Wayne Swan versus the lizard people
Perhaps it was the act of unburdening himself about Kevin Rudd that gave Wayne Swan some communications mojo, as if he had finally shaken off the malign effects of two-and-a-half years of the talking points, clichés and workshopped phrases of the Rudd era. There wasn’t a “working family” or “tradie” in sight.
Whatever it was, Swan in his attack on mining magnates has produced something Labor has been sorely lacking, an agenda-setting moment that shifted the political debate, played his opponents off a break and sent a message about the government’s values.
John Howard produced such moments regularly and easily, setting loose issues to which the Left would react with froth-mouthed fury, not realising they were playing into Howard’s hands by linking him ever more closely to the values of middle Australia. Labor long appears to have thought that the political agenda could be controlled through set-piece policy events. Howard understood that it requires an ongoing conversation as well, and set out to shape that conversation to his own purposes.
Admittedly, it was easier for Howard: he had an array of right-wing commentators who would reflexively echo and serve as attack dogs for his agendas. Labor has no one to play that role for them.
But in targeting mining magnates, Swan hasn’t needed anyone else to reinforce his message — his opponents have done it for him. Andrew Forrest — that’d be the Forrest found by the Victorian Supreme Court to be “an untruthful witness” in 2001 — took out national newspaper ads and made the lazy play of boasting of his charity contributions. Swan nailed this immediately when he noted that was no substitute for paying tax. And then there was the reaction of Clive Palmer, a man who, despite his constantly laboured breathing, effortlessly demonstrates one of the consequences of f-ck-off levels of wealth — the eccentricity that consumes someone who no longer has to care what anyone thinks of them, their appearance or their statements.
The opposition complaining about “class warfare” was even better. The phrase “class warfare” is a dead giveaway that: 1.) you’re too lazy to do some actual thinking; 2.) you’re protecting the interests of privileged élites; and 3.) that you need to go read a history of the French Revolution or the Khmer Rouge to know what actual class warfare looks like. In any event, when it comes to the clash of ideas, “class warfare” is hopelessly outgunned by the recent arrival “the 1%”, rhetoric Swan has also tried to pick up on.
Swan couched his attack as part of a discussion of the government’s economic program, and of course there is the accompanying Monthly essay for those who want more in-depth, analytical abuse, and a social media forum as well. But, really, this was a political message. After all, Swan omitted from his analysis the most egregious statement of vested interest of all in recent memory, the comment from the king of the rent seekers, Mitch Hooke, who declared “it wasn’t necessary for Australians to be sharing in the benefits of the mining boom”.
But then, Hooke and his merry minions at the MCA, who helped dictate the final shape of the MRRT, have publicly recommended the passage of the tax. It would hardly do for Swan to lump Hooke in with the others.
It’s also a political message because politicians have been exploiting the idea of sinister groups seeking unmerited or illegitimate power ever since they first crawled from the primeval oceans (the fossil records shows the earliest examples of politicians looked quite different but had the same underdeveloped senses of perspective and hypertrophied egos of the modern species).
It was Howard and his cultural warriors who targeted “elites” who controlled major institutions and imposed their chattering, undemocratic, PC-and-snobbery based agenda on the rest of us, an altogether longer bow than anything Wayne Swan has managed to draw, suggesting that the ruling party and key sections of the media were hapless victims before a bunch of ABC journalists, academics and commentators.
(Along the way, curiously — and there’s a master’s thesis in this for some thoughtful politics student — the drinks associated with these sinister groups changed — it used to be “chardonnay socialists” in the ’80s, but like the puritans they are, this gave way to coffee, with the latté serving as an appropriate marker of unworldly know-it-allness, before soy milk replaced it as the current ornament of inner-city snobbery; c.f. the trajectory of white bread as cultural marker in the US).
But it was ever thus, and for all sides of politics: there’s always someone who shouldn’t have power trying to exercise it. Drawing attention to them is to exploit their perceived unpopularity and legitimise one’s own power as representative of the mainstream community. It’s just that the groups seeking to exercise illegitimate power vary in their means of influence. Some seek to do it through numbers and foreign control (Catholics), or through controlling finance (Jews), or secret conspiracies (the Masons, the Illuminati, the Knights Templer, the JFK assassins, the lizard people who replaced Obama’s brain).
