I just saw this: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/rudd-governmen…
"… Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will whack a 0.05 per cent levy on all bank, mutual bank and credit union accounts up to $250,000 to help boost his own Budget bottom line."
He's certainly just lost any chance of getting my vote.
You seem to have a habit of putting your own words up so you can attempt to demolish them. A classic poor argument technique. I haven't mentioned income tax rates just as I didn't mention the USA or Singapore, but yes I have no problem with a 40% tax rate at all. It helps to balance the obscene amounts paid to bank execs for doing sfa for example.
Your faith in human intelligence is not an argument, it's a throw away line without foundations, as a cursory glance at history and current affairs will show you if you open your eyes. We'd have no need of laws or restrictions of any sort in this magical world of yours. The simple fact is that many people, and companies for that matter, can't or won't control their behaviour unless forced by laws and/or economic incentive to do so. In western democracies it's governments which determine the laws and taxes on behalf of all current and future citizens. Not acting is not an option however much you might like to take the individualist/no society line.
Like I said, we have a different philosophy of how we see the role of government.
I don't wish to change your mind but only wanting to present the other side of the issue.
There is a lot I want to say but this is definitely not the right forum. Perhaps if we come across one day, we can have this dialogue a bit more.
I also don't quite understand the "habit of putting your own words up so you can attempt to demolish them" sentence. It doesn't quite make sense to me… sorry…
As promised, the link is below on the net cost of healthcare due to Tobacco.
http://ris.finance.gov.au/2013/05/20/25-per-cent-tobacco-exc…
Page 11. I refer to the line "Net Healthcare cost".
Selectively picking out a single line of a four line table doesn't help your credibility much when you say, "do you know how much cost of smoking in Australia?" and claim the answer is only $318M. In fact, from the very table that you used (item 54 on page 11 from the official report at your link), the answer is $31.5B!
I agree with you. Apologies.
Does anyone think it will actually go to a savings insurance scheme and not just "general revenue" to make up some of the money Labor has lost? Poor way to spin it in any which case, slugging savers = bad. Damn you Cyprus for giving them this idea.
They're using it to make the budget look better.
http://goo.gl/fs6dmq
"The money raised from the savings levy will go into a quarantined "financial stability fund" that the Government can use to pay out deposits if a bank fails. But the amount in the fund will count against the Government's Budget bottom line and help it scrape back into surplus by 2016-17."
Yes, so "financial stability fund" is just the official cover story and general revenue is where its going. Odds of banking crisis very low, so I doubt there will be any "financial stability fund".
I wouldn't mind giving $50 or even $100 right now, as a once off to help balance the budget. But fark this continual grab.
Same old, same old.
Bank Accounts Debit tax, and Financial Institutions Duty, introduced when John Howard was Treasurer in 1982:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_account_debits_tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_institutions_duty
Neither were in any way linked to a financial stability fund. Both went into general revenue, at the time of a growing recession. Both retained until the GST was introduced in the Howard government second term.
The IMF and our own RBA recommend it. The article mentions a number of major economies including the USA, Germany and Singapore that all have similar measures to secure depositors' funds. As finance is all about confidence [tricks?], if this levy helps Australia retain a AAA credit rating because it impresses the rating agencies, it may even save taxpayers money overall if the Government can sell bonds at a lower interest rate to raise money.
Oh well, whatever. If this is the creeping vanguard of socialist oppression, just remember that John Howard did it first, and that Tony Abbott declared himself the political offspring of Honest John.
I don't know who put in BAD and FID but I do know Costello removed it (I think part of gst implementation).
You forgot to mention that part.
FBT on the other hand, was introduced during Bob Hawks govt which is Labor.
And you're suggesting that FBT was a bad thing? Seriously? If a large % of the populus gave up their wages in lieu of fringe benefits our tax base would be decimated without an FBT.
You are forgetting that the FBT Concession is only a concession so we're talking probably from experience, about $3k-$4k less tax Govt take per annum per vehicle but gaining much from employment tax from labour hired plus GST intake.
Let's assume average wage of about $1.4k per week which equals $73k according to last statistics (AWOTE 2012).
