Johnny is calling the election

[Goreripper]

This is the thing about socialists, fucken dumb. If you earn more money, even $1 more, you will pay more tax. Can't you see that, Fuck's sake.

That's common sense you idiot. I was asking about taxation in a higher tax bracket.

The opposite, it makes corporations responsible for their emmisions; dont ask socialists about how the economy works, they don't get it.

Corporations should be responsible for their emissions already. Carbon trading just allows them to continue doing what they're already doing, with no financial penalty at all. It's a magic bullet that everyone thinks is wonderful but actually solves nothing.

Thats what I've been saying for the last 6 months.

That we should pay less tax and put pressure on inflation and interest rates? I thought you were all about stabilising the economy? Tax cuts don't do that if what Sydo said is right.

All for it

Seig Heil!

So earn less money and pay less tax dumbo

This is so dumb it doesn't warrant a reply. Oh yes it does: I don't care about paying taxes if they're funnelled into the right areas. Contributing to a massive surplus the Government does nothing with except spend it on useless ad campaigns is not how I want my tax dollars spent.

Shit, you're dumber than I thought, I can't believe someone of your age has the perception that what you just said might be correct, no wonder you vote Labor, it makes sense to me know, and fowards my argument of socialists knowing nothing about the economy.

1991, Soviet Union collapses, what a great socialist alternative. Way back in the 70's the other Communist powerhouse, china, embraced the free market, now its booming becuase of it. And yet you still argue against Capitalism and the Free market as the viable form of economy, wise up dummy's.

I don't know much about economics, I've said that many times. But you've already said that tax cuts encourage spending and push prices up, so it follows that the tax cuts are cancelled out by inflation. You virtually confirmed that. So either I know more about the economy than I thought, or you're refuting something you confirmed a few posts ago. And I'm not arguing against capitalism you ignorant fool. I have never argued against Capitalism nor said that I'm a Communist.

Exports decrease Imports incrase as Exchange rate has appreciated, but that is assuming the foreign markets are the same, which is unlikely. Specualtion also adds alot to it, both in regards to Interest rates and the exchange rate, as well as inflation and hence wages.

If all your answers were like this, you wouldn't get dumped on so often.

 

[Sydo]

I thought you were all about stabilising the economy? Tax cuts don't do that if what Sydo said is right.

What I said is correct Brian.

What I didn't try to explain is the governments reasoning behind said tax cuts, or to what extent the changes will have on other areas.

The cynic in me might say that this tax cut, so close to an election, is an obvious vote grab. On the other hand - maybe growth has slowed in the past few months, creating economic stagflation. A boost in consumer spending, which increases inflationary pressure, would counter this and get things moving again. (I'm not saying this is the govts aim at all, just putting one arguement forward. There's plenty other theories that could be debated too)

Economics isn't simple. Every action has many, and not necessarily equal, consequences in numerous other areas.

 

[Goreripper]

Also, the other part of the question I asked earlier is: Are these the same tax cuts promised in the Budget a few months back, or new ones? If they're new ones, do they cancel out the other ones? Or are these new ones on top of the other ones? Or what? No one has been able to explain this.

 

[Sydo]

I *think* they've just adjusted the old ones further.
Re-packing old policy - good to see the Libs learnt something from Bracks.

 

[FerretallicA]

Seig Heil!

Case closed!

 

[Spiff]

Wake me when the election is over.

Labor needs to be playing the "a vote for Howard is a vote for Costello" card for all it's worth.

 

[Shannow]

You only pay the higher tax rate on the dollars you earn over the bracket. So it's not like you're paying a higher percentage on your entire wage. Please don't fudge the facts.

you DO pay a higher percentage on the total wage.

Say (mythical tax brackets here)
a guy earns $20,000 at 20%...he pays $4,000.
a guy earns $20,001, and his new margin is 30%. He pays $4,000.30.

His new (effective, or underlying to quote popular parlance) tax rate is now 20.0005%

He earns another dollar, and his effective tax rate is now 20.001.

He IS paying more tax as a percentage of his total wage.

 

[Sydo]

Labor needs to be playing the "a vote for Howard is a vote for Costello" card for all it's worth.

Didn't they try that last time?

you DO ..

B'ah..
What you said is 100% true, but b'ah..

