What's what?

Shatner'sBassoon's picture
Shatner'sBassoon started the topic in Friday, 6 Nov 2015 at 7:48pm

AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING KALEIDOSCOPIC JOIN-THE-DOTS/ADULT COLOURING BOOK EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT IN NARCISSISTIC/ONANISTIC BIG PICTURE PARASITIC FORUM BLEEDING.

LIKE POLITICAL LIFE, PARTICIPATION IS WELCOME, ENCOURAGED EVEN, BUT NOT NECESSARY.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 4:25pm

Sheepy - not saying you're on disability - not there's anything wrong with that - but that it's the overly empathetic nature of people like yourself that allows others to rort the system .

And what's wrong with posting on weekdays ?

I'm unemployed , you should be on my side !

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 5:50pm

"...but that it's the overly empathetic nature of people like yourself that allows others to rort the system"

And that's the way it should be. Welfare decisions should be based upon who needs it, not who rorts it.

If serving all people who legitimately need welfare means a few dodgy pricks also scrape through then so be it. I'm comfortable with that. Of course, the dodgy pricks should be caught and kicked off, but I can't abide by the downward-envy Liberal position that the biggest concern is welfare cheats.

The biggest concern is allowing less able people to live with dignity and not create an underclass.

blindboy's picture
blindboy's picture
blindboy commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 6:49pm

To keep things in perspective think Panama Papers. The amount of tax avoidance is orders of magnitude greater than welfare rorting. The Coalition would really prefer you not to notice that, so instead of addressing the problem they attack an easy target.

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 7:04pm

and yet so easily fixed BB. all it takes is change in domestic tax laws. really makes you wonder.

though the skeleton is consumerism. you want, they provide, then you want more. now your addicted and they are in control. even the govt bows down.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 7:09pm

"...though the skeleton is consumerism. you want, they provide, then you want more. now your addicted and they are in control. even the govt bows down.."

And for that exact same reason - the companies have a market here - they won't pack up their operations if domestic taxes are raised, as has been argued by some Business Council-types.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 7:39pm

Fully agree with both of you .

The welfare net is probably our most defining trait as a nation. That oft vilified collective . The unarguable answer when people ask you exactly what is meant by Australian values and what entitles someone to feel the equally vilified pride in our society.

Having said that , its obvious that the system is being rorted well beyond any acceptable percentage in a necessary system.

It's possible to have an honest review of welfare whilst also seeking appropriate taxes from multinationals as well as any other whataboutery distractions you choose to raise.

The welfare system is as requiring of a top to bottom inquest as the banking system.

Let's not allow the political opportunism of the wretched LNP to diminish a pathway to improving the overall state of Australia by reducing waste of essential finances on piss takers.

And I didn't even mention my personal anecdotes regarding the dozen or so able bodied individuals I know that are reclining happily on the disability pension , one of whom is a literal millionaire. Almost didn't mention them anyway...

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 7:19pm

Actually the main offenders don't even need our consumerism. Think LNG.

happyasS's picture
happyasS's picture
happyasS commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 7:39pm

if AUS (as a small nation) went it alone on tax avoidance, would we get stung? (e.g. apple raises prices for us, spending drops/GDP sinks etc etc). does this require a multinational soln? btw, i know nearly nothing about the topic of tax avoidance, so more than happy to be told otherwise.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 8:05pm

The thing with trans national tax avoidance is that it's a zero sum game. Any profits that aren't diminished here enrich another nation either through their ( lesser ) taxation regimes or through capital inflow to provincial banks that then have the ability to onlend that cash to their host nations at cheaper rates than if they'd borrowed the money from international money markets.

So why would countries that are profiteering from asymmetric international tax structures even consider addressing the issue ?

That's why Trump's idea of reducing their corporate tax rate would be so successful while our LNP's similar plan would be a detrimental to our country.

