Not completely satisfied crippling us all with a Carbon Dioxide Tax, the Gillard government has placed congestion taxes back on the agenda, putting them up for discussion at October's tax summit, along with the possibility of other environmentally linked taxes.
It has emphasised the need to spread the tax burden fairly, placing appropriate burden on those with "the capacity to pay".
In his forward to the discussion paper, Treasurer Wayne Swan said there was more work to be done on tax reform to improve the system's efficiency and create a fairer and more prosperous society.
"As we all know, tax reform is not easy and we will need to focus on the national interest and not just sectional interests," he said.
The Treasurer said his biggest priorities were rewarding hard work and making businesses more competitive.
What’s the point of the summit? A mining and carbon dioxide tax have already been decreed and they now want to screw with us some more? Congestion Tax for god's sake! Just put up a sign and tell the rest of the world we’re closed for business why don't you?
And this man is in charge of the Australian economy. I bet his wife doesn't let him anywhere near the household budget!
Update 1:
Retailers 'better off' after carbon tax, says Swan.
Forget the economic modelling, ignore what economists, policy advocates and politicians say. Trust the government instead: carbon tax will be good for small business.
Retailers will be paying more rent, higher energy costs and stock will cost more as overheads are passed down the supply chain. But you'll be better off.
That's the bizarre line from Treasurer Wayne Swan who will almost certainly have antagonised retailers and small business owners with an address overnight asserting they will be winners when the planned carbon tax is introduced on July 1, 2012.
Seriously, Wayne Swan shouldn’t be allowed within 500 metres of a kids piggy bank let alone our national treasury.
Andy Semple
Follow him on twitter @Bulmkt
Tax and spend is back i guess.
Posted by: Vikas Nayak | July 28, 2011 at 03:52 PM
What makes it worse is that it is more than tax and spend, it is tax, spend and waste. I would be marginally less irritated (though by no means soothed) if the money at least went to worthwhile uses.
Nothing this government does has met that criteria.
Posted by: Billy the Kidder | July 28, 2011 at 07:00 PM
I can't work out what they're up to. It sounds like political hari-kiri, but they must have a game plan...somewhere?
Posted by: Strats | July 28, 2011 at 10:06 PM
The game plan has been copied from the recent British Labour Government:
They have come to realise that they are out after the next election, so they will cause as much damage as possible until then to make it harder for the next government.
It is for children, or working families or something
Posted by: Anton | July 28, 2011 at 10:49 PM
That clip was cringe-worthy. Almost as bad as this one
http://youtu.be/9lCCnu-Jk9c
Posted by: Stu | July 29, 2011 at 06:37 PM
How in hades does labor manage to run up a defecit of 680 thousand million dollars since Johnny ? can someone please tell me exactly where all this money went - or more to the point from WHOM! did we borrow it from. I'de like an answer from a labor entity befor I die
Posted by: john neeting | July 29, 2011 at 08:38 PM
The money went on $900 cheques
A NBN
A PINK BATTS SCHEME
A BUILDING THE EDUCATION REVOLUTION SCHEME
A MY SCHOOLS SCHEME
A MY HOSPITALS SCHEME
INCREASING GOVERNMENT BY 30% SINCE GAINING POWER.
GIVING AWAY BILLIONS TO OUR 'GOOD FRIEND' INDONESIA.
SHOWERING DICTATORS LIKE MUGABE WITH MILLIONS
SPENDING BILLIONS ON BOAT PEOPLE
SPENDING MORE MILLIONS TO REFUGEE LAYWERS
SPENDING MORE MILLIONS ON REFUGEE COMPENSATION CLAIMS.
FUNNELING MORE MILLIONS TO THE UN
SHOWERING 'INTEREST GROUPS' WITH MORE MONEY.
PAYING SQULLIONS TO KEEP RUDD OUT OF THE COUNTRY. (ENDLESS GLOBAL FLYING)
PAYING THE BRIBES OF THEIR COALITION PARTNERS IN ORDER TO KEEP IN POWER.
Need I go on...
Posted by: bluebell | July 29, 2011 at 09:19 PM
Oh....and I forget, more millions to fix up the Live cattle trade industry that they single handedly destroyed overnight.
Posted by: bluebell | July 29, 2011 at 09:21 PM
ANYBODY WITH A SUPER FUND OR PENSION FUND AT BETTER LISTEN TO THIS:
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9567
SWANNIE AND HIS MATES AT THE ATO ARE PLOTTING AND SCHEMING TO FLEECE YOUR BENEFICIARIES!!