 

[Shannow]

 

[Bucko]

anybody watching insight on sbs spaeking to the younger voters ....interesting ... not that really care for politcs for that matter

 

[Spiff]

Didn't they try that last time?

But it's way more relevant this time because we know Johnny H is going to hand over power if the forces of evil triumph.

 

[Dän]

What i was saying is that I don't think tax cuts are a good idea, I know the Libs want to do it to win votes, but its not a good idea. I, unlike you fuckers, can fault the party I like, I am aware they are not omnipotent, but they are the best party to lead Australia.

 

[Dän]

you DO pay a higher percentage on the total wage.

Say (mythical tax brackets here)
a guy earns $20,000 at 20%...he pays $4,000.
a guy earns $20,001, and his new margin is 30%. He pays $4,000.30.

His new (effective, or underlying to quote popular parlance) tax rate is now 20.0005%

He earns another dollar, and his effective tax rate is now 20.001.

He IS paying more tax as a percentage of his total wage.

Do you think that's bad?
serious question

 

[Dän]

In regard to pollution I'll say this and nothing more. The current situation where by environmental well being and economic growth is far from desriable, and I have never argued it is; the fact is corporations need to pollute to produce, and need to produce for obvious reasons. What I'm arguing is that a carbon trading scheme is the best way to curb the problem while still maintaining incentive for firms to produce at capacity, which is entirly neccassry for Australia's Global competitvness, Sydo already explained the concept of Carbon trading, so I wont bother.

 

[Spiff]

What i was saying is that I don't think tax cuts are a good idea

Me neither, that's $34 billion that could be spent somewhere else. After a while you're not going to notice your pay going up a few bucks a week, especially if interest rates keep going up.

 

[Goreripper]

What i was saying is that I don't think tax cuts are a good idea, I know the Libs want to do it to win votes, but its not a good idea. I, unlike you fuckers, can fault the party I like, I am aware they are not omnipotent, but they are the best party to lead Australia.

Well I can't agree they're the best party to lead, but I'm glad you're taking a more serious role in this discussion now. I do agree that the tax cuts move is a cyncial vote-buying exercise. It was announced after the Budget but nobody bought it then; a day after the election is announced they re-package them. I don't think tax cuts are a good idea, either. I also don't buy the whole "We have the experience" line, especially if Howard resigns, because if that happens the entire make-up of Cabinet would change. Sure, Costello has the "experience" to be Treasurer, but he's never been PM. If he did take over as PM, which "experienced" Treasurer would we have then? Minchin? He hasn't been Treasurer before. Treasurer and Finance Minister is not the same thing. If Rudd wins, Swan hasn't been either, so either way we'll be left with a new Government, new Cabinet, new Ministry. The "experience" line is bogus.

 

[Goreripper]

In regard to pollution I'll say this and nothing more. The current situation where by environmental well being and economic growth is far from desriable, and I have never argued it is; the fact is corporations need to pollute to produce, and need to produce for obvious reasons. What I'm arguing is that a carbon trading scheme is the best way to curb the problem while still maintaining incentive for firms to produce at capacity, which is entirly neccassry for Australia's Global competitvness, Sydo already explained the concept of Carbon trading, so I wont bother.

Again, this is a better argument. The other argument is that carbon trading doesn't encourage industry to develop alternatives, it's only a short-term measure and it's easy to exploit. It is also difficult to police, confusing and difficult to manage properly. Ultimately, it's something that can be put in place while other, better and more efficient systems are devised. It's not a magic bullet.

 

[Shannow]

Do you think that's bad?
serious question

never said is was bad.
Just explaining.

As to carbon trading, why is Labor's plan flawed, and Liberal's right ?

 

[Shannow]

I, unlike you fuckers, can fault the party I like,

Don't read much, do you ?

look at the people who don't like labor's no nukes policy.

 

[Shannow]

As to carbon tradin, SOx trading was quite a success.

In the early part of trading, all the "easy fruit" is won. Those that can easily reduce their emissions will, and will sell their credits to those that can't. There's no real driver to eliminate the pollution 'though.

However SOx is fairly easy to measure and quantify.

CO2 isn't. There's already greenhouse credits (NGACs) in place, and you would not beleive how these have been rorted over the last 5 years.