Does Australia take in a lot of refugees from areas of strife?
It sounds like if the Liberals had their way, it wouldn't take any in. Or maybe any non-white peoples.
Does Australia take in a lot of refugees from areas of strife?
It sounds like if the Liberals had their way, it wouldn't take any in. Or maybe any non-white peoples.
It's also useful to point to and say "Well, we tried a woman CEO/Chair/Leader, and it didn't go well, so we won't do that again..."
And Taylor strikes again, proposing a bi-partisan team to dig deep into the budget and work out where savings could be made. Oh, and the LNP will not even consider increasing any taxes. Plus they want access to confidential gov't briefing papers.
Taylor can get fucked, they lost the election, they're not in power and they have no say in this. Can you imagine if Labor had suggested this to Abbot or Howard??
Taylor can get fucked, they lost the election, they're not in power and they have no say in this. Can you imagine if Labor had suggested this to Abbot or Howard??
That's what I was wondering about.
Why are you guys talking so much about the Liberals? They are out of power and it seems they push a lot of unpopular things so they're not likely to return to power any time soon?
Or could a bad economic downturn or natural disaster kick Labour out?
Because they're annoying, and they won't shut up.
The Liberal Party of Australia has a long-standing tradition of believing that they will always be the rightful government of Australia, regardless how they do in elections, and they're going to make sure that everyone knows it.
Plus, there's the non-zero chance that they will get back into power at some point and try and enact some of this bullshit. Things are looking pretty good for now, but the Australian electorate has pulled some really bewildering shit on the rest of us come election time.
Labor are their own worst enemy at the moment. They could easily lose the electorate by not actually doing anything, if they're not careful.
That's a fair question and I think there are good answers.
While the Liberal party is irrelevant in terms of formal political power, it's fate very important. We know how effective reckless demagogue-style politics can be and what damage it can do. The Liberal party has been losing out to a Trumpist outfit, One Nation. Under Taylor, early indications are if you can't beat them, join them.
So their evolving nature, their success or failure from this point is very much worth talking about.
Also, the collapse of the coalition vote is part of a huge seachange in Australian politics: the falling primary vote for both of the traditional parties.
I would make a point here that they absolutely are sexist pigs, the men at least. Every single male I've met that is into ON is also overtly misogynistic. It's just not party policy because awkward for Pauline. The smell from under the ON rug is distinctly eau-de-miso-gronk.
Funnily enough, such gronks can still be coy about answering honestly about that in surveys
Almost like they know what a piece of shit they are.ETA - they 'love' PH because she says the racist stuff out loud, so they tolerate the fact it's a woman.
Last edited:
From my recollection, Hanson is also a bit of a misogynist, or at least a men's rights advocate.
One of the reasons is that the Liberals* are the official Opposition party, and are therefore granted equal time by the national broadcaster (the ABC) during election campaigns. So it matters who is leading them and what their policies are.
* it is normally the Coalition (Liberals + Nationals) but at the time of posting, they can't agree, so are spending some time apart.
<edit> they might also have the right to comment whenever a government minister is interviewed, but I can't find a reference to that.
Last edited:
Listening to Angus Taylor on ABC news channel, the endless lies...I'll be back after I've flushed my ears with bleach.
Yeah she will sell anyone out, including her sisters and herself. Special kind of fuckwit is our Pauline.
It's such a stupid fucking idea.
And the Australian voters have already told the to go pound sand on the idea.
Why would you go with an idea you have already twice been told is a non starter.
From this pay walled article
we get the opening paragraph
Which I can mostly get behind.
Cutting foreign aid, not so much.
1. it's just evil
2. It won't move the needle anyway
From https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/co...development-assistance-budget-summary-2025-26
It is a total of just over $5 billion. Out of $1.25 trillion or so. $5Billion is a whoop-de-doo amount of money
we get the opening paragraph
Which I can mostly get behind.
Cutting foreign aid, not so much.
1. it's just evil
2. It won't move the needle anyway
From https://www.dfat.gov.au/about-us/co...development-assistance-budget-summary-2025-26
It is a total of just over $5 billion. Out of $1.25 trillion or so. $5Billion is a whoop-de-doo amount of money
The first question in that questionaire was shite as it included 2 items you had to agree with, “tax reforms” and “tax cuts” and it didn’t specify what gets reformed and who gets the tax cuts.
I also don’t appreciate the IMF saying that taxes on people need to go up (in the form of GST) and corporations need to be given tax cuts on their profits. Fuck that.
