The Bloomberg Factor: Authoritarianism, Money and US Presidential…

Political rottenness may be bottomless.  Consider the following description of a political…

710 corporations paid $0 tax on almost half…

GetUp! Media ReleaseOne third of the largest corporations in Australia paid $0…

Silly Lefties Trying To Blame Smoke Around Sydney…

There's been a lot of smoke hysteria lately with people trying to…

El Paso - the United States' descent into…

By Europaeus *Continued from Part 2‘White America' ManifestiReading El Paso’s manifesto may help…

Our mate: Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti (part 1)

By Dr George Venturini  5. Our mate: Saddam Hussein al-TikritiThe playFrom the mid-1990s…

Do you ever hear a government politician even…

The role of government should be to identify, prioritise, and deal with…

El Paso - the United States' descent into…

By Europaeus *Continued from Part 1 Americans struggle to come to terms with the…

Distraction, Diversion And Dereliction: A Government With No…

By Loz Lawrey  In any democratic parliament, they waste so much space and…

«
»
Facebook

A plea to the Pups: Do not repeal the Clean Energy Act

Original image by The Telegraph.uk

Original image by The Telegraph.uk

After reading a few similar posts I thought I’d jump on the bandwagon and try something in the open-letter style, in the vain hope that it might make its way to its intended recipients via the magic of the interwebs. Since I don’t have time to provide statistical analysis what follows is very much a matter of opinion. You can either take my conclusions on trust, or do your own research.

Dear Senators Lambie, Lazarus, and Wang,

Congratulations to you all on your appointments.

I write to express my concern about the repeal of the Clean Energy Act which is currently before the Senate. I cannot emphasize enough the significance of this legislation, and the importance of the task before you. As an Australian who plans on living at least until 70, I feel I have a vested interest in this debate, and so I would like to be sure that you are fully apprised of the facts and consequences before you vote to repeal carbon pricing.

Abolishing the carbon tax will not save families $550 a year. In the last 10 years we have seen energy prices double, but only about 3-4% of this increase is due to the carbon tax. The rest is due to over-investment in poles and wires subsidised by taxpayers and paid for by consumers. Demand for electricity has actually fallen by about 13% over the last 5 years. This may be in part due to an increase in rooftop solar PV, in part due to rising prices. My point is that carbon pricing has not been the driving force behind high energy prices. Overall the impact of carbon pricing has contributed an estimated 0.7% increase to cost of living. Compared to a 2.5% hike for the GST, this is negligible.

No doubt you have become accustomed to our Prime Minister’s underhanded tactics, allowing interest groups to dictate policy and appointing climate sceptics to key advisory positions. As much as Abbott would deny it, the time for arguing the point is over. The science has been around since the 1970s. If CO2 levels rise to 450 particles per million then the planet can be expected to warm by two degrees, posing significant risk to life on earth. CO2 levels are already at 400 ppm and the frequency and severity of extreme weather events such as typhoons, floods, droughts and bush fires has increased more rapidly in the last five years than at any time in recorded history. Only those with their heads in the sand have not seen this coming.

It would be foolish to think that our shared desire for the survival of the species would somehow be enough to shake the global economy from its dependence on fossil fuels. On the other hand, a sudden rise in input cost might do just the trick. With crude oil now soaring above $100 a barrel and the Middle East in the grip of war, it looks like we may be seeing the end of an era. As long as demand for energy remains high and shale gas cheap the US may ride out the prospect of a double dip recession for a decade or so, but new sources of energy are desperately needed to drive a new economy. You need only look toward Beijing and Washington to see the reality of this. The fossil fuel industry’s days are numbered, and in what has already been dubbed the Third Industrial Revolution, most significant new investment is in renewables.

What does this mean for Australia? We can only continue to burn coal for as long as it is cost effective to produce it. Once global accords on climate change are reached, coal will face resistance in the market and we will start to see diminishing returns. The future is already looking bleak for the industry, and any amount of foresight would have us steer clear of stranded assets, not to mention the opportunity cost of not investing in renewables sooner.

