Her idea was the flat tax rate.
20% across everything (IIRC), 20% on income and 20% on spending, or something like that.
government on a massive tax grab
- Thread starter Ausprop
- Start date
Her idea was the flat tax rate.
20% across everything (IIRC), 20% on income and 20% on spending, or something like that.
How about the tax in 1998 to fund the federal national road project levied on fuel that was supposed to phase out...but never did
quite possibly because you are aware that progressive taxation is regressive on revenues long term.
Im one of themany that paid some of my slaved income at 60 c in the dollar in the bad bad old days........
ta
rolf
He forgot to mention the blow-out in rents
Many, many properties are rented close to the CBD by folk who have to work there, but can't afford to buy there.
We already know how many of the FHB's bleat about the cost of housing - which is mostly their choice to only want to buy closer in, and not out on the fringes in the new home estates.
Not many investors are in positions to buy properties closer in and either hold them with a massive neg gear position, or knock the existing place down to put up more units which may give better returns.
So, to only give neg gearing incentives on new stock won't really work IMO.
Read an article today about the current socialist government in France.
Few bells are surely ringing each time Mr Swan updates his budget (deficit) forecasts.
Agree, labour hasn't been as bad as Hollande but there is only one conclusion you can draw from the policies of both these governments. If you keep taxing and taxing the rich you are ultimately killing the golden goose.
Full article here
(PS: I do support the 0.5% increase in Medicare levy to fund the NDIS, it's all the other taxes to balance the budget for their inability to effectively manage the economy is what I oppose)
Cheers,
Oracle.
I think it is a stupid idea. Abbott should drop it as it is far too generous. When I was in Government I would see women join, then fall pregnant exactly 3 months later so they could take full maternity leave for 4 months at pay on the Government purse. I shudder to think that happening across the entire economy.
Yep. Exactly my thoughts. Populist policy that hasn't been thought through - more of an ALP trick than a Lib election trick.
And I saw the same thing time and time again when I was at Government as well. Just a rort.
They wouldn't need to as they would have entitlements at their current place of employment. They may go back to work after maternity leave for 3? months before getting pregnant again, but I don't see to many women keen to do that.
But it's just a great big tax on business.
It's not a levy. It's a tax. The costs will flow on to consumers. And I fail to see why business should be propping up women "of calibre" who want kids.
No it's not about women doing that over and over again. It's about the ones who do it initially. You end up with the situation of having many early 30s women who are on the payroll but who are always on maternity leave (paid or otherwise). This was a big issue for productivity because I could never get in touch with people in certain departments.
More importantly it means that hiring educated women of child-bearing age becomes more problematic. Certainly if I was hiring in that space I would think twice before hiring - whether that is lawful or not. I simply cannot afford to have someone away from work for such a long time, on pay, without being allowed to get a replacement. Big companies may be able to absorb that cost but even they will have to find savings elsewhere to compensate either through jacking up prices or hiring less staff overall.
While I agree this scheme is too generous (paying someone $150k per year for maternity leave can't help productivity whichever way you look at it), this statement is not correct. The point of this scheme is that employers won't have to pay when their employee takes maternity leave. The govt does that funded through this fixed levy / tax on big business (the largest 1500 from memory?). This leaves the employer free to employ a temp / casual etc at little extra cost (presumably just the margin of temp over full time salary costs if that was their solution).
I would much prefer a similar scheme that tops out at circa $50k per year rather than $150k per year and reduces the levy / tax on big business accordingly. Anything above that just reeks of more middle class welfare that we can't afford.
We all end up paying for it, eventually.
That's the thing though - the entire point of hiring someone good is to hire them long term. Why should I, as an employer, inconvenience myself by being only able to hire a casual/temp worker as I have to keep the position open for the person on maternity leave? It doesn't make any sense and is too onerous. You only need to look on Seek to see that so many jobs are for 12 month fixed terms to replace someone on maternity leave. It is a rort and should not be allowed to be proliferated.
...and should possibly not count towards permanent employment stats, in which case the numbers would be damning.
What everyone forgets to mention in these sorts of perks is the fact that the position still has to be staffed by someone.
Or, in the case of small businesses; it may not be able to book in as much work due to one staff member down.
Therefore, the person on sick leave/maternity leave/personal carer's leave/holidays/long service leave and so on - costs the Employer almost twice as much.
Public Hols really shoit me; paying everyone not to be there, and the business takes no coin at all.
Yep; good one.
Just another of these hard-won worker's rights that was a good idea at one point, but which now cost us too much as a Nation.
Yep, maternity leave is crazy from a business stand point. Last year we had 3 operators on maternity leave and 2 on stupid compo claims (every day you would see there is nothing wrong with them).
A bit of math behind it.
$120 Coking coal price
15 loads a shift per truck
150t a load
So it was 270k a day per truck... 5 operators out for 1 day is 1.35 million in revenue. After you work out the math behind it I can understand why companies are pissed when I blow a shift with a sickie because the contractor I work for don't pay it out during redundancy.
Having kids shouldn't be a birth right, it should be a privilege. Not that I ever expect that to happen in my life time but it will happen.
A bit of math behind it.
$120 Coking coal price
15 loads a shift per truck
150t a load
So it was 270k a day per truck... 5 operators out for 1 day is 1.35 million in revenue. After you work out the math behind it I can understand why companies are pissed when I blow a shift with a sickie because the contractor I work for don't pay it out during redundancy.
Having kids shouldn't be a birth right, it should be a privilege. Not that I ever expect that to happen in my life time but it will happen.
Last edited:
Haha touché, no one can ever claim we are the smartest people