Could the RESPECT tax split the nation?

the federation seems to be becoming a greater failure by the day. Barnett has raised the issue of seccession again here:

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/7268756/man-the-barricades-barnett/

and there is some serious resentment to all the federalisation and asset stripping from the resource states (not dissimilar to how england plundered the world and built London to the great place it is today). The last referendum on seccession voted in favour of it and I have to say I think it would pass again. Thre are economic reasons that would certainy validate it too. If a line were drawn from Adelaide across to Sydney, those financial and service centres coul dhave IR settings more relevant to those activiities. (tho adelaide shoul dprobably sit on th eother side of the line). The mining state to the north west could then have more effective monetary policy.

thoughts? could aussie apathy ever be so significantly shaken?
 
Thre are economic reasons that would certainy validate it too. If a line were drawn from Adelaide across to Sydney, those financial and service centres could have IR settings more relevant to those activiities. (tho adelaide shoul dprobably sit on th eother side of the line). The mining state to the north west could then have more effective monetary policy.


It would never happen, as the new non mining commonwealth [Sydney/Melbourne/Canberra] wouldn't have a viable business model. They'd end up worse than Greece in 12 months. It's currently based on de-industrialising to a service based economy that can only happen thanks to the mining industry of the north and west to pay for our imports. It's a dreamathon.

Anyway, I will partake in the dreamathon. Happy to say I'd be north west of the rust belt poverty line. Since Perth and Brisbane wouldn't be able to decide who would be the new nations capital city, I say make the nations capital Alice Springs.


See ya's.
 
I had cause just recently to read quite a detailed article on the whole secession thing. Turns out in the constitution, that before any state is "allowed" to secede, every other state has to endorse it.


Granted, most are pretty thick, but I don't think the plonkers in Vic and NSW are that stupid as to let the better states just bugger off, otherwise who would wipe their nose for them ?? They can't do it themselves, and so aren't exactly going to agree to let the better states stop continually propping them up.


There's only so much deadweight sitting in offices insuring / suing / financing each other that a nation can bear. Someone, at some point, has to get off their @r$e and actually do some productive work.


So, I reckon the answer to your question is a resounding NO.
 
i have to read up on it some more too - i have a copy of 'Hisperia' on the bookshelf, apparantly that was the name chosen for the new nation.

interesting that the federal income tax laws were an emergency WW2 measure that never got reversed

TC - the exchange rate should allow the new commonwealth to charge up their economy. there would be some short term upheaval e..g mass migration from the south east, but then that is somehting that is close to 60 years too late anyway
 
Funny. Nice try.

Queensland isn't a resource state, it's Florida. GDP isn't driven by mining, its driven by residential construction for rich southerns moving north to retire.

Until the last handful of years WA was propped up by the South-East states.

If WA did secede it would destroy itself in about 20 years time. A very high currency and massive wage inflation would kill every industry other than mining. All the resource wealth is privately owned and the money would then shift elsewhere. No government (other than Scandinavians or Singapore) has the discipline to handle surplus'. Then when the iron ore runs out you turn into Nauru. Very dangerous for a country to be a one-trick pony.
 
Very dangerous for a country to be a one-trick pony.

Absolutely. Iron ore, diamonds, gold, LNG, salt, nickel, uranium, other metals, coal, etc etc etc.

I reckon this pony might have a few tricks in it. Not to mention the massive agricultural production from the Wheatbelt. Enough to keep this little nation self sufficient in food many times over...

I've heard lots of people refer to secessionist talk in WA as a half joke. It's the sort of joke you have when you know it's not really a joke at all. When you know it may not be socially acceptable to point it out but that doesn't change the facts that we are being ripped blind by the Commonwealth and other States. It is possible to utilise sovereign wealth funds to manage mining booms and WA could be a very successful country if we did just that. WA's likelihood of doing that successfully is much higher than Australia's IMO, which has proven itself incapable.

It's not such a joke when you realise successive State premiers keep talking about this little "half joke". Not to mention the local newspaper and a fair chunk of the population reckon it would actually be a great idea.

As to clauses in the Australian constitution regarding the agreement of other States, that is a fairly legalistic view of the situation. If an adult State votes in a referendum for secession, then the Australian Constitution is pretty irrelevant. What is perhaps more relevant is our ability to raise a standing military force in short order, able to protect a very large border. That may be a bit more difficult! Of course, going forward we would be able to afford to protect ourselves far better than the protection currently provided by the ADF.

Not that I think any of this is likely to happen in my life time but its gotta be OK to have a dream...

Watch this space!

:)
 
just as european union is failing, i think the union of states is failing. a break up woul dbe good for all parties. it doesn't mean we can't all be friends!
 