In spite of Abbott’s best attempts to thwart it, Australia already has a mechanism in place to reduce emissions and provide significant investment capital for renewables. With attendant compensations to taxpayers such as raising the tax free threshold, family tax benefits and other measures, many poorer Australians, including pensioners, are actually better off under the current scheme. In spite of what Abbott would have us believe, the Clean Energy Act is not a toxic tax. Rather it is a well crafted package of reforms which has already lowered emissions by 7% and provides a means to steer our economy out of the cul-de-sac of the resource boom and onto the autobahn of technology and innovation. Who can tell how many new jobs will be created along the way?

With all respect to environmentalists, the legislation currently in place was not designed by a bunch of climate scientists who all got together and decided that preserving things like clean air and water for future generations was a really cool idea, but by shrewd economists who foresaw the need to future proof our economy against global trends. Dismantling this legislation without thinking through the consequences would amount to an act of economic vandalism, or deliberate sabotage, take your pick.

While preserving the planet for future generations is undoubtedly a noble cause, there is a far more cynical truth to consider. Our economic future very much depends on making the transition to clean energy as quickly and smoothly as possible. So while I admire the spirit of the amendments proposed by the Palmer United Party, I would suggest that in the best interest of all Australians the Clean Energy Act should be preserved in its current form. I urge you all to consider this carefully before casting your votes.

Kind Regards

Sean Stinson

47 comments

Login here Register here
  1. Kaye Lee

    I wonder if our new Senators understand the term stranded assets.

    “An umbrella group of churches, which represents over half a billion Christians worldwide, has decided to pull its investments out of fossil fuel companies.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/11/world-council-of-churches-pulls-fossil-fuel-investments

    This new research from Carbon Tracker and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at LSE calls for regulators, governments and investors to re-evaluate energy business models against carbon budgets, to prevent $6trillion carbon bubble in the next decade.

    Unburnable carbon 2013: Wasted capital and stranded assets has revealed that fossil fuel reserves already far exceed the carbon budget to avoid global warming of 2°C, but in spite of this, spent $674billion last year to find and develop new potentially stranded assets.

    “Smart investors can see that investing in companies that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky decision. The report raises serious questions as to the ability of the financial system to act on industry-wide long term risk, since currently the only measure of risk is performance against industry benchmarks.” Professor Lord Stern

    http://www.carbontracker.org/site/wastedcapital

  2. PeterF

    Perhaps it might be a good thing to point out that this (or any) government has a mandate to prepare legislation and present it to the peoples representatives in Parliament: no more, no less. To suggest, as TA does, that his legislation should pass through parliament without opposition is to deny the very basis of our Parliamentary system.

    Of course, I don’t expect this to interest him, or them.

  3. corvus boreus

    PeterF ,
    I think you are correct both in your conclusions on parliamentary democracy and the PM’s disinterest in them.

  4. Stuart Dean

    Ain’t that the truth in a nutshell. I fail to understand Clive wanting to repeal the carbon tax and bring in an ETS. That is exactly what is planned. It needs no messing about with, no tampering or fine tuning or fiddling at the edges – certainly no full repeal. I hope Clive gives TA curry on this; he also should divest his coal interests and invest in the billion dollar renewables market – which is also under threat from TA. I think the truth is, that the Liberal strategists want to remove ALL Labor initiatives, even to the point of rewriting history as if they never existed.

  5. Keith

    Months ago it was hinted that should the carbon tax be axed then it would cause much trouble.
    It is now being said that power companies would not be able to reduce costs through the carbon tax being axed. Abbott has virtually guaranteed that power costs will come down; he can’t reimburse households as we are having a “budget emergency” (not).
    Supermarkets are not going to lower prices on goods; and so, no reduction in costs there. It is a fair question to ask exactly how people are going to be better off?
    All sorts of litigation could be a result when the promises of lower costs are not met.
    Insurance Companies are beginning to take impacts of climate change into account.
    Billions of dollars worth of damage has been done around the globe through extreme weather events in 2014 alone.
    The carbon tax as it stands can be viewed as Insurance, it is working. The Abbott gang have nothing in place except for a couple of useless words “direct action”.
    .

