"Mateship tax"

goldpelican

goldpelican

Well-Known Member
Silver Stacker
I dislike this tax. The government has wasted so much money, and when we really need it, the cupboard is bare.

However, given that our economy is already over heated, (due to excess government stimulative pending) the government adding billions of dollars of rebuild money into circulation would not be such a great thing. At least by taxing and spending they are redistributing the money and not adding new money.

Now lets see if they can avoid monumentally screwing it all up.

If they call it a "mateship tax" or anything like it the deserve derision.
 
Thank the libs. Government finances are good enough they don't need the tax but the libs will bash em over the head all the way to the next election if they let the deficit creep out any more. The pissing contest has been good for keeping our finances in good order for the last few decades though.
 
I agree they don't need the tax. The premise that we need to be in surplus is political propaganda. This tax will do more to push the country backwards. Taxes slow growth.

Announced on the news the tax will cost about $5 a week and may last three years.

11 million workers, $1000 a year, 33 billion over three years.

Boiling the frog.
 
Silverthorn said:
Thank the libs. Government finances are good enough they don't need the tax but the libs will bash em over the head all the way to the next election if they let the deficit creep out any more. The pissing contest has been good for keeping our finances in good order for the last few decades though.
Click to expand...


Wait on; the government can't afford the political fallout of deficit spending to rebuild the flooded states, because they blew the surplus on a rorted ceiling insulation and solar panel schemes. And it's the liberals fault?

I believe that at the last election the government were hitting at the opposition, declaring that the opposition would not bring the budget into surplus, where as they would. I would say the government has spent and talked themselves into a corner.

Blame the libs, no, blame politics.
 
Stedlar said:
Silverthorn said:
Thank the libs. Government finances are good enough they don't need the tax but the libs will bash em over the head all the way to the next election if they let the deficit creep out any more. The pissing contest has been good for keeping our finances in good order for the last few decades though.
Click to expand...


Wait on; the government can't afford the political fallout of deficit spending to rebuild the flooded states, because they blew the surplus on a rorted ceiling insulation and solar panel schemes. And it's the liberals fault?

I believe that at the last election the government were hitting at the opposition, declaring that the opposition would not bring the budget into surplus, where as they would. I would say the government has spent and talked themselves into a corner.

Blame the libs, no, blame politics.
Click to expand...

I believe we can afford it. Our finances are in much better shape than pretty much any western country thanks to our politics in recent years. The only thing is I think they could have been even better. Instead of giving tax cuts, throwing petrol on the fire, and selling gold in the boom years we could have a much larger gold reserve rather than a bunch fiat paper related reserves. Ultimately reserves are for emergencies and nothing is better than gold in those circumstances.

I just hope if there is a property crash we don't bail out the banks like everyone else.
 
Labor can just claim Howard's line that he used to renege on his promises of 1996 and say that the budget in surplus was not a 'core promise'.

The Australian public can then go back to their siesta and forget all the last election promises come election day.


Interesting to note that 'non-core promise' has entered the vernacular and is now used as a way to get out of discomfort created by giving 'Your Word'. That is Howard's true legacy.
 
This is an odd thought for me, but this sort of case is the type of incident where I think simply printing the money to cover the costs of rebuilding is justified.

A levy takes funds that would be spent usefully elsewhere and puts them into rebuilding.

A debt does the same thing over a longer period.

A currency devaluation (i.e printing money) takes money that has already been spent and concentrates it.

What we are doing is recovering from the loss of money already spent. Only fair to use money already spent to cover it.

...

Please note I am uneasy as all hell about this because it is not something I would normally suggest. It just seems appropriate to this specific circumstance / type of event.

...

As to those promoting debt - take a quick look at the US and walk away from that idea. The government is not the place for debt, ever. It's bad enough that we are a housing crash away from becoming Ireland, no need to take us down the government debt path too. We are already heading that way fast enough as it is.
 
JulieW said:
Labor can just claim Howard's line that he used to renege on his promises of 1996 and say that the budget in surplus was not a 'core promise'.

The Australian public can then go back to their siesta and forget all the last election promises come election day.


Interesting to note that 'non-core promise' has entered the vernacular and is now used as a way to get out of discomfort created by giving 'Your Word'. That is Howard's true legacy.
Click to expand...

didn't the libs put on an extra levy on top of the medicare levy at some stage? I assume that's why labor are doingit. They can point back to it if the libs start whacking em over the head about it. nothing sharper than a pollie.
 
The government will do it's usual trick - The money raised from this extra tax will go directly into general revenue, not directly to flood rebuilding. It will give Labor economic breathing space due to a spike in tax revenue, and just like the charity collectors on the street that want your credit card details to donate, only a tiny portion will get used for the purpose that it was claimed to be collected for. This tax will be a Labour party cash cow.

Same as speeding fines and vehicle registrations and road tax- it is "supposed" to go towards maintaining and building road infrastructure, but in reality it goes directly into general revenue. Sorry Julia, it's a scam. Shame on you.
 
I guess I must be the only one laughing at this news.

I was lambasted openly for my 'don't care' stance against those who willingly lived in a flood zone without cover and now we're all being forced to pay for it, attitudes have changed.

This is what your country of forced austerity is like when living within your means and personal duty of care ceases to be any sort of consideration.

As I have said all along, I don't CARE what anyone else wants to do with their lives!

If they want to live in a known flood zone, let em.
If they want to live in a known fire zonze, let them.
If they want to live in a known crime zone, let them.
If they want to borrow a million dollars for a home, let them.
If they want to have seven kids on a single wage, let them.

JUST DON'T ASK ME TO FRIGGEN PAY FOR IT!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF-z-kbnJcs[/youtube]

Remember, you're all 'responsible citizens' and you don't want the economy of QLD to collapse, do you?

Jooolia will take your cash, give to them, go on TV and say the 'crisis is averted!' and you'll all go back to work and pay more tax so they can do this on the next 'crisis' to hit the scene they need bailed out.

Until people realise this way of running a society is WHY it's going to eventually collapse, this will continue to be the net result.

You will bleed the tax payers to death of forced austerity until they give up and either become net tax dodgers (ie cash only workers, Negative Gearing investors etc) or just quit their jobs and let the rest of society pay for them to sleep in and play World of Warcraft fulltime.

But then again, who am I to say anything against this movement?

Who is John Galt?
 
What's insulting is that many Aussies have already generously voluntarily "taxed" themselves through donations. A slap in the face to be double taxed, involuntarily.
 
Why can't the Federal Govt use their Contingency Reserve? That's what it's for, right? This 'mateship tax' will go into general revenue.

From: http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/myefo/html/part_3_attachment_c.htm

478_con_reserve.png


There's almost $3.5 billion in there. Am I reading this wrong?
 
At the end of the day roads, bridges and railroads and other infrastructure need to be rebuilt or repaired. No small job. Donations I imagine go to the people to help get them back on their feet in the short term.
 
Stedlar said:
Howard brought in 1% additional for one year on the Medicare levy to fund the gun buyback.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, 10% extra on every purchase I have made for the last decade plus. Remember, this is a guy who said NEVER on a GST. I am all for paying this extra tax to help my fellow Australians out.
The job of rebuilding areas decimated by floods is huge and will require a shit load of money and manpower. I am unable to help with manpower, so I'm more than happy to help out financially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top