The tax would that would be about $16k in tax per employee. We know from media so far, 224 employees have lost their job with Car Dealers will be next to do their round of sackings this month if not next. That's 224 x $16k in tax = $3.58m in lost PAYG tax not to mention payroll tax loss and workcover levy loss.
I don't know how this converts in vehicle terms but the point I am suggesting is the FBT assault is, in the end, not getting much for the government but causing more damage than what it's worth.
And lastly, consider what people would do next. Firstly, hospitals/public benevolent/charities employees will renegotiate their salary to cover the loss of FBT benefit - more public/taxpayer cost. Secondly, people will switch their car purchase behaviour to lower cost car (which tends to be imports) if not cancelling buying car altogether.
In the end, it really sounds implausible for this assault. More damage than what it is going to gain in my opinion.
I don't really keen to change your mind nor am I trying to win arguments here (it's not worth it, it ain't gain me friends) but I am just trying to tell the other side of the story that is unfortunately, not being discussed at all.
I'm not forgetting anything. The whole basis for the concession is predicated on a house of cards - a tax reduction for a lucky few which delivers next to no return for the economy. Using your logic why shouldn't the government simply cut taxes on all vehicles for every purchaser? Why just cars? You're suggesting that it's reasonable because it's a perk (lurk) only available to small number of citizens, therefore it's affordable. The same "reasoning" is always applied by those who get the benefit - and the same people invariably rail at minor imposts to their comfortable lifestyles, such as the carbon tax and the new bank security deposit.
the big 4 wont go out of business…..EVER!!!!!!
Rudd got my vote indeed. I would go further if i was him. 0.1% looks better
-Wrong place-
make it optional for bank. They choose whether paying for this insurance product from government and withdraw all free bank guarantee.
To be honest I prefer Rudd over Abbot, what I don't like is the current labour government. The constant squabbling and spending is infuriating.
It does become difficult when you agree with some policies and not others.
I agree with this 0.05% levy so long as the money is used for its intended purpose and not used to allow further frivolous spending, it also shouldn't be used to give an impression on government savings so that they can deliver a false surplus.
I hate the constant spending and wasting of taxpayer money for example with the NBN, billions and billions wasted to deliver slightly better speeds when we could do fibre to the node and have copper to the house replaced if it isn't up to scratch saving billions and years off the current plan. (Obviously this is a huge simplification of a complicated matter).
Then again I also strongly oppose Abbots personal views on gay marriage, if you really think homosexual marriage is so offensive then I think that says more about your own marriage and/or closed minded religious views than anything else.
Frankly we need to stop all the bullshitting and promising of surpluses while making grand plans such as the NBN.
So this year I'll be voting Liberal, that's not because I think Abbot is the best choice for prime minister but because Labour is so disjointed and hell bent on constant spending that they've mad it very difficult to vote for them. Australia needs some stability.
Abbott's plan would have households up to 1.8 kilometres from the nearest node. At that point, there is no real advantage over existing ADSL, any latency gains from the fibre to the node are canceled out by the limitations of the copper pair to the household. And that's presuming that the copper is in perfect nick.
FTTN with VDSL to the household works well in Japan, etc, where households are generally quite close to the nearest node, not so well in Australia.
The real reason Abbott opposes the NBN so vociferously is because News Limited is dead against it, as Rupert stands to lose so much money if the Foxtel monopoly is broken.
Have a read:-
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013…
As I said above what i said was huge simplification of a complicated matter.
Surely with the tens of billions in savings by doing fibre to the node instead of fibre to the house we could fund the instillation of extra nodes and as stated above the repair or replacement of copper that doesn't cut the mustard.
At the end of the day if someone requires the speeds that fibre to their house/buisness would provide then why can't they pay for that themselves? If someone requires those speeds then why is everyone funding it and why for example does someone who only uses the Internet for basic needs or even those that don't have an Internet connection at all require the kind of speeds that would be provided by a full NBN?
To change the medium for an example then how about the difference between a good computer for $1200 and an amazing $5000 computer, if you require the slight difference and performance of the $5000 computer then you need to pay for it. The government shouldn't be footing the bill so that everyone can have insanely fast computers that the vast majority of people don't require.