  6. Terry2

    We’ve seen a number of Open Letters published in AIMN in recent times and I support the general thrust of each of these although, perhaps in some cases they could be edited for length and impact, but that’s by the way.

    My main point is that these letters are not getting to a wider audience and not, it seems, eliciting a response from the addressee (s).

    I would dearly like to see some of these letters submitted as a paid advertisement – the likes of News would never publish them as letters to the editor – in either the appropriate regional newspaper (as in the case of Kaye Lee’s local member) or a national news paper in the case of this open letter. If we can ascertain cost I would be prepared to contribute along with other AIMN contributors of a like mind ; probably by way of a payment to AIMN.

    Is that too radical ?

  7. Catriona Thoolen

    It is a pity that what responders here) are not understanding is that the whole point of the amendments to the Carbon Tax repeal bill is to show that:
    a) Tony Abbott is unwilling for the energy producers to take a hit
    b) The cost savings being spruiked by Tony Abbott. every Question since forever (or it feels that way) actually do not exist, or nowhere near the $550 we have all been promised.

    Either way, it highlights (further) that our current government does not have the best interests of Australians at heart. Hopefully clear enough that even rusted on Liberal/National voters can see it.

    The Palmer United Party agrees that there needs to be an Emissions Trading Scheme, but that it needs to impact all our trading partners equally. The reason for this is that we have lost all our dirty industries offshore. Whether ore is smelt here or skins are tanned here or wool is scoured here or offshore makes no difference to pollution levels around the world, but it does lessen the jobs available for Australians. If these industries stayed in Australia they would be able to be cleaned up. We have enough clever people here to find the answers to how things can be done better. As it currently is, we make it too hard, so the businesses just pick up and move to a country that doesn’t care how much pollution (of all sorts) are poured into the air, the sea, the rivers.

    The privatisation of power suppliers has made Australia one of the most expensive countries to manufacture in. And sadly, the profits being made on power supply in Australia does not even stay here, since a majority are not Australian owned. It almost seems like it was a (very bad) plan to price Australia out of production and manufacturing. I know that sounds very Conspiracy theory, but while one of our largest power (coal fired) producers is owned by a French company GDF SUEZ, in France they have moved to nuclear power (75% of all power production) with far lower costs to businesses and consumers. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-electricity-prices-kwh

    Note: It is not Palmer United Party policy to pursue nuclear power, that is purely my own.

  8. abbienoiraude

    “The price on carbon pollution resulted in a 7% reduction in carbon pollution over the last year by the companies liable to pay the carbon price.”

    Got this from somewhere..forgotten..sorry. Not sure if it was included in piece. FYI

  9. Kaye Lee

    Could I point out that Tony’s $550 figure only applied to the one year we were still on fixed pricing (even though Labor offered to move to floating price early negating even that) and that it was based on all sorts of people lowering their prices. It was based on wild claims that everything had gone up due to the carbon price when now we are hearing that only 5 grocery items went up so no, prices won’t go down. We hear that even though the airlines added a carbon tax charge to their tickets, the prices will not go down. They just raised the prices on my electricity bill again so if they are forced to cut the price, what will it go back to – early 2012 prices? I don’t think so.

    Catriona, I would suggest that it is YOU and your PUPs that are “not understanding”. The people on this site know way to much to fall for the con job.

  10. Mike Wilkinson

    Sean, why not send this letter directly to the PUP senators via email or hard copy, their contact details are available on the parliamentary website 😉
    Just one small change I would reccomend, remove tsunamis from your list, they are caused by earthquake activity not global warming. 🙂

  11. corvus boreus

    Good spot on the tsunami detail, Mike W. And thus we all stay honest.

  12. Kaye Lee

    Storm surge has the same effect. We’re talking big destructive waves.

  13. corvus boreus

    Kaye Lee,
    Different mechanisms. Details count when changing sceptical minds: they will look for errors.