Posted by: bluebell | July 29, 2011 at 09:48 PM
Alan Jones grossly misrepresented the tax system in that interview.
He was discussing the effect of exempt current pension income (the ECPI exemption), which provides that income generated by a superannuation fund is completely tax-free during the pension phase. In contrast, if you were holding the income-producing assets in your own
right, they would be taxed at a higher rate. This is one of the many tax breaks
given to super funds.
Capital gains are a type of assessable income, so normal people are taxed on the appreciation in value when they dispose of assets. The capital gains tax is calculated at the time you dispose of the asset. Superannuation funds get taxed on capital gains (eg. selling shares), although they are taxed at a concessional rate and not taxed at all when the ECPI exemption applies.
What Alan Jones was describing was the situation where a superannuation fund gets wound up after the death of the last surviving member. Notice how he kept pressing the guest to talk about 'liquidating' super funds, suggesting that the tax bill would force people to liquidate the funds? (She did try to point out that CGT is payable after liquidation.) If the superannuation fund has no more members then it can no longer be a superannuation fund and would have to dispose of its assets, giving rise to CGT. Isn't that how it should be? Super funds are designed to provide security for retirees and the government provides huge tax breaks to encourage people
to create them. Shouldn't those tax breaks be limited to the retirees they are supposed to benefit? Why should we allow people who are under the preservation age to inherit massive windfalls from money which was taxed concessionally to provide security to retirees?
CGT is not a 'death duty'. A death duty is a tax on the net value of an estate. You won't have to pay CGT on assets which were taxed as they grew (eg. interest-bearing deposits).
On that point - super fund contributions are deductible. You didn't pay tax on that money when you earned it. Don't forget that every dollar in tax the government doesn't take has to be either taken from elsewhere or result in spending cuts.
It's easy to get angry about taxes when you don't understand the details. It's a lot more difficult to critically analyse the current system and propose ways to improve it. It's also difficult to go through your list of Labor's wasteful spending and work out
what proportion of the total budget those programs used up, so I don't think I'll
bother because this comment is long enough already.
Posted by: liberal elitist | July 29, 2011 at 10:46 PM
I did however read your entire post, and it does deserve a reply.
My husband and I are self funded retirees, and if he dies before me (not likely though) I am his Reversionary Annuitant. He set it up that way when his superannuation went into the funds retirement division.
However, when the last partner dies they should be able to leave whatever is left in the pension fund to their estate, and therefore their beneficiaries listed under their Will.
I don't see why the government should have any of those monies. Those are monies saved over a working life of 40 years by the employer and employee. People who don't access their superannuation until 60 have chosen to work another five years and in doing so the government gains another five years of taxes....in the case of my husband those tax bills were quite substantial. He only chose to retire after the doctor told him to because of his serious skin cancer problems. I myself have had breast cancer and I have just turned 60.
As self funded retirees we will get NO CARBON TAX COMPENSATION because we are both under 65. You can only access a Commonwealth Seniors Card at 65, and only if you meet the means test.
We recently sold an investment unit/townhouse....we are about to pay a whopping capitol gains tax on that in this tax year. I see no bloody reason why my husband and I should have our pension savings FLEECED after death. Our life times work should be passed on to our children. I am sick to death of being SCREWED by GREEDY WASTEFUL GLUTTONOUS GOVERNMENTS whose politicians have a sense of entitlement to PLUNDER your savings!!
Posted by: bluebell | July 29, 2011 at 11:13 PM
bluebell, you don't seem to acknowledge that by keeping those savings in your superannuation you are saving large amounts of tax:
Those savings came from tax-free income. The income earned on the savings (interest/capital gains) was taxed concessionally during the life of the super fund (15%). Any pension you draw from the income and assets during the pension phase is tax-exempt - that is some of that money was never taxed, not even when you earned it!
If all the members of the super fund die then CGT assets need to be disposed of and that's taxable income just like any other income. Why should a special tax exemption designed to help retirees take effect as a windfall for younger people when those retirees die?
Posted by: liberal elitist | July 29, 2011 at 11:46 PM
And Wayne Swan is still a hopelessly inept Treasurer.
Posted by: Andy | July 29, 2011 at 11:54 PM