That’s what the IMF does - legitimizes moving the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor and middle classes.
It is pretty telling that Angus Taylor makes a full-throated announcement to not want to be 'One Nation lite', then immediately proceeds to parrot One Nation's key grievances and talking points.
So is he trying to be full-fat One Nation then?
So is he trying to be full-fat One Nation then?
I would say that economists near universally agree that corporate taxes are amongst the worst form of taxation; they are born by consumers, they are highly inefficient, and they severely harm productivity via incentives to tax minimisation instead of real investments. It might feel good to tax big corporations, but in reality it just makes everything more expensive. There are much better ways to tax rich people.
Our economy would be healthier and consumers would be better off with a very low (or even zero) company tax, compensated by increases in other taxes (land tax, GST, capital gains, resource and carbon taxes, etc.)
Of course, try selling "We want to cut mega-corporation tax and increase your GST and annual rates!" and see how far that gets you in an election campaign.
Last edited:
So in light of all corporate developments and trends in the past decade or so, economists believe that if we taxed corporations less, they would actually invest more, instead of just paying shareholders and executives more?
I don't know, I keep hearing stuff like that but it never seems to actually permeate through to reality.
I'll be happy to lower corporate taxes if we can at the same time stop subsidising profitable multinational corporations to the tune of billions. That's also a tax burden borne by the consumer.
Taxes on corporate profits are born by consumers? Taxes on corporate costs will be passed on, but profits?I would say that economists near universally agree that corporate taxes are amongst the worst form of taxation; they are born by consumers, they are highly inefficient, and they severely harm productivity via incentives to tax minimisation instead of real investments. It might feel good to tax big corporations, but in reality it just makes everything more expensive. There are much better ways to tax rich people.
Our economy would be healthier and consumers would be better off with a very low (or even zero) company tax, compensated by increases in other taxes (land tax, GST, capital gains, resource and carbon taxes, etc.)
Of course, try selling "We want to cut mega-corporation tax and increase your GST and annual rates!" and see how far that gets you in an election campaign.
Given that a fair chunk of economics is spherical cows, meh.
Smells like trickle down economics to me. Thats totak BS and always has been. Right wing econimists might agree but those closer to the centre would not agree at all. Given that very few large corporations pay any fucking corporate tax at all, it's disingenuous to pretend that they're suddenly going to start tax minimisation any more than they already fucking do.I would say that economists near universally agree that corporate taxes are amongst the worst form of taxation; they are born by consumers, they are highly inefficient, and they severely harm productivity via incentives to tax minimisation instead of real investments. It might feel good to tax big corporations, but in reality it just makes everything more expensive. There are much better ways to tax rich people.
Our economy would be healthier and consumers would be better off with a very low (or even zero) company tax, compensated by increases in other taxes (land tax, GST, capital gains, resource and carbon taxes, etc.)
Of course, try selling "We want to cut mega-corporation tax and increase your GST and annual rates!" and see how far that gets you in an election campaign.
https://treasury.gov.au/review/the-australias-future-tax-system-review/final-report (Henry tax review, 2010)
https://treasury.gov.au/review/tax-white-paper/which-taxes-cost-the-most (2016)
https://grattan.edu.au/news/why-corporate-tax-reform-is-tricky/ (2025)
https://www.pc.gov.au/media-speeches/articles/company-tax-reform/ (2026)
These all broadly support proposals to lower existing company taxes and compensating with more efficient taxes, though there's certainly plenty of debate on the specifics (including alternate forms of company taxation). I wouldn't say they're all right-wing economists, but if you'd prefer to ignore the broad expert consensus in this field because it sounds wrong, then I won't argue further.
https://treasury.gov.au/review/tax-white-paper/which-taxes-cost-the-most (2016)
https://grattan.edu.au/news/why-corporate-tax-reform-is-tricky/ (2025)
https://www.pc.gov.au/media-speeches/articles/company-tax-reform/ (2026)
These all broadly support proposals to lower existing company taxes and compensating with more efficient taxes, though there's certainly plenty of debate on the specifics (including alternate forms of company taxation). I wouldn't say they're all right-wing economists, but if you'd prefer to ignore the broad expert consensus in this field because it sounds wrong, then I won't argue further.
My question is this, how do they pay lower than zero corporate tax? If they're already paying zero corporate tax as most of the really big corporations are, what does lowering the corporate tax rate achieve anyway?