  14. Kaye Lee

    I agree….which is why I suggested storm surges 🙂

  15. Dan Dark

    Yep storm surges are happening down here, every time we loose a little bit more land and sand washed into sea, they have to keep moving barrier fencing back, because it keeps losing it’s ground, it’s very noticeable, every time the kids drag me down to beach, we walk less steps every time to get to shore less metres, dunes, what sand dunes, they are disappearing down here and quickly,

  16. Carol Taylor

    Kaye Lee, of course businesses will now say that the carbon tax has had nothing to do with their prices rises – or else they would be expected to lower their prices once the tax is scrapped (when/if that happens and under which circumstances). Naturellement. NOW and when it suits them, the truth with be revealed it will be to do with increased costs of consumables/increases in almost everything you can think of, but NOT the carbon tax..so bye bye to any delusional ideas from Abbott and cronies that businesses will lower their prices – which Abbott et al never expected anyway, of course, just another slogan to be rolled out during an election campaign knowing that under Howard promises rapidly passed into history.

  17. Florence nee Fedup

    Yes, one can accuse Abbott and his wrecking ball as economical vandalism on many fronts. One can only wonder at his motives.

  18. Florence nee Fedup

    Carol, it is not that business will say that the so called tax has

    As for Qantas, Australia is not the only place they pay for carbon emissions, I be, they are also face with similar cost.

    Another problem for Abbott, is that electricity generated by coal steam gas is becoming more expensive, as the cost rises world wide.

    This makes rene3wals the cheapest not dearest option into the future,

  19. Carol Taylor

    Florence, going by memory Qantas originally stated that they were going to comply with a price on carbon because they would be penalised in their overseas dealings if they did not.

    As for Palmer and the PUP party, unfortunately for Abbott old Clive is treating the whole thing is a business venture, hence the reason he was able to pick Abbott up on his *maybe/perhaps* wording…’not acceptable’, as per anyone with any knowledge of contract law..knowledge of which old Clive has in abundance.

  20. Florence nee Fedup

    Listened to Abbott today, in Queensland at one of the Coalition do, He sound as if still in election mode. Has not moved on, Still sticking to what all. or at least most believe to be lies,, or not factual. Even went as far to say, the nation budget works the same as the household one.

    In fact, he appeared to be pleading to his audience to be understood. Applause was muted indeed.

    Labor or Palmer is not his problem. His problem is, that reality is catching up with the world he has painted, with three word slogans over the last few years. His and Murdoch/;s wrecking ball are no longer working.

  21. my say

    The old saying goes,if it ain’t broke WHY fix it,i watched a programme on 4 corners tonight which is brilliant
    Their are so many countries diong remarkable things with clean energy programmes,And their are so many experienced people wondering what Abbott is doing to australia ,

  22. Helen

    Well put Sean.
    I agree with Mike Wilkinson. Send this letter directly to the PUP senators ASAP (with the couple of suggested changes) I too wonder if the excellent articles on the AIM get to those intended. Hope they do. 🙂

  23. Terry2

    Whilst the LNP conference in Brisbane were considering such weighty matters as scrapping the five cent coin , Tony Abbott in his speech included this line :

    “…it is only us who can rescue our country right now ”

    So, not only are we in a budget emergency, we also need rescuing : who writes this stuff ?

    A certain regime in Germany some seventy years ago used similar tactics to manipulate their population and it worked, briefly.

  24. corvus boreus

    So Tony will save us all from both the big-bads and ourselves.
    I am enthralled by the prospect of our collective rescues at the hands of a man, whose guidance on the best solution to the transgressions within the human condition is to nail someone to a lump of wood by nails through their extremities, and suspend them for a slow death through suffocation and exposure.
    He carries with him the theo-illogical baggage of a belief that we can overcome our problems by collectively regurgitating the fruit of knowledge. ‘Science is crap’ is the mantra to guide his endeavors.
    I do not know if he is foolish, deluded, insane, evil, or a combination, but he is an arsehole who promotes and exploits ignorance.
    Antony Abbott, MP and PM(deplorably), represents nothing in me but that which I would best purge.
    Rescue yourself, you soul-less malignancy.

  25. Möbius Ecko

    The only rescuing this country needs is from Abbott and this government.

  26. Dan Rowden

    I don’t know about that, Möbius; I think we need a fair bit of rescuing from ourselves, frankly.