I had cause just recently to read quite a detailed article on the whole secession thing. Turns out in the constitution, that before any state is "allowed" to secede, every other state has to endorse it?

wait a minute, i thought the original 1901 federation of colonies preamble didn't list WA as a "to be" federated colony AT ALL - regardless of the vote.

there is also precedent

So secession is actually a simple proposition, considering we weren't annexed in the first place.

Self governace rights and a new constitution were also granted to West Australia by the British House of Commons in 1890 and STILL STAND TODAY.

so, how hard is it to seceed?

very easy indeed. in fact, we don't even need to vote for it. considering this, there's a possible claim for compensation from Canberra for all royalties and GST revenue paid. one country is allowed to adopt the other's taxation system - makes trade simple. but to have to pay...well, i think the Eastern States are skating on VERY thin ice.
 
Some useful 2010 facts to throw into the debate, from here:

WA | Rest of Australia
10.3% | 89.7% | Population
13.1% | 86.9% | Gross domestic product
48% | 52% | Mineral and energy output
39% | 61% | Merchandise exports
55% | 45% | Exploration
28% | 72% | Private investment
8.1% | 91.9% | Share of GST
 
Until the last handful of years WA was propped up by the South-East states.

.


Got any proof of that, or is it just an urban myth that's started since WA has been propping up the rest of the nation?

As far as I know WA has always been big agriculturally, it's always had mining, especially gold in them olden days. It's always had a low population compared to the east so less infrastructure needed. I'd like to know if eastern states have ever really propped up the west. I'd doubt it.



The really really dumb thing about the resources super profits tax is that the commodity boom has seen the greatest evening up of wealth this country has ever seen. The wealth has flowed to rural areas and northern and western parts, from the old established wealth havens of the south east, but not at the expense of the south east, as can be seen by the current housing booms in Melbourne and Sydney. But no, we have to go and kill the golden goose.





See ya's.
 
Last edited:
Got any proof of that, or is it just an urban myth that's started since WA has been proping up the rest of the nation?

As far as I know WA has always been big agriculturally, it's always had mining, especially gold in them olden days. It's always had a low population compared to the east so less infrastructure needed. I'd like to know if eastern states have ever really propped up the west. I'd doubt it. .................

I too, have been under that impression.

WA is renowned and notable for having a larger proportion of entrepreneurs. I have read that they got a lot less convicts than the eastern sea-board and hence there was less harvesting of the tall poppies that has now become a national passtime.
 
Some useful 2010 facts to throw into the debate,

WA | Rest of Australia
10.3% | 89.7% | Population
13.1% | 86.9% | Gross domestic product
48% | 52% | Mineral and energy output
39% | 61% | Merchandise exports
55% | 45% | Exploration
28% | 72% | Private investment
8.1% | 91.9% | Share of GST

Actually, I think I just convinced myself where I should focus for our next property investment! :)
 
GDP isn't driven by mining, .


Dunno? I'd think mining makes up very little of GDP, but I'd reckon it does drive it.

GDP is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year.

70% of Australia's GDP comes from the services industry and services employs 75% of the workforce. That's great, it means we all have a high standard of living. The wealthier a nation is, the more service industries they can afford and the more service industries they should have. We have more school teachers, nurses, shop attendants in retail shops, policeman, It's all very simple.

There is one reason why Australia can retain that level of services and not crash and burn like the Poms or Greece. Can you work it out? Have a guess?


See ya's.
 
like how they arrived at how much tax they pay now ..ha ha

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/24/2907115.htm

I was listening to that on the radio this morning. I was unimpressed with Swanee. Needed to be asked a couple of times if the gov's 17% figure included state royalties. He didn't answer but eventually said "Even if it were......." That means of course that it didn't.

Why should the Government with a public service to do it's research and the ATO and ABS to supply data, rely on a US student's paper? If you are going to accuse an industry of only paying 17% tax, it behooves you to demonstrate what devious method they use to reduce it from 30%. At a guess, I would say that they would be paying 13% royalties to the states and that is hardly an unreasonable deduction.
 
mining and agri make up 10% of gdp

imo the 70 % services is going to be our downfall

Australia has already caught the Greek disease in that the general economy is being bled to support an ever growing unproductive sector and their unrealistic defined benefit retirements.

Remember the Future Fund? The Gov owned Telstra on our behalf via a Gov owned enterprise which funded it's birth and development. Unlike minerals in the ground we knew exactly what was there and what it was worth. Unlike minerals the Gov sold it off and gave the proceeds to a fund whose primary purpose was to guarantee public service pensions, not those of Working Families.

Similarly much of this tax rip-off will be spent meeting future, increased, super obligations.
 
Top