ETA - I absolutely support the concept of "more efficient taxes" where that means tax that can't easily be minimised by creative accounting. This could simply be achieved by having the willpower as a government to enforce tax law on corporations with the same vigour that it is enforced for individuals.
Last edited:
I suppose the argument is to make it cheaper for the company to pay a lower tax than to spend money avoiding it (off shore legal entities, book keepers, corporate lawyers, etc etc), it'll be more attractive for companies to stay/invest.
Probably is, I suspect there are plenty of well embedded systems and procedures in place that it's simply trivial to avoid the tax burden locally. Especially the larger you get.
Probably is, I suspect there are plenty of well embedded systems and procedures in place that it's simply trivial to avoid the tax burden locally. Especially the larger you get.
“Tax burden”? I hate that language. Poor them having to pay a fair share for running the country.
I would also point out that Norway has a 72% resources tax on their natural resources, which they enforce, and as a result have a trillion dollar wealth fund to do useful things in their society with. Australia could start by not letting corporations owned by the likes of Gina etc make obscene profit while paying no corporate tax.
The problem is as simple as the Murdoch media landscape here.
Look what happened when they tried to introduce a reasonably well thought out carbon tax. Murdoch and the rest of the conservative media destroyed it. Any meaningful tax reform that would result in fairer distribution of the wealth of this country is immediately and aggressively attacked by all media bar the ABC/SBS, and a small sample of independent media with very limited reach.
The parasite class do not want anything to do with paying a fair share thanks very much for asking, so if you want to stay in government Labor piss off with your ideas for a fairer tax system. Libs? - we'll post glowing reviews of your social wrecking ball tactics every day of the week.
The Grattan Institute is absolutely a right wing/conservative/pro-corporate BS think tank;
"At the end of 2005 the Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, met with the Federal Treasurer Peter Costello to define the theme for the think tank: Australia as a liberal democracy in a globalised economy. The phrase has since been enshrined in the Constitution of Grattan Institute.[4]
Links between the University of Melbourne, Victorian Government and corporate Australia, along with a supportive report from McKinsey & Company, were the basis for then Victorian Premier Bracks and Treasurer John Brumby in early 2007 to promise significant Victorian Government funding for the idea. Melbourne University was also asked to assist.[citation needed]
In April 2008, Commonwealth and Victorian Governments announced matching funding, along with support in kind from the University of Melbourne. Commitments followed soon after from BHP and National Australia Bank. Grattan receives money from its endowment supporters and affiliates, which include Susan McKinnon Foundation, Scanlon Foundation, The Myer Foundation, Origin Energy Foundation, Third Link Growth Fund, Cuffe Family Foundation, Medibank Private, Trawalla Foundation, Wesfarmers, Maddocks, McKinsey & Company, Ashurst, Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Urbis, and Westpac." Wikipedia source.
"
Quite the list of corporate backers eh? Quell surprise that they'd opine in ways that do not upset the hand that feeds. I completed 2/3 of an MBA but left it behind me because it became obvious that repeating dogmatic nonsense at odds with my experience in actual businesses was the reason MBA's are loathed, and rightly so. That was from QUT Business school and at the time it was considered the 3rd best MBA course in the country, if you believe their marketing or such rankings. You don't really get many opportunities in the upper levels of business if you don't espouse a fairly conservative pro-corporate view, which is completely at odds with a fair distribution of the wealth.
Last edited:
Just an side, I was trying to find a reference to the “Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilised society” quote*, I got served page after page of hard right unevidenced spherical cow Libertarian bullshit about how we can all live together and live fulfilled lives without any taxes at all. Dang those people are naive, stupid or both.
*It has many parents but is often attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
*It has many parents but is often attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Every company, every rich person has gained their wealth in this country through the systems provided for by taxation. The workers they need are educated with tax dollars, the roads they ship goods over, the police that uphold the laws they work within, the military that defend the nation they live within, the health system that keeps their workers alive and thriving (thus protecting the company's investment and the worker's knowledge).
No rich person has made their wealth except through the nation that lifted them up and gave them every chance. Our tax dollars made their wealth possible.
It's not a tax burden. It's a cost of business and it's a privilege to uphold the nation that has literally created the environment a business needed to survive. When they pay no taxes, why should the police defend their property? Why should people respect these businesses? Why should they be allowed a voice in the nation (looking at you, News Ltd)? I'd argue that a corporation paying no tax has no right to anything that taxes fund (I'm not counting the workers in this, as they do pay income tax). It's a radical position but I'm willing to put it against the radical right-wing position that corporations should pay nothing at all.