  27. Lost2

    Terry2
    Not only is he claiming they are the only ones who can save Australia, they have also stated no one else has come up with any alternatives, well there goes another lie being peddled by this blind, deaf and dumb Government. Was there not a reply from the Greens and other interest groups on how the budget could be brought back to surplus without attacking the 80% of Australians who are not wealthy, but as usual because this meant taking money from party sponsors, it would never, ever be considered, not while the Lying Nasty Party are in power.

  28. Matters Not

    So, not only are we in a budget emergency, we also need rescuing : who writes this stuff ?

    Indeed. The sad part is that it works. A triple A credit rating economy in need of rescuing goes straight through to the keeper without any laughter from the assembled faithful.

    On ‘Insiders’ this morning we had Sava and Atkins bemoaning the fact that Palmer is (supposedly) getting a free ride from the MSM and how terrible it was when politicians are not scrutinised. Hilarious, coming from the Murdoch stable (and the ABC) who never put the Abbott ascendency under the microscope at all and in fact promoted this intellectual cretin at every opportunity.

    And they did all this with a straight face. (Not that I think Palmer is the answer to anything of significance.)

    BTW the local rag the Courier Mail/Sunday Mail is now taking the big stick to Tony Fitzgerald. Apparently he’s biting the hand that feeds because while he’s on a State Government pension he’s criticising the Newman government. Talk about hypocrisy.

  29. Kaye Lee

    Lessening the tax concessions for superannuation and negative gearing, and closing down offshore tax havens are obvious places to start. Introducing a financial transactions tax would also make people pay when they just shift money around like Rupert did – meaning that instead of him owing us….we had to give HIM almost $1 billion.

    Cut defence spending and stop buying fighter jets. Cargo planes would be far more useful to help with disaster relief and evacuations.

    But hey, I am just a middle-aged woman in her jammies….what would I know?

  30. Matters Not

    Introducing a financial transactions tax

    Care to elaborate? Are you talking about a Tobin Tax here? A Spahn tax as in Belgium? Or are you just speaking at a level of generality?

    For my part I would like to see an end to taxes on income and spending, to be replaced by a yearly tax on ‘assets’. Or at least I would like a discussion on same. Much harder to hide assets than income.

  31. corvus boreus

    Matters Not,
    After a cursory wiki(cringe) research of the Spahn proposal, it seems a more cautious and ‘sellable’ proposal than Tobin’s idea(as I understand it), only penalising predatory transactions rather than being a general levy.
    I would personally feel a lot more secure about the precariousness of the financial game if there was a Glass-Steagall type regulation in place to protect individual domestic assets from speculative consequences.

  32. Dan Dark

    If you work behind the scenes in a bank, you will understand why they won’t touch certain things, negative gearing is pushed by banks, it’s all about the investor now, not the plebs the advertising propaganda is well targeted, I have had a couple of conversations with my old boss the commbank recently, I said get out more, and have a look what’s going on, one word revolution, go have a look at March Australia page on FB you banks better stop ripping us off I talked to a women for over an hour at 11 at night, told her I was one of thousands of customers that had been sold wrong policies and if you keep treating us with contempt, watch out because your numbers up, I told her banks don’t run themselves, people run them, and do you think you are helping humanity by ripping little people off and with wind backs that you want on the new laws is a con, I questioned her integrity and if she agreed this was appropriate, and if she did, then humanity will be stuffed if banks keep on the track they are, and be prepared for the backlash, within a couple of days big ugly boss came out and apologised to the customers for their failings! It is too little too late for thousands that were conned and ripped off and I won’t get money back, so it was all talk to try and regain the publics trust, not working for them though…

  33. Kaye Lee

    While in 1990 financial transactions were 15 times higher than GDP, they are now 73 times higher. The volume of foreign exchange transactions is around 70 times higher than world trade—almost entirely due to the enormous boom in derivatives market. It is generally accepted that the size of the derivatives market today allows speculative trading to far outweigh its use for hedging and insurance purposes.

