ticket. Why shouldn't the same principle apply to cars? All those modes of transport require infrastructure for them to function properly so why shouldn't the bulk of the revenue needed to pay for the infrastructure come from the people who use it?

Its also worth noting that on a per user basis, road users have 6 times more money spent on them than public transport users. I don't happen to have (or need) a car but I still get a lot of benefit from having roads there for other people to drive on so I'm happy to have some of my tax dollars go towards having them built and maintained. That said, other people who get the benefit of travelling around in their own private car have $6 spent on them for every $1 I have spent on me so I can use the bus or train when I need to. Put another way, the $7 worth of my taxes that go towards transport infrastructure is disproportionately spent on roads compared to what I actually use myself (although if you drive a car you might resent the $1 out of $7 you pay in tax being spent on public transport you don't use).

Ideology and "fairness" aside, from a purely practical view there are too many cars in our CBDs. And I'm not saying "I'm a tree-hugging hippy who thinks cars are evil", I'm saying "you literally can't fit more cars on the bitumen areas between the buildings". Done right, a congestion charge could raise the revenue needed to improve public transport, provide a disincentive to drive and an incentive to use public transport.

 

I would be all for that, although I believe that some things should be government (i.e.: the nation) owned - water and roads being two of them. Trouble is, under the present system we are forced by taxes to pay for everything, and have no way to opt out of the forced tax component if we enter into a user pays scenario, it just becomes a double charge. As an example, if a home owner decides to pay Veolia to collect their garbage and recycling the council still charges for the collections as well, so there is no incentive to use private contractors.

Out system of government at all 3 levels is archaic.

 

Sadly it will never be "done right".... It is a good idea that can't fly because of the way our government operates - Fuel and road taxes get put straight into General Revenue, the Flood Tax gets put straight into General Revenue, the tobacco taxes go straight into the General Revenue pool... all these taxes that are collected to be put towards improving the thing that the tax applies to go straight into the General Revenue black hole. It is called government corruption.

 

I couldn't bring about a version of surmation that was more succinct, so I simply provided a quote to express my views on the role of Government.

 

And that's why I'd say that rather than everyone getting all huffed up about "a new tax on roads" we should actually be demanding that any changes to the current system need to ensure a better outcome that what we're getting at the moment.

Call your MP and say you want the congestion charge revenue quarantined for use only on transport infrastructure. If you want it only spent on roads, say that. If you want it to cross-subsidise public transport, say that instead.

If we're just going to bitch and moan about "a new tax on roads", we're actually arguing in favour of the current arrangements. I don't know about anyone else, but I think the current arrangements suck.

 

Tax is theft at the point of a gun ? hahaha are you still pushing that old barrow ?.Why dont you & yippee start your own little nirvana where life is fair & money falls out of the sky to pay for infrastructure & the services im sure you use like the footpaths you walk on in the clean streets and the sewerage systems you use the public transport im sure you catch .The water you use to wash .The public education system that you were educated in along with a myriad of things that you obviously dont think about when you post crap like that..

I could make a list of things that you use that tax dollars pays for but you would come up with some lame excuse as to how you could do without it .Like user pays etc As for your Laissez-faire ...try getting the over 20 million people in oz to sign agreements for all the different services then try to work out who pays & who doesnt .Does the sewerage get cut off a house mid street because he doesnt have an agreement?. We NEED to pay tax as a nation to give us the quality of life & services for every citizen here not just those who are well off.

While i agree the system is over taxed & needs an overhaul it generally works to supply enough money for the things you take for granted .

You need to travel to some less fortunate countries to appreciate what you have .

 

Renovator, last I checked, you were in league with the looting cartel by your own admission and quite proud of the fact you had compitulated. That was your choice.

You've no moral position to dictate terms or express counter ideology other than from your own experience.

The fact you laud my commentary as 'pushing that old barrow' and have the audacity to roll out the "You need to travel to some less fortunate countries to appreciate what you have " surmation indicates a level of hypocracy your logic cannot seem to fathom.

If you wish to debate the logic and rationale then by all means, but your continual insistence to play the man and not the ball doesn't go unnoticed where it counts.

But your rhetoric, even under your own simplistic view of the superficial arguement tells me that we are completely different levels of understanding concerning the topic at hand.

I can appreciate the purely practical viewpoint of what you're talking about, but your insistence there is no other viable way and lambasting me for considering such which you cannot see, is not only ignorant, but it's one of the real reasons for the existence of such a system in the first place.

I do understand you live in a state of fear Renovator, but taking it out on contrary opinion won't hide you from the reality.

A is A my friend. Until you learn to accept that, appreciate and understand what this core axiom is, you'll never appreciate what it is have to say on these issues.

Until then, you are part of the system I so despise and I expect no common ground to be shared ideologically, rationally or morally between us.

 

I live in fear ? hahahaha At least i live in the real world !!!!