-moved-
If that's your view then you must also consider who will be the senior leaders of this country if Abbott comes into power: Bishop, Pyne, Hockey, Morrison, Joyce, Bernardi, Mirabella…
Fair dinkum mate, I'm sure the Libs have some decent people in their ranks but that mob ain't it!
Even Abbott has said that his plan won't cost any less in the long run. And while there is merit in deferring costs, the concern is that Abbott has said he won't provide full cost justification until after the election.
The operating costs under the Liberal NBN are going to be significantly higher with most nodes required to be powered and cooled, costing millions more every year. And with the price of electricity increasing, it's not going to get any cheaper. Also every node needs battery back up. That's tens of thousands of car batteries needing to be replaced annually. All this leads to the issue of environmental impact and the associated costs.
slightly better speeds
The Labor NBN has the built-in capacity to be boosted as the need arises over time (think Google Fibre speeds). Liberal NBN is pretty much maxed-out from the start.
Just food for thought.
The coalition plan is a half-baked crock. A system is only as good as it's worst part and for many of us that's the copper lines from the street (node in the coalition plan) to the poles to the house. Even with a brand new phone line to the house installed by Telstra we have constant dropouts and get a fabulous max speed of 180k download. Try uploading (or downloading) university material (daughters) in that scenario. I've been hanging out for the rollout but Turnbull's plan will do nothing at all for this household. Either do it properly or don't do it at all.
Hi Guys,
Just thought I would add my interpretation of the levy
The government currently provides free insurance on deposits up to $250k for banks. This is a benefit to banks and makes depositing with them more attractive however this is not something that should last indefinitely but was introduced to prevent a run on deposits (everyone getting worried and withdrawing). This artificial free insurance is to the benefit of the bank (and us) and to the cost of the government (should any Australian bank go bankrupt the government would be in for a loss) and thus ultimately to the cost of the citizens of Australia. Not to mention that it creates an artificial preference for savers to deposit money with banks rather than other saving institutions especially for people with significant savings.
What the levy to my understanding would do is to make the bank pay for this insurance that we are getting the benefit from (we get insurance on deposits up to $250k). If the bank chooses to pass the levy onto the savers (and I suspect that they will through indirect means such as lower interest rates on savings which would perfectly match their increased cost of holding deposits (levy) with a lower cost for having deposits (paying out lower interest on the deposits) what this would in the end mean is that we pay a compulsory insurance on our deposits (the cost will potentially be up to 0.05% of your saving in the bank through the form of lower interest rates). It will create a more even playing field for other deposit institutions who do not have this insurance policy and thus are not susceptible to this levy and can pay a higher deposit interest rate.
To be fair I am currently employed by the banking industry but the above are my own thoughts on the new levy. We are paying for an insurance policy we get the benefit of. Hope it makes sense.
Ps: Labor party seems to poorly communicate their policies and leaves them open for misinterpretation from the public and attack from the Liberal party (who will generate fear from this)
Vote for Tony Abbott if you want to see women earning up to $150,000 a year get up to $75,000 over six months maternity leave.
Tony thinks it's a national priority to charge Australia's top 3000 companies a 1.5 percent profits tax to pay for the above scam. His ridiculous levy will quickly translate into a five percent increase in prices.
So the poorest of the poor will pay more for everything so Tony's eastern suburbs yummy mummies can pre-pay private school fees, buy a new car, TV's, investment properties etc.
I support genuine needs based and means tested maternity leave leave for women who would genuinely struggle to meet a child's needs.
But can anyone explain why a woman earning $150,000 a year needs a cent in government money because she chooses to have a child?
Please Tony. .. explain to the nation's homeless why privileged yummy mummies are a more important national welfare priority than people sleeping on the streets?
You are absolutely spot on.
Over the last few years, the conservatives have done their best to make the tax system as "flat" and regressive as possible - mainly through the GST and also the super concessions that allow the well-heeled to pay much less in personal tax.
But on the other hand, they want the well-heeled to be able to access more in welfare than the poor and middle classes. Originally, the baby bonus was going to be $500 for a poor mother, and $5,000 for a rich one. Abbott's maternity leave scheme would give vastly more to the rich than the poor.
Its a complete rip and class warfare at its worst from Abbott.
This and their broadband policy both need to backflip asap.