    The Austrian Institute for Economic Research estimates that a mid-range tax rate of 0.05% on financial transactions would raise annual revenues of $US650 billion. Schmidt (2007) estimates that a 0.005% Currency Transaction Tax on the four major currencies (US$, Yen, Euro and Pound Sterling) would raise over US$33 billion per annum. Another US study has estimated that between US$117 and $353 billion could be raised annually through differentiated tax rates for different markets. The IMF (2010) has stated estimates of $200 billion could be raised annually by a 0.01% FTT.

    Imposition of a FTT is likely to dissuade some transactions and, therefore, an accurate prediction of the potential yield is not possible. However, if a 0.05% FTT were collected on Australian “over-the-counter” and exchange traded market transactions between 2005-06 and 2008-09, it would have raised $48 billion (calculations Professor Ross Buckley, University of NSW, Jan 27 2011).

    http://www.jubileeaustralia.org/page/work/ft-tax

  34. DanDark

    Dan RowdenJuly 13, 2014 at 9:39 am
    “I don’t know about that, Möbius; I think we need a fair bit of rescuing from ourselves, frankly.”

    Speak for yourself only Dan, I don’t need rescuing 🙂

  35. Terry2

    In the budget there was an announcement of an allocation of $200 million to eliminate mobile phone black spots around Australia. I thought that sounds good as, in our area, Telstra have repeatedly said that they do not have have any plans or the resources to alleviate our black spot ( we don’t see Optus or any of the other players around here unless they have lost their GPS signal or are lost).

    Telstra told us to get an external aerial which we did. But that means that your mobile phone is not mobile, you have to plug in you aerial to the phone and stay at that location or go out on the veranda, hold your phone as high as you can reach and you will probably send your text but not receive an incoming call.

    So I filled in the online Telstra form dealing with poor reception etc and shortly thereafter I had a call from a charming lady at Telstra who, it turned out was in the Philippines, and she asked various questions and then told me that Telstra in my area had no plans to improve the coverage and had no resources to do so in the foreseeable future. I updated her about the $200million and she said she would pass my enquiry on to her supervisor.
    A few days later I had another call from another charming lady in the Philippines, the supervisor, who again confirmed that in my area (Atherton Tablelands Far North Qld) Telstra had no plans to enhance the coverage although she noted that the Torres Strait now had comprehensive coverage; good for them. She also queried where I had got the $200million from and I explained that it was from the Australian Federal Budget, so she checked on that and has since advised me that Telstra have no plans to enhance the coverage in my area. Evidently the mobile coverage between and within the Philippine Islands is excellent, so that’s good.

    I’ll keep you updated.

  36. Kaye Lee

    George Osborne, champion of the privileged (who wants a flat tax rate and was a fervent supporter of the war in Iraq), is horrified about the idea of taxing the speculators. He is of the school that letting the rich get richer equates to jobs. He is opposing an FTT in Europe. The rich are starting to squeal. Of course they say an FTT will hurt pensions – one way to avoid that would be to tax superannuees on…say…anything they earn over $100,000 in one year at …say 15%. That means if someone received income of $120,000pa in retirement they would pay $3,000. Someone receiving $2000 a week would pay less than $10 a week in tax. Wait….didn’t someone already suggest this? But no…we couldn’t ask the rich to contribute…let’s reduce the indexation of pensions. That will reward the good pensioners (superannuees) and kick the ones least able to kick back.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/06/george-osborne-eu-financial-transaction-tax-legal-challenge

  37. DanDark

    There are no kickbacks for the working poor, the banks work for the rich and have done for years now, even if we get these gooses out on their ears, we still have massive inequity that has swung so far, balance will never be restored, and if we think it will we are in la la land, this country is stuffed, has been for years

  38. DanDark

    That would be waste of money, they are not interested, I am not ringing anymore, it’s a waste of money, I am just giving Iprimus more money for nutting
    ” we gotta get out of this place if it is the last thing we do, girl there’s a better life”

  39. Matters Not

    corvus boreus, as you would be aware, any changes to tax arrangements meets with outcries from some section of the community. You referred to Glass-Steagall type approaches which didn’t really solve the problem in the longer term.

    If there’s any loophole then accountants, bankers and others will move to exploit same. In our current tax arrangements, for example, the special status afforded to the ‘family home’ is a nonsense. An historical hangover that needs fixing.