Wait, what — am I seriously linking Swan and Howard to some of the craziest conspiracy theories in history?
It’s all arbitrary. All sorts of vested interests have access to power, secret access, based on their wealth, or capacity to threaten politicians, or control of key sectors. Why are the country’s richest private schools beneficiaries of massive government funding? Why do pharmacists remain inviolate from competition policy? Why is the government currently negotiating in secret a treaty aimed at imposing the agenda of the US copyright industry on Australian consumers? Why are heavily unionised sections of the manufacturing industry protected when those primarily composed of un-unionised or female workers lose out?
One person’s cabal is another’s legitimate interest. Major media companies have done far more damage to the public interest in countries such as the US and Australia than the Masons, the Illuminati and Romish priests put together, and invariably in secret, but have never made it into any politician’s rogue’s gallery, except Paul Keating and Mark Latham, crazy-brave or plain crazy politicians who make Swan’s sally against the Hutts the mining magnates look like a mutual appreciation society. Swan won’t even contemplate an inquiry into the banks he routinely rails against, not even when Joe Hockey calls for one.
It’s all politics. But, rarely from Labor these days, it’s good politics.
CORRECTION Bernard Keane writes: I originally included newsagents along with pharmacists as examples of groups “inviolate from competition policy”. Mark Fletcher of the Newsagency Blog points out that newsagents haven’t been protected from competition since 1999. Indeed. Sloppy work from me - my apologies. The copy has now been amended.
Thanks Bernard!
Swan’s efforts to put the Occupy Wall Stree protestors in the Australian
context should be congratuletd.
Whilst the OWS goup lacked clarity and the ability to express a
clear objective they have broadened the political and economic discourse.
I actually caught Swan’ speech yesterday and it was particularly good and continues what has been a pretty good week or so from the govt.
Getting Carr was good but now they are managing to shift the debtate back to the economy and start to expose Abbott on what is clearly his weakest point. The coal.iton have struggled to maintain a coherent, cohesive & consistent position on even the most basic of things l.ike when they will produce a surplus and whether they will keep their paid parental leave let alone how they will pay for their $70b black hole.
The longer the govt can keep the focus on the economy and highlight the “singing for his supper” angle the better as if anyone ever starts to put his economic policies under the microsope they will see it is an absolute disaster and Turnbull will start to count his numbers.
If you add in Julie Bishops disussions with indonesia about “turning the boats around” (as long as that is OK wiht Indonesia but don’t tell anyone) and Abbott getting sued for making things up then all is not lost for the ALP.
I would also like to pre-empt some of the SB argument on the big miners right to lobby by pointing out that about 20% of the workforce are unionised and probably about 10% more best interests would be “represented” by unions, mining account for 2% of the workforce, Palmer, Rinehart and Forrest significantly less and their pockets are much deeper and their actions serve only themselves.
Also Forrest’s $50m in donations would not only not be a replacement for paying tax but he would actually be claiming a tax deduction for them I dare say, at 30% company tax rate he would get back $15m so he actually only pays $35m and the govt pays $15m, he is effectively in a joint venture with the govt.
“Why is the government currently negotiating in secret a treaty aimed at imposing the agenda of the US copyright industry on Australian consumers?”
Because Australia didn’t enact the legislative changes the US thought would flow from AUSFTA, and when the overt approach fails …
Note AUSFTA Ch17 - the key word is ‘harmonisation’, as in (according to the DFAT summary of AUSFTA), “Closer harmonisation of Australian and US intellectual property laws” which will, apparently, “benefit Australian exporters, by creating a more familiar and certain legal environment, and Australian innovators, and by helping them to attract US investment.”
Anyone want to take a guess at what ‘harmonisation’ means in this context? Hint: the answer involves Mickey Mouse.