Rudd financial insanity - 0.05% levy on bank accounts
What I don't understand is the ** financial insanity of the people ** who gave such a man a boost in the polls. Either Australians have all been dumbed down or I'm missing the point.
How can anybody vote for a man who amongst other things.
Spent away all the surpluses from the previous years,
Broke our borders leading to billions of dollars of budget blowouts
All talk and no action on Defence, Per capita defence spending amongst the lowest levels ever.
Insulation… Need I say more.
Three months ago our budget shortfall for 2013 was forecast to be $18 billion, now they say it’s $31 billion.
and Australians want to give him another chance, we are very forgiving indeed.
He probably received a boost because the alternative prime minister and government aren't anything to look forward to either. On your list of things;
Spent away all the surpluses from the previous years.
What the opposition likes to gloss over is that there was a GFC during Rudd's first term. Many advanced economies were in recession. There was high unemployment, collapsing banks, fallen governments, riots etc. A significant portion of what the Rudd government inherited from the Howard era was spent on propping up the economy to ensure that we didn't go into recession. (On a side note, I wouldn't be too proud of the Howard surpluses. They sold many assets to achieve that surplus. They had a mining boom from which they could have attained a greater surplus. Further, they didn't do much with it. They diverted part of it for the Future Fund for future superannuation expenses, and that's it. No building new infrastructure to create a new future asset that then could be sold. No creating a sovereign wealth fund to help grow the pile even more.)
Getting back on track, did the Rudd governments intervention work? Well if we look back, while all the other developed countries in the world were in strife, for Australia things were business as usual. The question then becomes, if Rudd didn't intervene would things still be business as usual? Given the extent of damage caused by the GFC, we can only safely assume that no, things in Aus would have been worse. Therefore, just because we didn't feel the GFC, didn't mean that it didn't happen. However, that was a single and only bullet, with no reload, as you can't just wave a wand and create another pile of cash to prop up the economy again. Or to resell assets that you've already sold. The alternative was for the government to do nothing, and watch the economy go into recession, with no idea how deep or how long the recession would go for. So the lesser of two evils was used, and the government spent the money.
So yes, the government intervention did save us from the GFC, by spending the hoarded money. However, how it was spent is a different issue, as you've alluded on item number four on your list.
Broke our borders leading to billions of dollars of budget blowouts
Hmm, this is a no win issue. The Temporary Protection Visas were considered to be harsh and therefore were abolished for Australia to appear more humane. So its a battle between ethics and morals on one hand, and cost on the other.
As for the issue of increases in number of boats coming to Australia, well there are many factors influencing that. First of all is the fact that Australia survived the GFC without going into recession whilst everyone else was. Aus was glorified on the world stage, as being fiscally sound, and a strong economy. Our banks were stable, our government was giving away money(!), and our lives were business as usual whilst everyone else crashed and burned. In that situation, you can't really help blaming the refugees for being envious and wanting to come over to Australia, the lucky country, the one that survived the GFC intact, the one that's been listed many times as one of the best countries in the world, with some of the best cities in the world. If you were a refugee that's known so much strife in their life, would you try aiming to get to a country with a recession, or to the survivor Australia?
The issue then becomes well why should boat people be able to get into Australia at the expense of some other refugee that's been patiently waiting in line in some refugee camp. To make the trip to Australia, they would have had to have several thousands of dollars. I've read somewhere that some pay $7000 each. Whatever the number, they clearly have some money, whereas those in the refugee camp might have nothing, hence why they are there. But if those people, after having run away, and paid smugglers their life savings, and then got on a boat to Aus but were caught, well what do we then do with them? They've gone through all that and have lost their life savings, are at Aus but won't be accepted? If we keep them here in our detention centres, then they might think they have a shoe-in in being settled in our country. If we send them away, we are seen as being inhumane. If we do nothing, more will keep coming, often at the expense of the refugees in the refugee camps. Someone always loses whatever we do.
On a note about that, for those that are in detention centres, I can sympathise with their plight, and their desire for freedom, but isn't their situation at least a bit better than refugee camps. Sure at the refugee camps you can leave whenever, but isn't the standard of living better in an Aus funded detention centre than at a refugee camp, which most look like slums or giant crowded tent cities with only the bare necessities. But when you hear detention centre refugees torching buildings and causing damage to property, you can't really help but feel like sending them away. You understand their plight, but that's still no way to behave. Also on that, if a refugee in a detention centre wanted to leave, wouldn't the government be obliged to help send them back?
