GarryP

The LNP doesn't like people to mention the truth - they prefer their lies to be the only game in town (cf 'stopped the boats')

Re ABC/SBS, lots of BBC programs going to Foxtel instead.

Unless they change (and they probably need freedom from government interference for that) they are going to suffer going forward. They need progs they can sell worldwide.

To those on the far right, everyone is left. I've heard them say Maggie was 'centralist'

BadgeIsBack

I find this interesting as a corporate professional to see such opinions of big business. On the one hand I support big business because they support me. It's true that I'm not fabulously rich but I see the richest as having done better in life than me from a economic viewpoint either by taking risk or running their own business or getting to the top of big business..There are plenty of people who do well economically who run their own businesses: ask any tradesman. I support the establishment, as without it there would be no fun in society. We'd all be middle class bores, or even worse, aspirational chippy lefties..(I'm partly joking.) The worst lefties are North London champagne socialists :themselves privileged. Still, at least they care: or is it a guilt trip? I am partly the product myself of traditional, socially conservative / establishment but paradoxically, slightly left tendencies: I've personally migrated to the right due to my alignment with business.

That's why I can't really support the left. That said, as a classic Liberal I believe we should support the weakest in society and provide a safety net. In some shape or form I am perhaps a bit of a Champagne socialist there : certainly when I encounter stupid people of any persuasion then that's when I put on a Champagne Socialist's hat or leftie's persona for example when people start making ridiculous claims about law or order.) But that is more a case of morality, and good sense than of politics.

Since the GFC, I've seen more complaints about big business : on websites, and news sources and until recently, actually put this down to social media and people debating and having an outlet in a way they didn't 10 years ago. There must be a problem because even the traditional middle class are starting to whinge. ..I'm surprised sometimes.

I can tell you now that I'm starting to move a fraction to the left and wondering whether we do need to tax the super rich : and make bigger changes : you've only got to earn 150k plus to start paying for someone else...

Amazulu

She was mildly right-wing - centre right more like

Beoz

We already do. 26% of tax comes from the top 2%. People under $150k pay for everyone else. Anything earned over $180k attracts 45% tax.

Sounds like you think the wealthy don't pay tax.

Is the lying propaganda sprouted on here and on the ABC messing with you?

Beoz

Here is what we should be taxing more.

http://www.domain.com.au/news/chinese-appetite-for-australian-property-set-to-grow-20160412-go49tz/

While this is just as discriminatory as the current system is towards the wealthy, taxing the wealthy is mandatory and leaves no choices. Taxing foreign property investors leaves a choice for those investors. They can choose to opt in or opt out.

Of course taxing foreign property investors is just as dangerous as taxing the wealthy, ie the investor might go elsewhere just like the wealthy can and do. The tax should be flexible in its rate and be adjusted when needed to meet demand.

OzTennis

As pointed out, the marginal rate of tax for your average bloke (on $50K) is 31.5% (37% for > $80K) which puts the 45% rate in a bit more perspective (you are trying to give the impression it's 45% vs zilch).

Figures recently released by the ATO showed that 98 businesses with > $200 mill turnover paid ZERO tax. The average bloke can't avoid this tax by being part of an international conglomerate or register in a tax haven or whatever.

The ATO reveals the tax secrets of the rich list | afr.com

Evidence of 2% pay 26%?

Beoz

My friend. You are confusing yourself between income tax and corporate tax. You only have to read the first line of your article to see that nasty tax avoiding Gina (so the lefties say) pays your salary.

Corporate tax will get less and less world wide. I know you public servants won't understand why, but its necessary for countries to attract companies and collect the tax indirectly through its sales, employees, and the like. No corporations means big trouble. No money to pay school teachers.

Now on income tax, try this on for size.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/no-the-rich-dont-pay-a-fair-share-of-tax-they-pay-all-of-it/story-e6frgd0x-1226841174461

and if you want to start picking figures, it can be 2% of 26% or it can be 10% of 50%. Take your pick.