Well done Swanie, it is about time Miss Piggy & her Hutt twins got pulled up but that’s not all. We won’t mention the plan to automate the mines in the next few yrs like Rio Tino did to one of its mines 8years ago exclamation exclamation exclamation, which only take 2 yes two men to run an entire mine, no one in trains, trunks or diggers. Hello W.A. where will your rivers of gold be then? Or Australia’s mining boom, it will be going in to around eight pockets, all those wages gone. It is coming to a mining town near you, tomorrow.
Love the Hutt reference, very apt really…
I agree with Amanda Vanstone’s comment on Q&A last night. What we are seeing is Swann’s reaction to the fact that when the Leadership stoush happened over the past two weeks, no one mentioned him.
Wayne’s mad as hell and he isn’t going to take it any more. He is ditching the spin and really going on the front foot. Very, very refreshing after years of safe sound bites from pollies too afraid to call it like it is for fear of offending - who? Most people in this country will welcome this refreshing burst of honesty and passion.
David Hand - Yeah that’s it!!
Typical comment from you and your ilk, why bother gettng into policy and serious issues when you can skate on the surface.
I can’t believe that we are now talking about how clever Swan is to be having a go at the mining magnates and how this is a political ‘agenda setting moment’ that shows the ‘government’s values’. I seem to recall that in 2010 Kevin Rudd did something very similar with the original Super Profits Resource Tax. My view at the time, and now, is that Rudd was on a winner to take to the next election, with the population beginning to get annoyed about the inequality of it all and agreeing that the people should get their share from the sale of the country’s resources. So then, instead of sticking it out against the millionaire’s media campaign, his colleagues axed Rudd. Now we’re supposed to admire Swan, the Treasurer whom Rudd made.
Swans just jealous he’s such a lightweight the treasury job is the best he will ever get in the world of finance.
Meanwhile self made Billionaires like Twiggy are going leaps and bounds while he’s stuck on a treasurers wage
@ Jimmy. ‘Change’ comes through dialogue and debate therefore if your political ideology is based on resisting change smother the discussion. NO_position playbook tactic #1.
The problem is that the government wasn’t going to give a cent back to the Australian people… not in tax cuts, not in cash handouts… not in jack sh1t.
So on the one hand we have a bunch of very wealthy mining companies and on the other we have a government pretending to be collecting money for the average Australian joe without actually giving them anything.
In other resource rich places in the world…. Alaska for example, every individual is sent a cheque from the government every year in Oil and Gas royalties.
The Rudd/Dillard government weren’t about tax cuts though, they were all about tax increases and Australians were sick of it and still are. Increase mining royalties? Sure… but put income tax cuts on the agenda at the same time.
Jimmy, So you really think Swann is going after the three resources barons’ “threat to democracy” as a serious policy issue?
How about this for a serious issue.
Mining is being marginalised in this debate as some sort of private rich man’s club when the resources boom is supposed to have helped keep the Australian economy strong and made us one of the most prosperous countries in the world. These two positions can’t both be true.
This 2% argument that Natasha Stott Despoja threw out last night and Jimmy repeats here ignores the multiplier effect that transmits the benefits of the mining boom right through our economy.
One could argue that the entire state of WA including the 1.7m inhabitants of Perth owe their prosperity to mining and resources. All the coastal resorts of central Queensland, where coal miners in the Bowan Basin live, are ignored.
Reinhardt, Palmer and Forrest all live in Australia. I can hear the violins playing now as I ponder the tearful “Balmain basket weaving, latte sipping, inner city left elites” (I’ve been wanting to use that one all morning!) complaining about Australia’s resources being owned by off shore behemoths such as Xstrata, Vale and Rio Tinto.
Sorry Jimmy, I’m with today’s editorial. “Ignore the substance and concentrate on the theatrics, but in this case the theatrics are the substance”
Lyn Gain - Rudd mightof been on a winner, except he bothced the announcement and implementation got ALL of the industry offside and lost a lot of community support, ie those influenced by Jo nes, McCrann, Bo lt etc.
Now they have the legislation about to kick in, the Mineral council BHP, Rio, Exstrata and others on side they now get a second chance to at telling the story they should of told in the first place against the likes of Palmer & Rinehart who not only are trying to skittle the MRRT but the carbon tax and are making big donations to the libs and trying to get more involved in media.
Geewizz - See my above comment to David Hand.