On top of that though, every quoted economist and study has a fundamental flaw - the idea that corporations exist in an ideal environment, only communicate through the market and we customers have perfect knowledge of market conditions. In reality, we know with near 100% confidence that reducing corporate taxation will lead only to increased profits and shareholder wealth. It will not lead to reduced prices for customers. We know this because we've seen it for decades. Businesses act in collusion, either directly or more subtly. You'll never prove that petrol stations collude on prices but it looks exactly like it from the outside. You'll never see Coles and Woolworth's execs meeting to set prices, but there's a very cosy duopoly keeping prices (and inflation and the cost of living) nice and high, raking in record profits while crying poor when people talk about pricing limits for groceries.
Lower the official tax rate to zero and you won't see a single dollar saved for my weekly shop. Not at the petrol station, not at the supermarket, not anywhere. What you will see is the need to either cut public services or to increase income tax to make up for the lost gov't revenue. Or worse, increase the GST (as Howard has recently suggested, reminding me of NZ's David Lange who introduced it there and after upping it a few times warned that the GST is seductively easy to increase) and screw over the poor, squeezing out the reviled (by the right) middle class.
I'm happy to entertain an argument against my comments here, but if someone fails to start with how governments will enforce price drops to ease the burden of corporate profitability as corporate taxes are removed, then I'll know they're not arguing in good faith. The world's economists have led us to this place (gestures vaguely at the economy) so they don't have a good track record. If it wasn't for the rise of the IT and technology sector, which was not expected by economists, we'd be living in 1970s standards but with 2020s costs.
I've often wondered who they would call if you turned up at their home with a bunch of friends and just took their stuff. Forgetting the level of force required (it's a thought experiment so I can always add a few more friends to overpower any defence), what would they do to seek justice, who would they contact? Would it be the police, paid from taxation? The army, paid from taxation? Their politicians, paid from taxation?
No matter how "libertarian" (i.e. uneducated) people pretend to be, they depend on collective pooling of resources to pay for services they require. Police, roads, health, water, electricity, insurance. Currently we've settled on taxation or widely shared costs as the best and fairest system to do this. If they have a better system, they can suggest it but so far all I've ever heard from them is that they want the services for free, so everyone else pays for their support. And so the thought experiment returns to "Why can't I just take all your stuff then?"
It's always both, and in spades. They don't have the faintest clue how their nation works and think they've got this one weird trick that solves all their problems.
This real life libertarian experiment was defeated by bears turning up looking for food. As I said, right wing libertarians are weird.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
"Right wing libertarian" is redundant. They like to pretend that libertarianism transcends the left/right axis, but they always end up pushing a right-wing ideology.
To be clear, the opposite of libertarian is not authoritarian, they just like to claim that so they don't appear as self-centered as they actually are.
Yeah Im yet to meet a 'Libertarian' that wasnt just a hard right nutter who wants a more palatable descriptor. Nor one whose political viewpoints dont fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. They're also loathe to extend their idea of 'liberty' to anyone not well on the right of politics, a position of convenience if you will.
The only thing I see 'broad consensus' for in those citations is that, for unspecified/vague/capricious reasons Australia's company tax is 'too high'. Somehow a lower corporate tax will lead multinational corporations to actually invest in Australia, instead of just privatising profits and socialising losses.
What I don't see consensus for is how to compensate for lower corporate taxes. Grattan specifically says that extending the corporate tax cuts from 30 to 25 per cent to all businesses would cost $18bn in 2025/26, and also goes to lengths to explain that all proposed alternatives are either expensive, untested, 'politically tough', or have shown little evidence to be effective. The 2016 Treasury paper has no proposals that I can see, only complaints. The Henry tax review, which is a highly complex one, does recommend a lowering of the corporate tax 'as fiscal and economic circumstances permit', but talks about so many other complexities that it's hard for me to put this one into the 'broad consensus' basket. And that last one is so steeped in brevity and reliance on nebulous 'modelling' I just can't take it seriously.
And if you consider where most economists fall on the political spectrum, their 'broad consensus' is still akin to an echo chamber.
I used to call my self a green anarchist in my youth, ie: a green libertarian socialist. I read Proudhon and Bakunin among various others. Non violent collectivism and all that, the antithesis of Ayn Rand and Marx. Most anarchists wouldn’t call themselves libertarians nowadays because of the fashy associations.
Man the idea of Australia not using solar+battery power and instead using nuclear is crazy to me. The costs keep coming down and you guys have like one of the sunniest conditions in the world.