Destabilizing Australia: Will the LNP’s Culture Wars Be…

By Denis Bright The hopeful possibilities of reaching out to build a better…

Dutton’s scattergun

It’s widely acknowledged that Tony Abbott came to be Prime Minister because…

A Copper’s Skewed Logic: Politicising Palestinian Visas

If only we could say that Peter Dutton, Australia’s federal opposition leader…

Human Rights?

By Bert Hetebry The term Genocide was first used in 1945 to describe…

Authoritarianism is taking over the world. Will it…

It would seem that many countries around the world have decided that…

Imperial Venality Defends Itself: Day Two of Julian…

On February 21, the Royal Courts of Justice hosted a second day…

I'm Not A Racist Butt...

It's interesting how quickly things change! I mean wasn't it just yesterday when…

Desperation grows in Ukraine war, two years on

Australia for UNHCR Media Release Australia for UNHCR is appealing for renewed support…


There’s No Joker In The Way The Cards Fell In Batman!

The trouble is – I’ve often remarked – is that we only get one vote. Ok, ok, preferential voting means that we can vote for one candidate that we think is unlikely to win, safe in the knowledge that our vote will be counted if it’s a close contest between two of the others. This isn’t really getting a second vote. This is like a presidential election where they vote once and then have a run-off between the top two candidates; the difference is that we record what our vote would be in the event of a run-off so we don’t have to waste our time going back a couple of weeks later.

So when I have a choice between someone who wants to open a nuclear waste dump in my suburb but who opposes expanding our coal-fired power stations and someone who’s totally opposed to the waste dump because he thinks that coal is the way of the future, you can probably understand why I’m not happy to vote for either of them. Neither am I happy to write obscenities on my ballot paper because – on a certain level – I want to vote AGAINST both of them.

Now it’s interesting to consider the washup from the Batman by-election. The general consensus was that the Liberals had pulled a master stroke by not fielding a candidate, because then their preferences wouldn’t help elect Labor. Of course, it never occured to them that their supporters might just vote Labor anyhow. And it certainly never occured to them that they may have been really able to Kill Bill by running a candidate who preferenced The Greens.

But, like I said, we only get one vote. And one chance to run a candidate. Strangely, while all the talk was about how The Greens hadn’t done as well as the previous election, nobody pointed out that the Liberals support was down 100%!

Of course, Richard Di Natale quickly decided to put the blame on the leakers which is an interesting strategy. “No,” he seems to be saying, “it’s nothing to do with what we did. It’s all the fault of those disloyal people who aren’t supporting me and if I just had unquestioned support then we could’ve make sure that Labor couldn’t go ahead with their Adani mine.”

This sounds fine until one considers that wedging Labor on Adani actually suits the Liberals. Shorten has ruled out using government money to finance the loan and no sane lending institution wants to throw its money away, so that only leaves two ways for the mine to go ahead. If the Federal Government uses our money in the hope that the mine will employ a handful of people leading up to the federal election OR Adani decides to waste his own money on a project that makes no commercial sense.

By blaming the “traitors” who leaked a report that they were trying to cover up, Di Natale also deflects attention away from the fact that he tried to make capital out of Bill Shorten’s announcement on the cash refund for franking credits.

Let’s be quite clear here. There may need to be some tweaking to the policy to ensure that it doesn’t hit people who only own a handful of shares. Notwithstandng that, some of the complaints are patently absurd.

A letter in the paper today complained about the “double taxation” when the money wasn’t refunded. Of course, this is nonsense. When you have a situation where the company pays the tax and you’re taxed on it again when it’s added to your income, that’s double taxation. When the company pays the tax and you get the tax refunded to you because you’re below the tax-free threshold, that means that the income isn’t taxed at all.

Of course, one interesting point in all the crocodile tears that we’re hearing from the conservative side of politics is the effect of the company tax cuts. The franking credit is thrity percent because that’s the company tax rate. We didn’t hear any howls of outrage about how these people couldn’t afford to lose that five percent from their cash rebate. And we certainly didn’t hear any concern about suggestions that we may need to follow Trump and reduce it all the way down to fifteen percent.

Yes, it’s true. These people may get higher dividends. But that’s not guaranteed. After all, it’s the Coalition who are suggesting that these tax cuts will lead to more investment. The company executives will have the choice to use the extra money to pay higher dividends, to give themselves bonuses, or to invest in other companies.

They might even lend it to Adani.


Login here Register here
  1. diannaart

    Choices, choices, choices – that I will never have to make.

    Punter that I am, I can only sit and watch my “betters” (people who are so wealthy they have to think about tax-cuts & shares), face the awful conundrum of a 30% franking credit, or 15% company tax rate.

    Or not paying any tax at all but still achieving all of the above.

    Sort of having a triple chocolate layer cake and getting to eat it and not gain any flab. Or something like that. All beyond the likes of yours truly, I just want to pay my power bill next month or eat.

  2. Christopher

    Thank you Ross – ‘When the company pays the tax and you get the tax refunded to you because you’re below the tax-free threshold, that means that the income isn’t taxed at all.’

    nails it mate. Was designed for people that pay tax

  3. Joseph Carli

    While John Passant may be right on the money concerning the driving force behind the two major parties being the capital based economy, he must also realise it is the driving force behind the vast majority of the voters in the nation…and will remain so for as far down the track as I can imagine…That being so, there is only one thing possible and that is to influence the party that has the better social political policies to lean that way.

  4. Ben Calibri

    Mr Pink-Whistle Interferes..I immediately thought of Barnaby Joyce.

  5. Cool Pete

    The thing that people in the know understand is that the Liberals’ scare campaign is on par for ridiculousness with the claims that pensioners were buying generic label cat food because they couldn’t afford to pay their power bills and that Whyalla would be wiped off the map. They’re not after people who have a few shares in a bank, say, they are after people who have a lot in superannuation and have it invested in shares, and manage to avoid paying tax and claim a pension. They say, “Oh, but this is an attack on people who’ve worked hard and made shrewd decisions.” The thing is, some people, such as taxi drivers (unless it’s a second job) work long hours but don’t make much money. Yes, the taxi drivers as a second job, wouldn’t make much from one or two shifts a week, but they have another to rely upon and many are trying to pay mortgages. This is not an attack on the poor, it is an attack on the greedy, enlightened, conservative voter.

Leave a Reply

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

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page