David Hand - “Mining is being marginalised in this debate as some sort of private rich man’s club when the resources boom is supposed to have helped keep the Australian economy strong and made us one of the most prosperous countries in the world. These two positions can’t both be true.” Why not? The mining industry is diverse, there is a massive difference between BHP & Rio and the Rineharts and Palmers.
“This 2% argument that Natasha Stott Despoja threw out last night and Jimmy repeats here ignores the multiplier effect that transmits the benefits of the mining boom right through our economy.” Is the multiplier effect greater for mining than construction or retail or manufacturing? Every industry has a “multiplier effect” not just mining so why should we include mining but ignore everyone else?
“Reinhardt, Palmer and Forrest all live in Australia” So what Forrest admits he has paid no tax for years.
Geewizz - “The problem is that the government wasn’t going to give a cent back to the Australian people… not in tax cuts, not in cash handouts… not in jack sh1t.” So the company tax cuts, the increase in super guarantee and the small business tax breaks don’t exist? And the investment in infrastructure? Get serious!
Big Gina is right.
Any negative press on mining magnates should be outlawed forthwith, as it greatly increases the risk that they will be abducted by angry pensioners, Somali pirates, or aliens from the planet Zork.
Yeah finally labor have woken up that they better throw some red meat to their base…be fascinated to see if they actually act on it by taking up the Greens offer to tighten up the mining tax. They might as well, the oligarchs are going to pursue them regardless…
Jimmy, that whole trickledown theory of yours re the mining industry would maybe have a leg to stand on if the mining industry didn’t make $1,200,000 profit per employee once all costs are taken into account.
Even with miners making $120,000 a year the companies are making 10 times that in profit.
That’s not a lot of trickledown.
The right wing trolls default question? Whats in it for me?
Pathetic.
@JIMMY - If your use of COAL.iton is a reference to blind support to the coal industry, then the coal.iton consists of the Nationals, Liberals, and Labor. Just read Ferguson’s responses to the leaked Greenpeace report as an example.
If Labor is really against undue influence - what are the going to do about it? Change the laws for donations to political parties, sort out something to balance political advertising, or how about fixing the tax system so that we all pay our fair share of taxes!
I doubt that anyone expects Labor to actually stand up against the powerful vested interests as we have already seen them roll over on the mining tax and gambling reform.
As Bernard says - Swan’s talk is good politics. But it is also just spin.
And my sad prediction for today - Australia will be the first county in the world to take effective action against pirated downloads of large files (which raises the question of what else the NBN will be used for).
Swan’s first battle is to get the media to treat this issue in a mature manner. Emma Alberici on Lateline last night gave us a startling example of how not to do it.
Her dismissive, excessively hostile and sneering attitude towards Swan bordered on the disrespectful and led her to advance ludicrous arguments about how Rinehart, Forrest and Palmer were virtual national economic treasures who ought to be protected from the arguments Swan was advancing.
If this is the kind of trashy, angry journalism the ABC thinks is acceptable then we can probably expect even worse from the commercial media.
MWH - No reference to coal just trying to avoid the moderator who hates L’s and I’s next to each other.
Steven Warren - Not sure you have the right bloke, I was saying the “multiplier” for the mining industry is overstated, essentially agreeing with your point I think.
Incompetent Swan is just trying to divert attention from dishonest Gillard and its working.
Smart spin doctor he has
SNESN1 - Did you see McCrann’s article today - he has a nice little kick back coming from Rinehart and Co I am sure!
SB - Again see my comment to David Hand above.
And why is only Gillard dishonest when Abbott is being sued for being dishonest, Bishop has been caught telling the indonesians a different story to the one her boss is telling the country, Robb has contradicted Abbott on paid parental leave and the whole liberal economic team has had several different positions on when they will have a surplus?
@ Jimmy
Abbott being sued is a stunt - to distract attention. When witness are call (if it goes that far, it will be ring side seats)
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is to be su ed for defamation for an ”outrageous smear” against a senior Victorian building union official.
“Mr Abbott last month accused John Setka - assistant Victorian secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union - of turning up at the homes of builders uninvited. The CFMEU said Mr Abbott had implied that Mr Setka was trying to ”stand over” people.