Ive no moral position to dictate terms? .....But you have ? hahahaha. I have a right to an opinion just as you have because i dont agree & kiss your arse you dont like it

Im not playing the man just pointing out how childish & unrealistic your views are .Its got nothing to do with playing you .Did i mention yippee ? or did you miss that part ?

I never said that there was no other way. I just see what you suggest & poke holes in your idealistic views.
I live in the real world not some self affirming state of mind where everything i say is right.Im happy when others offer real solutions but when i see something thats all pie in the sky i think it needs to be addressed to bring it back to reality & the nuts & bolts of the system of what you have & how the alternative will work .

Why dont you spend a bit of time & answer my questions about cutting the sewerage off mid street ? How the sewerage will be paid for ? how the roads & footpaths will be paid for?who will clean the streets? & offer up your charge structure & agreement systems for them? & how it will be enforced .Who will pay for the public education system? so your saying the underprivelidged dont get an education because their parents dont have the mioney through no fault of their own ? Who will pay for the social security system ?or should we not have that? so the place turns into anarchy & crime because there is no government assistance for them?.What about the public health system that tax dollars pays for?

The only hypocrite here is you !!!! because you enjoy the things our tax system offers but dont want to pay for it .
. Try answering my questions instead of playing the man !!!! did i mention hypocrite already?

 

Well you responded as I expected you would Renovator.

You live in the real world alright. It's a world of death. You laugh like a madman, yet don't understand it at all. I'd laugh as well if it were not so sombering an admission.

I won't be drawn further into your logic of debate on this topic simply because we don't share the same logic and rationale from which to debate from. You attack my views. You attack me. You don't understand anything of what I am speaking of as you have already made up your mind on what it is.

But I will say that if you purport to constantly attack, rather than discuss rationally, without the constant belittlement and antagonism, then we have nothing to talk about.

For the sake of your own ideology, let's just assume I don't know anything Renovator and you have it all figured out and let it lie. I have no interest or desire to sway your view. You have made your choice. I'm not here to change that or change you to my thinking. I have nothing to gain from doing so.

I'm nothing to you but pixels on a screen dribbling crap.

I'm nothing to you but a rental scumbag, because I won't adhere to your moral code and capitulate.

I'm nothing to you because I am not of your ilk.

I'm nothing to you Renovator.

Nothing at all...

...and I personally wouldn't have it any other way.

Who is John Galt?

 

I play the man, not the ball, cos the man is the one that's causing the problems
*kicks ball over the fence - refuses to go get it*

Ok ok...

I think a forced contribution is necessary at times simply because greed would prevent an otherwise sustainable public system.

A balance must be maintained under the current system.
Supposing taxes became "voluntary donations"...
While I would willingly donate money to the medicare system, many other people wouldn't.
While others would donate to maintain roads, I wouldn't.

Some will refuse out of greed and still use the services, and others will refuse because they can't see the bigger picture and how it benefits our society.

The fact is, there are a lot of people out there that don't know what would be good for our society.
They are ignorant and can only see a few metres in front of them at any time (or at least up to their iPad screen).

With such an unintelligent and wasteful population, we do need some level of control. "They would exhaust the food supplies in a matter of months".
However, control must be noble and for the good of the country and its people.
Too bad no one out there fits the criteria. :/

Do I like paying taxes? No.
Why? Because I know it's been misused.
Would I like paying taxes if the leaders were honest? I'd be ok with it.
Why? Because I know it would be for everyones benefit.
(I can see how the roads are good for everyone even if I rarely use them personally, so under a honest leader I'm fine with it)

Overall the system is flawed, so that's only the kinda compromise I can make until it burns and a new one comes along. :|

 

Hahahaha [insert laugh like a madman]Just as i suspected ...no answers to my questions.
Oh have a little cry because i dont agree with you.
Im nothing but pixels on a screen .....im nothing hahahaha Can somebody give the man i tissue ?.

Thats not the case at all aus i just want answers that you dont seem to be able to give or are not willing to give for fear of them getting shot down in flames . I actually admire your stance on somethings but they wont wash in the real world

As a nation we need a steady flow of cash to keep the big wheel turning & the only way to have it is to take it before we get it not wait until such time as the individual decides to pay his share IF he decides he wants to pay

We need money to build new hospitals/schools sewerage plants & infrastructure BEFORE they get used & can be payed on a user pays type sheme .Not to mention the agreements for every individual that want to use it.. have you actually thought about the logistics for such a scheme?.
Why isnt there already existing schemes like it in widespread use? I'l tell you why because they dont work .I agree we are over taxed to the hilt but the basic idea of the system is tried & tested to supply an economy with the cash for expenditure it needs on a regular basis.
Until you can offer some real solutions & answers for simple questions that i ask i will keep treating you with contempt.nothing more nothing less. If you want to lambast the system then the least you can do is offer solutions not just say your way is right but then aviod questions on your opinion.
Il always challenge something i believe wont work & am happy to get into a rational discussion but seem unable to extract any real answers to discuss .