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-50-of-all-income-tax-in-australia-paid-by-10-of-the-working-population-45229

Either way, you have no basis to say the wealthy don't pay tax. In fact they pay most of it. Perhaps you should stop being so ungrateful and greedy. Sounds like you are dreaming up stories you read in your left wing propaganda to further your own personal interests.

the troubadour

Yes I find little to disagree with in your assessment, even if vary on a few points.
The corporate world needs like the rest of us to be responsible citizens and not kick the can too far, feeling they are beyond reproach due to power and influence or to foster an increasing populist dislike and resentment, displaying an arrogance that suggests a care less attitude.


The social charter needs to be maintained. It does no body any good if increasing numbers feel marginalised with little stake in society and a reduction in welfare services to match due to ever declining funding's, then it becomes increasingly apparent fewer are benefiting although even larger amounts are being squirreled away in tax havens by the corporates and excessively rich.


The rich can still do very well just without the apparent greed and callous attitude often too readily on display.


Of course such disclosures as the latest only pressures governments to act against those interests and introduce regulation and greater observance of future dealings.


Far easier to ensure it doesn't get to that situation in the first place, which means corporates and the very wealthy paying their fair share and not in per cent terms but on gross profits overall.

the troubadour

There is plenty of basis as I have already pointed out. No one said the wealthy don't pay tax. They just don't pay enough to ensure the status quo. Nothing left wing about acknowledging the fact that increasing numbers are being let down by the system and the dangers that poses.
Not only to society and government, but many would agree that capitalism itself, is going through a crisis of some magnitude.


It also gets down to the type of world we want to live in and leave behind and deeper philosophical considerations into the meaning and relevance of what and where we are heading.

the troubadour

Well there wasn't armed troops on every corner, ensuring the hoi polloi keep their place, no doubt much to your distaste, considering your wider views, but the police did possess rather excessive powers and her views somewhat authoritarian in manner as a few later testified that served in her cabinet.

the troubadour

No reason at all why there shouldn't be a tax on unearned wealth over a certain figure. Obviously it is those most able to afford it, rather than your lame pretence that the poor will be unduly impacted. Those regardless of status, where considerable gain has been made should pay.

the troubadour

I know it very well. A large chunk no. Some yes. What's the hang up? Are you serious? Affordability. The average Londoner cannot afford to buy in their home city. As simple as that. When I was looking to buy in London during a stay in 2010,researching the market, I found some three quarters of all purchases were going to overseas residents. Although I would have been in the same category. Hardly fair nor desirable state of affairs.
A lot of dirty money being washed in London, but don't let that distract you from your usual abuse of those of the bottom quarter of society.

Beoz

Unearned = resentment. Why are you so resentful? Its obviously personal resentment. Would be good if you could look at it objectively.

Let me ask you this? If a farmer has land worth 2.5 mill pounds ,works the farm, along with his son, son gets paid a salary from the farmer, farmer dies, son only knows how to farm, son inherits farm, but needs to sell it to pay for inheritance tax. Is this really fair? There could be argument for "earning it" or not which is why earned = resentment shouldn't come into your opinion.

Of course the UK inheritance tax laws account for agriculture to a certain degree but there are plenty other similar scenarios.

Amazulu

I know the voices in your head tell you make things up but please try and keep this to yourself

The unions in the UK needed a breaking, so MT duly obliged and therefore saved her country from economic oblivion. Okay a couple of assholes got a few slaps off the old bill, but they genuinely were assholes, so slaps administered, outcome achieved, job done, moved on. Everyone was a winner

BEVS

Whilst most find all this incessant left wing v right wing type of bickering in the Barbie immensely tedious , I'll live with it for a while.

However when it comes to making the personal remarks I won't.

So argue your respective cases but leave out the taunts & snarky personal insulting comments.

It's not a good look for BE . Is off putting to anyone passing by & looking in with a thought to perhaps join . In any case it doesn't say a whole lot about debating skills does it. I did write debating and not some other sort of 'bating which is what some of it reads like to me.

..and before we go with the "people don't have to read this stuff" . Well yes. True enough. However the overall look is what interests me & what I see is not looking so good.

Up the content back to a discussion and debate guys.

Thanks