Mr Setka has been anointed to be the next secretary of the Victorian branch of the CFMEU, one of Australia’s richest and most powerful unions. In 2003, he was convicted and fined $500 after threatening to ”fix up” a Grocon manager”
@ Jimmy
“Mr Setka has been anointed to be the next secretary of the Victorian branch of the CFMEU, one of Australia’s richest and most powerful unions. In 2003, he was convicted and fined $500 after threatening to ”fix up” a Grocon manager”
So Wayne Swan wants to stand up for working Australians against powerful vested interests. Perhaps he could give his views on “Fair Work Australia” and their ridiculously long investigation into his fellow MP Craig Thomas and the HSU.
SB - What you said doesn’t change the fact Abbott is being sued for being dishonest, this is from the SMH”Because so many of you have got to go on to sites every day and you’ve got to deal with the John Setkas of this world every day and the last thing you need is home visits,” Mr Abbott said at a Master Builders Association of Victoria conference on February 10.
”Those home visits we know take place. We know they take place because people like Mr Setka have told us that they take place.”
The comments, broadcast on Sky News, were in response to a question on how employer groups should campaign to save the Australian Building and Construction Commission from being scrapped by Labor.
They came just two days after a criminal case against Mr Setka collapsed after building watchdog inspectors admitted destroying evidence and changing key parts of their stories. As a result, a number of assault-related charges against Mr Setka were dropped and he was convicted and fined $750 for behaving in an offensive manner in a public place.
Slater and Gordon’s Ben Hardwick wrote to Mr Abbott on February 21 demanding damages, a full retraction and costs within seven days. He wrote that comments were ”highly defamatory” and imputed Mr Setka engaged in ”thuggery”.
Last night, Mr Abbott’s office did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.
The CFMEU’s national construction secretary, Dave Noonan, said legal action would be taken and said the comments from Mr Abbott were a ”blatant lie” and an ”outrageous smear”. ”Tony Abbott who yesterday [Sunday] I saw on television talking about the importance of politicians telling the truth has told a blatant lie which he has calculated to injure Mr Setka’s reputation,” Mr Noonan said.
”He has said that John Setka not only visited people at their homes but that he had admitted to doing so, and both those allegations are false,” he said. ”The implications of his statements are very clear, that he has done so to stand over people and intimidate them.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-to-be-sued-over-home-visits-comments-20120305-1uecg.html#ixzz1oJ74ThH2
SB - What you said doesn’t change the fact Abbott is being sued for being dishonest, this is from the SMH
”Because so many of you have got to go on to sites every day and you’ve got to deal with the John Setkas of this world every day and the last thing you need is home visits,” Mr Abbott said at a Master Builders Association of Victoria conference on February 10.
”Those home visits we know take place. We know they take place because people like Mr Setka have told us that they take place.”
The comments, broadcast on Sky News, were in response to a question on how employer groups should campaign to save the Australian Building and Construction Commission from being scrapped by Labor.
They came just two days after a criminal case against Mr Setka collapsed after building watchdog inspectors admitted destroying evidence and changing key parts of their stories. As a result, a number of assault-related charges against Mr Setka were dropped and he was convicted and fined $750 for behaving in an offensive manner in a public place.
Slater and Gordon’s Ben Hardwick wrote to Mr Abbott on February 21 demanding damages, a full retraction and costs within seven days. He wrote that comments were ”highl y defamatory” and imputed Mr Setka engaged in ”thuggery”.
Last night, Mr Abbott’s office did not respond to requests for comment before deadl ine.
The CFMEU’s national construction secretary, Dave Noonan, said legal action would be taken and said the comments from Mr Abbott were a ”blatant l ie” and an ”outrageous smear”. ”Tony Abbott who yesterday [Sunday] I saw on television talking about the importance of politicians tell ing the truth has told a blatant l ie which he has calculated to injure Mr Setka’s reputation,” Mr Noonan said.
”He has said that John Setka not onl y visited people at their homes but that he had admitted to doing so, and both those allegations are false,” he said. ”The impl ications of his statements are very clear, that he has done so to stand over people and intimidate them.”