The US is a business hub. Companies want to be located there but are reticent due to tax rates. If Trump reduces the tax rates then historically US companies such as Apple will repatriate their cash reserves that are currently languishing in offshore tax havens and therefore stimulating the US economy - Apple alone has an estimated $250 billion in cash offshore. The R and D alone that every dollar of this money could be employed in would benefit the USA exponentially .

But Australia is not a hub nor a large consumer base , merely a quarry or a drill hole or a margin market for existing product. There is no grand scale reinvestment resulting from lowering corporate tax rates in Australia . It's a profit enhancement scheme that will benefit the corporations and the recipients of their political ( and brown paper bag ) donations only.

stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 7:52pm

Profit flows into provincial banks?

Maybe some. A nominal amount. The far larger slice of profit flows into corporate dividends and largely taken out of the system.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 8:02pm

.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 8:03pm
stunet's picture
stunet's picture
stunet commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 8:05pm

And here I was thinking provincial bank meant the Bank of Bendigo.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 8:11pm

Illawarra mutual is closer to the mark.

You can't contradict my knowledge of the financial world , Stu.

I only recently finished a Paul Clithero book on investment that he released in 1995. Not that I really need advice , after all I borrowed it from the library rather than outlaying the $2 at a garage sale - I'm on my road to riches !

Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog's picture
Sheepdog commented Sunday, 18 Jun 2017 at 9:44pm

I have no problem with you being on the dole, Blowin. It's the best form of stimulus there is. I've said before out little business back in tassie relied on pensioners and the like.

My problem is you're a smart arse. A know it all. And a hypocrite of the highest magnitude.
Your "treaty" thread is an absolute smoke screen. Patronising bullshit. It only took a couple of pages for the "real" blowin to surface. Trumpeting the "we white people gave you everything" line.

But anyhow.....
Carry on.
Till next time.

Sheepdog

Gaz1799's picture
Gaz1799's picture
Gaz1799 commented Monday, 19 Jun 2017 at 10:28am

The tax avoidance argument absolutely needs an international solution Happy, but unfortunately its a race to the bottom in which cuntry can offer the lowest tax rate or highest veil of secrecy with the lowest amount of compliance. Can't see Vanuatu coming up with any better ways of attracting the big bucks, or the same could be said for almost any island nation with less than a million people.

As Blowin said, "But Australia is not a hub nor a large consumer base , merely a quarry or a drill hole or a margin market for existing product. There is no grand scale reinvestment resulting from lowering corporate tax rates in Australia ."

All true. They don't want our staff (too expensive) or our skills, only our raw materials and marketplace full of overpaid consumers dumb enough to pay high prices. The tax return aspect of company reporting is woefully basic compared to the financial reporting side and the ATO only sees a tiny fraction. You can't benchmark companies of that size against an industry standard, and even less reliably if you only see one side of the equation (the Australian side). So I can't see how the ATO comes up with these imaginary numbers based on companies sending money offshore. I'm 99% convinced they just choose an astronomical imaginary number and then try and get multinationals to settle outside of court.

Blowin's picture
Blowin's picture
Blowin commented Monday, 19 Jun 2017 at 11:54am

Even better is the fact that the energy companies and most of the extractive commodities companies are only held to account for the exportation of product volume on quantities only they are aware of and which they are supposed to self assess.

Not dissimilar to your local Chinese restaurant only accepting cash payement then being expected to honestly inform the ATO of how many sweet and sour porks they have sold.

Except the product the commodities companies are selling belong to the commonwealth.

sypkan's picture
sypkan's picture
sypkan commented Wednesday, 21 Jun 2017 at 7:47am

"....Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them...."

The minions of the liberal left have been feverishly beavering away , doing the dirty work of the koch brothers and microsoft...oh the hilarity!

"...Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations...."

"...'Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”"

That's academic speak for 'the cunts have been lying to you'

You can bag trump all you want but one thing he has done is save us from the dogma and delusionment of the liberal left.

Their 'best and brightest' just have not been living in the real world, and their academic arguments were reflecting the land of fairys and magic dust they inhabit.

And they think it's the public that have no idea...

https
://www
.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/