And although the number of refugees coming to Australia by boat is dwarfed by those that come through other means, its the boat refugees that garner the most attention. This is perhaps deservedly so, given the amount of resources required to help them. What with the smugglers tricks of having not enough petrol for the boat to return, or their threats at destroying their boats, or even travelling in stormy weather. So we're forced to send armed navy vessels to help ferry them at huge cost. Doesn't help that sometimes they are just within Australian waters, and sometimes not even in Australian waters when they send the call for help.
And then there's the issue of the government's failed border protection policy. Well the government can't really have a failed border protection policy, if it isn't even able to implement the policy it wants. Because of the minority government situation, the government has been hobbled in its ability to respond. Perhaps the opposition should allow the government to proceed with its policies, and then if they fail, declare them as failures, rather than declaring the government as failing when they themselves have blocked any government attempts to deal with the situation. The current boat refugees fiasco is as much of a blame to the Labor govt as it is to the Coalition, for not being able to agree on a policy to stop them from coming. (do note, I left out the Greens here, since they won't accept any compromise, could blame them too, but more so the Coalition, as they should have been more sensible in coming to a solution with the Govt rather than playing politics and denying everything)
All talk and no action on Defence, Per capita defence spending amongst the lowest levels ever.
Australia is the worlds 12th largest economy by GDP (~$1.5 trillion) or 18th by PPP (~$1 trillion). We have the 6th largest land territory, and 6th longest coastline. If you include our maritime borders, we have the 3rd largest Exclusive Economic Zone in the world (not to mention a giant search and rescue zone). But we're only ranked 53rd in population and hence 233rd in population density. We have the 13th largest military spending based on nominal dollars. So we are a small number of people with relatively lots of money to protect a very, very large territory. That's a lot of spending, given our population size. In fact, per capita spending is probably 2nd only to the USA. So it's still a lot. However, we have such a large territory with not enough resources to protect it. However, much is spent it still doesn't seem to be enough. The only consolation is that we're reducing our commitments in Afghanistan, allowing money to be re-spent elsewhere. The only way to effectively protect Australia's territory, is to increase it's population and it's economy (at a sustainable level of course). A bigger Australia, means more resources to help protect the nation. (Sustainable increase in population of course. Need sufficient infrastructure. Our current big cities are overcrowded. Re-population elsewhere?) BTW defence spending always blows out. They need better cost estimators.
Insulation… Need I say more.
Yeah, that was money awfully spent. It saved our economy alongside the BER, but both programs were marred with inefficiencies and problems. A few safeguards, even the lightest, should have been used to help prevent unscrupulous rorting and safety issues.
Three months ago our budget shortfall for 2013 was forecast to be $18 billion, now they say it’s $31 billion.
I doubt forecasting for the Australian budget is an easy thing to do. If conditions are deteriorating then they are deteriorating. Most figures would have to be run through the treasury department. The same civil servants that have done the budget for previous government. The governments only response is to increase revenues through additional taxes etc. or to reduce spending. Revenue conditions have been choppy of late. It's not like the government knew the revenues would be low but said it would be high, they get their numbers from civil servants that are independent of politics. Just as they underestimated the surplus over the Costello budgets, they've overestimated the revenues and underestimated the deficit of the Labor budgets.
In the end I may end up voting Labor. The lesser of two evils. If the opposition, that is the alternative government had policies that made sense and are reasonable, rather than populist measures, then perhaps they might be a good alternative. Malcolm Turnbull is pragmatic with his policies. He often agreed with the early Rudd policies because some of them indeed did make sense. But he was removed, largely due to the fact that he supported an emissions trading scheme and believed in climate change. Where there was a pragmatic "yes if the policy is right" person, they replaced him with a "no, no, no, i said no" person. Malcolm should be helping spruik some alternative policies, but instead is muzzled by his leader. A terrible leader with no ideas, and a mediocre deputy leader that doesn't seem to be doing much and doesn't have ideas either. (no offence to Julie Bishop, although she may be a nice person and have good qualifications as well, I believe her elevation to deputy leader of the opposition was meant to be a political manoeuvre to counteract Kevin and Julia, to give the Liberal's former men's club a woman's touch, and that's all, you don't see her doing much, or is she muzzled too?). Joe Hockey makes sense at times, and at most others is mindlessly droning negativity. I sometimes wonder if he's listening to what he's saying. So in summary, it's a choice between mismanagers with some good policy ideas, and negative people with no policy ideas. A sad state in Australian politics. The Greens are too left wing for my tastes. The Coalition often too conservative when they do have policies. And no, i don't deem Katter or Palmer as possible alternatives.
p.s. didn't realise it would be this long till too late, was going to say more but will stop at that
In the end I may end up voting Labor. The lesser of two evils.
I've voted Labor more than not. But the last time I voted Labor, it was actually a vote for Rudd. He was the only reason they got my vote. Then the scum behind the curtain showed my vote no respect - tossed him out - and replaced him with the fashion disaster Gillard. Now they've thrown her out for him again.
I had decided to only vote for Mickey Mouse from now on. But when Labor made it clear how little my choice and vote meant - I'll be voting Liberal. After that I'll probably go back to Mickey Mouse. Politicians are all the same - scum - and I don't want the responsibility of putting any one of them into power after this next election.
In fact I wish I could go back to when I turned 18 and never register to vote in the first place. The whole voting process is a farce.
What can I say?
This is pure theft, an attack on the middle class with this pre emptive cypress style bail in.
It's happening around the western world.
Cyprus-Style “Bail-Ins” Are Proposed In The New 2013 Canadian Government Budget! https://www.google.com.au/search?q=bailin+canada+savings
I like this guy's commentary… https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2013/08/03/rudd-plans-to-pin…
because the banks will pass this onto customers its a direct tax/levy on us..its what we have seen on a grander scale in cyprus..its what we have seen in europe and in canada and its probably in most western countries already..its an IMF idea..and its us, the slaves, paying for any bank failures..not the government..the slaves will pay..and the slaves go quietly into the night..happy that their government is looking after them..it seems like a small amount..its the principle ..and it can always be raised once its become the “norm”..the bail out is now a the bail in..thanks kevin..you globalist axxhole!
Theft? Have a hard think about it, the fact that the government wants the money to make their budget look better is stupid but that's the only stupid part about it.
Check out this list of failed US banks http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_U.S._bank_fai…
From my count that's 59 failed banks since 2008 and well over half a trillion dollars of lost assets.
Now have a look at Americas current financial situation with housing that's plummeted in value and millions of people with lost saving.
Australia has great banks, they may be assholes at times but they are incredibly stable. Buy what's wrong with low cost extra security?
This isn't adding to government coffers, this isn't adding to banks bottom line either. It's a fail safe.
I wouldn't be reading to heavily in to any blog that refers to working class people as slaves, makes him sound self entitled douche and like he feels as though he is smarter and above those that he's talking about.
I suppose it is tax deductible?
Still voting for Labor, I want my damn NBN.
So they can log all your network traffic even faster! haha
So at the request of the Big Banks, the Govt has provided free guarantees to the fore-mentioned Big Banks.
The Big Banks used this guarantee to attract more funds at a lower interest rate (remember interest rates are directly related to risk).
The Big Bank dramatically increase profits as a result.
So the Govt (the Australian people) have provided a free service to not only make our banks not only stable, but some of the biggest & most profitable in the world. When was the last time your bank provided you a free service?
Personally I believe the Govt should have only provided these securities to the banks in return of a percentage of their shares. The banks get stability and the Govt (us tax payers) get a nice return when things turn around.
The Op sounds like a political party stooge, spreading FUD.
So what you are saying being taxed in excess of 40% or more is okay. Well I dont wish to argue with that. You and I already have different philosophy.
Which is okay by me because gotta be able to appreciate different point of view right?
I mentioned above cost of tobacco on health is quoted from Treasury. I will post link when I am home.
Lastly, I don't quite keen on okaying govt to "change behavior" because that means we are mindless people who needed to controlled. I have more faith in human iintelligence…