@ Steve Clark
Does incompetent Swan care about ‘working Australians’? He earns $400,000 a year as a Minister. I guess he has a carefree life.
So why doesn’t Swan implement the Treasury agreed model for the mining tax and take more for the nation’s benefit?
That Monthly story just sounds like a pitch to Green leaning, ex-ALP voters.
He is the nation’s treasurer after all. Why this sudden road to damascus moment now?
Still I am enjoying him not reading a script as a robot.
Bernard makes a good point about having a conversation with the public about policy . Rudds mining tax, seemed to me at least, to have come out of the blue . There was no public discussion or paving the way to show why such a tax would be of benefit to Australia .
Swan makes a good point about how these rich types can influence perception as opposed to the average person . Gina has and continues to portray herself as a hard working business woman who developed her wealth . No mention of the courts to sideline her step mother or the family of the father who was Langs partner . No mention that Land and his partner received overly generous concessions from the WA government which Gina inherited . Clive loves the courts as well with something like over 60 cases to his name but the average punter would be lucky to afford one . Twiggy likes to boast about his aboriginal incentives but is reluctant to actually detail the difference between claimed success and actual outcomes . His mining company offers less generous conditions to traditional land owners than other companies such as BHP, RIO or smaller miners . Twiggy also used bussed in tribal members to try and outvote a deal that the majority see as not equitable with other deals with companies . Instead of cash for comment cash for vote .
For someone to espouse a good business sense a stake in channel ten and putting in Bolt as a commentator makes little sense with the resulting loss of advertising dollars for the station . Murdochs hand has taken a toll as well by protecting the cable tv base by damaging channel OneHD and getting out of AFL games . Why buy into Fairfax when paper media is struggling to keep profit margins against online news ? This is where Swam has a telling point . Actually the best point but one not wise to relate PR wise is the absurdity of fearing abduction for family if court proceedings are public yet denying family members money to but security from the family trust . Those Fairfax shares would buy a lot of security and the channel ten share loss would but the same .
@Stephen, - how about doing some real research and posting something sensible and believable. You and I both know that the aliens on planet Zork are lazy, incapable of abducting anyone and content with their lives supported by their supreme leader’s generous handouts. Or have I confused them with Labour/Green voters ? Not sure, can’t see pass that reddish tinge of the political spectrum.
SB - “Does incompetent Swan care about ‘working Australians’? He earns $400,000 a year as a Minister. I guess he has a carefree life.” Will you either get serious or f..k off!!!
This tired old class envy clap trap will appeal to the same brain-dead who believe he is the worlds best … wateva. He is preaching to the alredy converted as clearly expressed by the predictably divided comments here.
@ Jimmy
I was right, so very serious. Incompetent Swan ears as much as Barrack Obama, give or take a few packets of popcorn.
couriermail.com.au/news/pollies-in-line-for-huge-pay-increase/story-e6freon6-1226210702704
@ Jimmy
I was right, so very serious. Incompetent Swan ears as much as Obama, give or take a few packets of popcorn.
Google it, Courier mail has a good article
Why bog-down with the periphial when everything is summed up in 6 lines ( 1 x paragraph ) or maybe 5.5 lines? Everything esle is commentary.
We stand by U.
WTF - How exactly does this fall into “class envy”? Firstly Palmer, Rinehart and Forrest have shown that they have a complete disregard for the truth when it comes to prosecuting their “case” on both the MRRT & carbon price and that they believe they have no obl igation to the country from which they are taking these minerals and which provided the opportunities for them to exploit them. Also we are talking about people who have demonstrated that they will spend whatever it takes to win their argument (after all what is a few mill ion to a multi bill ionaire?)
Paul Grobowsky’s comments on Q&A were brill iant in general but when he discussed the first wave of US mill ionaires and their sense of creating a civilisation it really illuminated the issue here.
SB - Who gives a rats arse what Swan earns by your logic anyone who actually get’s voted into parliament atomaticall y earns to much to represent their constituents.
You are a petty person who’s complete lack of intellectual capacity is so great I have to wonder who turned the computer on for you? Again I will say if you want wallow around in the shallow end go blog on a news ltd site.
They arent income tax cuts.
BTW Please remind the group who pays Superannuation. There seems to be this myth floating around that it’s the government which is a load of horsesh1t.
SB - I will also ask you to and your mates to consider this.
Numerous times on this site when people have touted the growth or unemployment figures or any other economic indicator you have dismissed them as wrong because the mining sector’s massive success is masking the problems in retail etc.
Now the govt is bringing in legislation that will provide tax breaks to small business and reduce the company tax rate ie ehlp the sectors you say are struggling by charging the massivley successful miners more for the minerals they are extracting and you are against this? Where is the consistency?
Testing.
Geewizz- you said “The problem is that the government wasn’t going to give a cent back to the Australian people… not in tax cuts, not in cash handouts… not in jack sh1t.” Am I to assume the phrase “tax cuts” only applies to income tax? Why don’t company tax cuts count? Why don’t the other small business tax breaks count?
And are only mining companies ” wealth creators? Doesn’t cutting company tax rates increase economic growth?
And yes super is paid by employers but that is why employers are getting tax cuts and other tax breaks, to assist them to pay for the super increase, you can’t get one without the other, plus the govt is a signinficant employer.
Geewizz- you said “The problem is that the government wasn’t going to give a cent back to the Australian people… not in tax cuts, not in cash handouts… not in jack sh1t.” Am I to assume the phrase “tax cuts” only appl ies to income tax? Why don’t company tax cuts count? Why don’t the other small business tax breaks count?
And are only mining companies ” wealth creators? Doesn’t cutting company tax rates increase economic growth?
And yes super is paid by employers but that is why employers are getting tax cuts and other tax breaks, to assist them to pay for the super increase, you can’t get one without the other, plus the govt is a signinficant employer.
What I find incredibly cynical and dishonest is Swan blaming Andrew Forrest for not paying any taxes.
If Forrest is breaking the law, then he should be investigated. I suspect that Forrest is within the law.
The scandal is that the result of the last 20 years of Liberal and Labor taxation laws is that someone as rich as Forrest can legally pay no tax.
If Swan had any credibility he would change the taxation laws so that we all paid our fair share.
But look how good Swan is on spin - he gets the Labor supporters to think that he is being tough on the miners and the rich, yet he continues with a taxation system that allows Forrest and others to avoid their share of taxes.
So the real politic is Swans whisper to the rich miners - “don’t worry, we won’t change the mining tax and we won’t change the income tax system. You are our mates really. We just needed to put on a show to fool our supporters.”
@Jimmy - Have you ever got SB or GW or any of the other usual suspects to change their mind or admit that they are wrong? Ever? Just even once?
Not only do your replies to them achieve nothing, but the endless back and forth is boring for most readers.
@ Jimmy
You have your blinkers and ALP Spin Hat on again.
They are dropping small business tax by 1% whoppy do.
They have jacked up Australia Post parcel post charges over 28% in the last two years. The latest increase this month is over 9%. Two increases a year. They are cunning now, they dont show you the previous price just the new price (see second box in attachment). Look at 500g parcel post satchel. Its gone up 28.7% since mid 2009. Why?
Never before has this happened under ANY government. The gouge started in 2009 under incompetent Swan and out of touch Conroy.
auspost.com.au/media/documents/parcel-post-prices-april-2012.pdf
Yet increasing employer costs with a 3% increase in superannuation payments.
Labor gives with one hand and takes twice as much back with the other…
SB - You don’t think a 1% cut in the company tax rate (resulting in paying 3.33% less tax) is a benefit? Would you say the same thing if they were going to increase company tax by 1%?
” the corporate tax rate from 30 to 29 per cent from 2013-14 at a cost of more than $2bn a year.” That’s $2b a year back in the pockets of companies and back into the economy, wouldn’t someone like you applaud this? And what of the other samll business tax breaks?
Nah let’s focus on the parcel post increases at Australia Post which operates in a competitive market, I mean if you don’t want your parcels delivered by Australia post you could always go somewhere else!
And as for why, well let’s think they volume of normal letters dropping due to the move to online?