    As for:

    one way to avoid that would be to tax superannuees on…say…anything they earn over $100,000 in one year at …say 15%. That means if someone received income of $120,000pa in retirement they would pay $3,000. Someone receiving $2000 a week would pay less than $10 a week in tax. Wait….didn’t someone already suggest this? But no…we couldn’t

    Clearly having someone on $120 000 (super) a year paying no income tax is a disgrace but it doesn’t stop there. (There’s some definitional problems there re what ‘income’ we are talking about but never mind).

    Certain … self funded retirees are entitled to a special additional tax offsets. The Senior Age Tax Offset is $2,230 (single) and $3,204 (couple) plus the low income rebate is $445 per person. This means that no tax is payable for a single person whose income is < $32,279 and a couple whose income is < $28,974 each x 2 = $57,948

    .

    And I won’t go into how that ‘rort’ further advantages those who have ‘family trusts’. But don’t mention the (class) war, even though its intensity is on the increase, and should be plainly visible even for the mentally challenged.

  40. Kaye Lee

    MN.

    I rang Hockey’s office and discussed this with one of his advisers. He said the superannuation companies had said the tax would be too hard to implement. I very politely pointed out that their vested interest would make them against such a change and they would not have to administer it – all they need do is issue a statement of earnings and then those who needed to would fill in a tax return – just like they always did and would still be doing if they also had other income. His response….”that is not my area of expertise”.

  41. Matters Not

    Kaye Lee, it’s always ‘too hard’ to implement when it comes to rorts but even the stereotypical poor ‘bugger’ sleeping under the bridge knows ways it can be ‘solved’, at least to some extent.

    all they need do is issue a statement of earnings and then those who needed to would fill in a tax return

    This week I will receive info from my superannuation fund. It will tell me how much the fund earned in various categories, how much I earned in dollar terms (I already know that I earned 13.4%) how much I withdrew and a whole host of other data. I have already received statements from my share investments, dealings and the like from my broker. Medicare has also supplied various statements. In short, that info is already generated. It’s all just a keystroke away. My bank supplies such info to my accountant as well as to the tax office as a matter of course.

    As for:

    ”that is not my area of expertise”.

    You may have asked if you could speak to the person whose expertise it was and then asked if he/she didn’t mind having the conversation ‘taped’. I suspect he/she will give you even less info at that point. (It’s illegal to tape a phone conversation without permission but most journalist do it anyway so they can square things away with their ‘boss’ if it hits the fan.)

  42. corvus boreus

    Matters Not,
    Understand that when I contribute to discussions on economics, it is a subject upon which I know less than I do about gastro-intestinal parasites. I count in corn kernels.
    My contribution about Glass-Steagall laws separating commercial and speculative banking wasn’t put up as The Solution to The Problem, just what I would see as a potentially beneficial legislative safeguard against losing my shit when banks gamble badly.

  43. Florence nee Fedup

    You have to laugh, those from the likes of the IPA and the right media are accusing Palmer of what Abbott did . with great skill on his part, of destroying and bringing down a government, leading to a new election.

    Was not that the actions of Abbott during his term as Opposition leader.

    Where Palmer, different from Abbott. Palmer might just bring Abbott down.

    Listening to Bolt. They sound desperate.

    Abbott does not have the skills of Gillard, to survive.

  44. Florence nee Fedup

    Could Palmer’s biggest crime be, that he is showing up the inadequacies of Abbott and the team he leads.

    Abbott stage mannered the return to parliament as early as he could, in July, in the belief that he had full control of the senate, and could share in the public limelight, when he got rid of the toxic tax. The shame for Abbott, he did not realise, one also had to ensure the legalisation was ready to go. After the fiasco we seen, this was not the case.

    That is not the fault of Labor. Not even the fault of Palmer, who only took full advantage of the opening Abbott gave him.

  45. Sean Stinson

    Thanks all for your comments and corrections. For what little it’ may be worth I’ve emailed a copy to the respective senators.
    Terry2, the idea of submitting this as a paid advertisement in one of the Murdoch papers (I assume that’s what you meant) may have some merit, but not sure how it sits with my policy of divestment. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: