by Andrew Mackinnon
Thanks a lot for reminding me of the machinations of the Labor Party. Since I share your contempt for the Labor Party and since this website posts comments made in good faith without censoring them like the mainstream media, it’s my great pleasure to share my perspective on your comment.
The Labor Party is enthusiastic about progressive income taxation when a flat rate of 20% on all income above the tax free threshold is what would be fair. Who wants to work more than one day out of five to support the needs of the nation via taxation? It’s not necessary.
(What is the purpose of progressive income taxation? It’s to maximise income taxation revenue. Why? The official reason is so that the money can be given to those with less via old age pensions and unemployment benefits (ie. Newstart). However, this can’t be the real reason because the old age pension in Australia is barely adequate and Newstart allowance is much less than adequate. So, what’s the real reason? It’s to fund government spending that funnels super profits to the private entities that the government pays to deliver its projects. An example is $50 billion to French entities for submarines. A huge percentage of that figure is gratuitous super profit – money for nothing. That super profit is paid for out of the income taxes of Australian citizens.
If the government doesn’t have enough income tax revenue to fund largesse like this, it doesn’t let that stop it from pursuing this scam that transfers wealth out of the public purse to private entities. It borrows money by issuing government bonds in order to fund its spending on projects so that the private entities delivering the project can receive their super profits and thereby increases this transfer of wealth. Now, taxpayers are not only on the hook for repaying the cost of the project out of future income taxes to the bondholders who lent the money to the government, they’re on the hook for paying the bondholders a yield of something like 5% per annum on the money that the bondholders have lent to the government. The government’s enthusiasm for increasing debt by issuing bonds is deliberate. Wealthy entities are keen to earn a guaranteed 5% yield on their wealth by lending to the government and the government is keen to make it happen by borrowing (for projects that transfer super profits to the private entities delivering the projects) because the government has been hijacked by traitors who are committed to making this transfer of wealth from the public to the private purse happen.
I know that the Liberal Party is famous for this financially traitorous behaviour and that the Liberal Party is responsible for the example above of $50 billion for submarines, however, the Labor Party does this also. The same principle applies.)
The Labor Party introduced capital gains tax in the 1980s which should be abolished. Capital gains tax is in direct opposition to property rights. If somebody saves up some money and then invests it in shares (or anything for that matter), they quite obviously don’t have full property rights to it because if they later sell it for more than they paid for it, the government wants a cut of the gain via capital gains tax. If they had full property rights to it, they could sell it and keep the full amount they receive for it without paying any capital gains tax.
The Labor Party introduced compulsory superannuation in the 1990s, which has resulted in a significant percentage (eg. 9.5/109.5 x 100% = 8.7%) of citizens income being compulsorily confiscated week after week after week. Employers don’t pay employees superannuation as a gift. Employees earn it via their work. The fact that employees endure this loss of what is their property – income that they’ve worked for, is more evidence of the Labor Party’s animosity and hostility towards property rights. Such hostility towards property rights is one of the ten planks of communism. Property rights is a biblical concept and is a foundation stone of western societies.
Regarding taking over private land like farming land, I have negligible expertise regarding agriculture, however my guess is that Labor’s enthusiasm for “vegetation management” laws is all about its animosity towards Anglo-Saxon farmers. My guess is that it’s not that Labor isn’t interested in agriculture. I think the problem for Australia is that Labor is hostile towards farmers of Anglo-Saxon ancestry – likewise the Liberal Party. My guess is that it intends to drive Anglo-Saxon farmers out of business via vegetation management laws so that it can obtain their land and then sell the land to China so that the Chinese can farm it. Why China? Because that’s who the Australian government has been selling a lot of land to. Why China? Because communism in China was establish by Jews – it’s not common knowledge, just like communism in Russia was established by Jews – also not common knowledge. With the United States and Australia both similarly under the thumb of Jewish rule, who has their manufacturing, land and who knows what else been sold out to? China.
Letter to the editor
How sad is this. Having to give up your job so you can get more money. AND they tell us they do it for their constituents NOT FOR MONEY!!!!!! By the way check out what pensioners get in this country.
The real reason behind 60 Elected MPs not seeking re-election
Sixty elected members of the federal government have now reported they have made the decision not to run in the upcoming next election!
It’s a very high number compared to previous elections. Some of them tell us that it’s for family reasons, others for their desire to serve their fellow citizens in other fields and many other great stories to make us cry for them.
Besides all the tear jerking that politicians have been giving about retiring here is something else to consider.
In 2015 a change in the pension for MP’s ensures that the age of full retirement for an MP having served at least 6 years, will no longer be 55 years but 65 years. Thus any MP not yet 65 and who wants to benefit from the present pension scheme need only not run in the next election and thus will draw for 10 years longer a government pension of over $100,000/year.
For an elected MP approaching 55 and who is not running, that means about $1 million that he/she would not receive should he/she run and win again. One should also add the severance premium (between $80,000 and $125,000) upon his/her departure.
You can now understand better all these sudden “family emergencies”, appreciate the newfound desire to advance his/her career in a government job or a committee of some sort and have two or three salaries (and possibly two or three pensions).
Not bad as a justification to not run eh?,
G J May
by Senator Fraser Anning
With the chances of a Labor government after the next election looking strong, it’s time to start looking at what this will mean for Australia.
For many people in their retirement years, the answer is going to be Treasurer Chris Bowen dipping his hand into their pockets to help himself to their cash.
Labor’s dividend imputation policy is a direct attack on people who have done the hard work to look after their own retirement rather than relying on the government for a pension.
“Dividend imputation” sounds complicated, but it’s simply a practice of not taxing the same money twice. If you own shares in a company – for example, in a self-managed super fund – then that company has to pay company tax on the profit it earns. You, as a part owner of the company, get a cut of that profit as a dividend from your shares – and without dividend imputation you would be paying income tax on that profit as well. The system is fair and reasonable, so of course the Labor party wants to change it. Their key complaint is that some people owe more in company tax than they do in income tax, so the dividend imputation doesn’t only offset their income tax but actually entitles them to a refund. But this is as it should be.
There is no reason why Carol should pay more company tax than Bob, just because she earns less. Indeed, this runs the opposite way to our intuitions. If one person must be taxed more, we feel, shouldn’t it be the person who earns more? But that’s not how the Labor policy works. The person with the higher income gets the full benefit of dividend imputation, while the person with less loses their refund. Labor frames this policy in class-warfare terms, saying they are addressing an “unfair revenue leakage” that puts a “greater tax burden on low and middle income working Australians”.
And it’s true that the people who benefit from the current system are wealthier than average. But that is in large part because they are older and have been working to get into that position their entire lives.
Building wealth over a lifetime is not simply a function of income. It is a function of fiscal discipline. Plenty of people of modest means manage to save a substantial nest egg, while plenty of others with high incomes manage to splash their cash away. We need our policies to reward those who choose not to go on that cruise, or to buy a smaller house, or to live with a cheaper car, so that they are able to support themselves in their old age. If we don’t, why would they make those sacrifices?
If we are just going to treat them as an ATM to be returned to whenever the government feels like it needs a bit more cash, then they might as well just spend their money on themselves instead of waiting for the government to come and get it. Then they can rely on the age pension like everyone else. And that is what will truly put a greater tax burden on lower and middle class Australians. Of course Labor doesn’t understand fiscal discipline, or the kind of people who exercise it.
What we need is policy certainty in this area. People make saving and investment decisions for their retirement over decades. They need the confidence that the rules aren’t going to be suddenly changed and the rug pulled out from under them when they actually get to retirement.
It seems unlikely at this point that the Liberal party will be able to pull its act together enough to prevent Labor from winning government. However, that does not mean that their misguided policy is sure to become law. A strong vote for Fraser Anning’s Conservative Nationals will give us the numbers in the Senate to be able to fight this attack on retirees – and more that are sure to come from an emboldened Shorten government.