|
Does Australia Suck? (pg. 54)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fledz |
| Only in Australia would you get 60 ing thousand official submissions, SIXTY THOUSAND, and then claim it's not enough and the case should be postponed until the "community" can be consulted. ing hell :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lilith |
Kevin is a god bothering assbandit...
| quote: | New tax on property under fire
May 12, 2010 - 5:02PM
The NSW opposition is accusing the state government of using the federal budget as cover to sneak through a new property tax.
Lands Minister Tony Kelly announced in Parliament today that the government will introduce new charges on transfers of properties valued at more than $500,000, as part of a plan he says will prevent fraud.
Ad valorem fees of 0.2 per cent will be charged for properties worth between $500,000 and $1 million, and 0.25 per cent for properties valued above $1 million.
However, the first $500,000 will be fee free, making the payment on an average Sydney home of $600,000 about $200.
"The new security measures will strengthen land title examination processes and will include an additional six authentication measure such as a new watermark and a security trust seal tailored specifically for certificates of title," Mr Kelly said.
The NSW opposition immediately seized on the announcement, accusing the government of trying to sneak through the new tax before next month's Penrith by-election.
"This is an attempt under the cover of a federal budget to get some bad news out from the state budget, well away from polling day in Penrith," he said.
"This is a tax on home buyers, this is a tax that is going to hurt the property market."
Shadow treasurer Mike Baird says claims the scheme will prevent property fraud are "complete spin".
"Whatever way you dress this up, it is not Cinderella at the ball, it is an ugly dirty tax," he said.
"Whatever way they try to do it, it will not hide the fact that this is a tax on homes, it's a stamp duty by any other name."
Premier Kristina Keneally defended the changes in question time, saying "70 per cent of property registrations will remain unaffected by the ad valorem charges".
"Western Australia, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia all have ad valorem fees on transfers," she said.
"The proposed ad valorem rates maintain NSW as middle ranking in government land transfer charges."
If passed by parliament, the new charges would come into affect in July.
The fees are expected to raise about $90 million annually. |
:mad: |
|
|
| EgosXII |
lol, anything looks great compared to GST, and John Howard imo...
at least all the stuff i've seen which increases tax is related to people who can ing afford it. honestly, who could be upset about the tax on coal, except the million/billionaire coal tycoons?? meanwhile the ing poor people get a break from the government, which is almost unbelievable since it's never happened here, or in any other democracy that i can think of... |
|
|
| Dupz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
Kevin is a god bothering assbandit...
:mad: |
you idiot.. what does Kevin Rudd have to do with State politics in NSW?
The states (NSW included) hate stamp duties.. The problem is that there's no alternative revenue sources that are politically viable. If it were up to the economists in Treasury, stamp duty would be dead and it would be replaced with a broad-based land tax. If you can find a way to get that through parliament, then every state would follow.
The political difficulty sits with having to tell people that their family home will be taxed on a yearly basis in return for abolishing stamp duty. It sucks for those who are already established (but would help those trying to enter the market) - and the oldies are usually the ones who scream the loudest at the polls.
Give it 20 years and stamp duty will be dead - we just have to wait for the current crop to pass |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
lol, anything looks great compared to GST, and John Howard imo...
at least all the stuff i've seen which increases tax is related to people who can ing afford it. honestly, who could be upset about the tax on coal, except the million/billionaire coal tycoons?? meanwhile the ing poor people get a break from the government, which is almost unbelievable since it's never happened here, or in any other democracy that i can think of... |
lol wtf? GST is a great thing! It raises plenty of revenue which the federal and state governments can pump back into the country. Only problem is their inability to do that but that's besides the point. Labor governments never seem to be able to do anything properly.
Give me Howard over Rudd any day. At least Howard got things done. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
honestly, who could be upset about the tax on coal, except the million/billionaire coal tycoons?? |
shareholders and employees plus the businesses they spend their money in.
im not necessarily opposed to say, pollution taxes, but i disagree you can single out one particular industry and tax them at a different rate to everything else (subsidies excepted). |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
lol wtf? GST is a great thing! It raises plenty of revenue which the federal and state governments can pump back into the country. Only problem is their inability to do that but that's besides the point. Labor governments never seem to be able to do anything properly.
Give me Howard over Rudd any day. At least Howard got things done. |
how the did howard do anything!? LOL
Rudd is doing things if anyone has.
Howard just sat on his ass, making everyone pay the government more, creating a surpluss while all the people suffered.
Rudd actually gave people back their money, AND has set aus back to get in a surpluss while not increasing tax.
how can that be bad? :S
Howard never did anything except whore us to the Americans, taking money off its own citizens to fund its own over-bloated surpluss. Surely you know about how much we just GAVE the US? Giving away our best resources for cost... ing joke Howard was, just US' bitch.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
shareholders and employees plus the businesses they spend their money in.
im not necessarily opposed to say, pollution taxes, but i disagree you can single out one particular industry and tax them at a different rate to everything else (subsidies excepted). |
That was my point though. They are the only industry that CAN afford it. Just like gov,t subsidises businesses who really need it, why shouldn't businesses who can afford it be taxed slightly more for the betterment of everyone?
If it was some company making 100,000 a year that would suck, but this is a multi-billion dollar business... they can spare a tad more to improve the health/education/infrastructure systems...
and , NATURAL RESOURCES are not the same as PRODUCED GOODS, you have to realise... some guy pulling bits of coal out of australian earth can only "own" that coal in as much as we let them... it's essentially national property... |
|
|
| narcism |
| Kevin's health care reform FTW! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
That was my point though. They are the only industry that CAN afford it. Just like gov,t subsidises businesses who really need it, why shouldn't businesses who can afford it be taxed slightly more for the betterment of everyone? |
Because company tax rates should be the same across the board. Companies aren’t individuals, so making brackets for companies doesn’t make any sense. Not to mention that the extra 10% tax affects shareholders who might only have a handful of shares and mining companies don’t pay huge dividends to begin with. It is also a hindrance to further investments ie employment.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
If it was some company making 100,000 a year that would suck, but this is a multi-billion dollar business... they can spare a tad more to improve the health/education/infrastructure systems... |
There are many multi-billion dollar businesses. Selecting 1 particular industry because its politically feasible isn’t right.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
and , NATURAL RESOURCES are not the same as PRODUCED GOODS, you have to realise... some guy pulling bits of coal out of australian earth can only "own" that coal in as much as we let them... it's essentially national property... |
and who is going to pay to extract these “national properties”? if you deny that a company can properly own the ore it extracts, how can say, a landlord expect to buy land/houses/skyscrapers and charge rent for it? the right to own and profit from the use of your property is a cornerstone of our society and (some would argue) a quintessential component of modern democracy. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dupz
you idiot.. what does Kevin Rudd have to do with State politics in NSW? |
It was in response to PKC's R18+ public consultation post, but hey feel free to call me an idiot if you really feel the need to prove what a massive arsehole you can be on the internet.
The state Labour government post was my own poke at an equally outrageous bit of current legislation that contributes nothing but more funding into the state pot.
Being I sell and buy real estate privately, I'm not an agent, as a way of paying my way in life, yeah I kind of know how it works thanks... |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
how the did howard do anything!? LOL
Rudd is doing things if anyone has.
Howard just sat on his ass, making everyone pay the government more, creating a surpluss while all the people suffered.
Rudd actually gave people back their money, AND has set aus back to get in a surpluss while not increasing tax.
how can that be bad? :S
Howard never did anything except whore us to the Americans, taking money off its own citizens to fund its own over-bloated surpluss. Surely you know about how much we just GAVE the US? Giving away our best resources for cost... ing joke Howard was, just US' bitch.
|
So how was life for you over the past decade and before when Howard was PM? Good, or are you in that camp that believes it was only because the world was in a good shape and the government had nothing at all to do with anything over 11 ing years?
What has Rudd done? Go on, what has he done that's major? Sure, there was that apology to the Aborigines but that's not exactly a major government project plus some little bits and pieces here and there. Yes they got rid of work choices which was fair enough.
As for what the Rudd government has failed on:
Hospitals - They are going to generate even more revenue to then give full control back to the states who can't run anything?
Asylum seekers - Totally out of control and terrible policy. It's good to be humane and take in refugees but the ALP is weak in every aspect when it comes to border protection.
Insulation - What a debacle. 5 people dead, multiple injuries to others and millions upon millions of tax payer dollars wasted, and more to come. Garrett was and still is an absolute joke.
ETS - The biggest issue of our times? Really? So why scrap it then until 3 years from now? How about all those dollars spent on Copenhagen? Yea, well done there.
Education revolution - Another absolute disaster. There's so much rorting going on it's hard to keep up. ty 4 post structures with a little roof being built for $850K?!?
NBN & Internet filter - Conroy is rubbish. The filter is moronic and the NBN is too slow. It's a good plan but it's not thought out, it's going to cost too much and they seem to have delayed the report so they could make it look favourable.
Revenue - They absolutely demolished our surplus. Ruined it. Yes the GFC was largely to blame but there's so many things they could have done differently.
You're going to vote back in a government that not only hasn't done anything but have actually gone backwards? Even the bloody unions don't support the ALP anymore!
Rudd has been exposed as a frustrated little nerd who is incapable of running his bunch of monkeys in the ALP who as a collective couldn't run a carnival let alone a country. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
So how was life for you over the past decade and before when Howard was PM? Good, or are you in that camp that believes it was only because the world was in a good shape and the government had nothing at all to do with anything over 11 ing years? |
howard (and by howard we mean costello) paid down the deficit which was a good effort, though a lot of people suffered. he also smashed the union on the docks. introduced a GST.
all laudable achievements, but hardly recipe for the economic prosperity the libs like to take credit for.
here's a nice article that covers some of these things.
Why Howard still denies his deputy's economic legacy
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/why-h...90619-cr4g.html |
|
|
|
|
