Mr Crudley
Glock in your sock
True, I would bet that the instant asset tax write off and also that the HiLux is a best selling car here now have a strong correlation.
The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
moorey
call me Mia
Feeling targeted….
Mr Crudley
Glock in your sock
Only if you have new one. You can relax
Last edited:
SummitFever
Eats Squid
Totally wrong question. What we should be asking is "what could they manufacture when we need it?"
Retaining (and building) local capacity is essential. It can't be left to market forces because the market dictates outsourcing to the cheapest supplier. This can only work for so long.
Cars are a pinnacle manufacturing product. They may not seem like it as they are everywhere but the technology and know-how that goes into making them is mind-blowing. They are also a "large" object produced in volume. Being able to make large, complicated things in volume is very important. There is much in a car production line and its supporting local industry that can be quickly repurposed for other manufacturing, but once its gone it is very difficult to restart.
It's a pity that there is so little appreciation and understanding of the complexity of manufacturing even the simplest thing. The most complicated financial derivative is child's play to understand compared to something as seemingly "simple" as injection molding a car dashboard.
There was lots of innovation. Hambo it.
Squidfayce
Eats Squid
"what could they" is a question that went unanswered for the entirety that that industry was flailing IIRC, hence my comment about failure to innovate. The "what could they" question is further complicated by further need for investment/handouts etc. even if they worked out what they could be manufacturing, likley new tooling at the very least would have been required. A fair investment for a "maybe" or "what if" scenario IMO. Imean if there was money to be made, dont you think it would have survived? Goes back to an earlier comment i made about globalisation, wanting cheap goods etc.
I agree that a loss of local manufacturing is not great, but neither is pouring money into it hoping they come up with something they could be doing. I mean that whole industry had about a decade of of the writing being on the wall. What did they do?
Mattyp
Cows go boing
Cars are indeed very clever... Like that 80km/h max space saver..
It's not rated at 80 because it's a shit tyre, it's to do with being a smaller diameter and being outside of tolerance for your cars stability management calculations...lesson learnt, don't blame your shonky BIL mechanic when you get a flat a day after your gearbox service, fit your spare and now it won't shift into 6th on the freeway because it thinks your car is in a high speed drift...errr carry on.
It's not rated at 80 because it's a shit tyre, it's to do with being a smaller diameter and being outside of tolerance for your cars stability management calculations...lesson learnt, don't blame your shonky BIL mechanic when you get a flat a day after your gearbox service, fit your spare and now it won't shift into 6th on the freeway because it thinks your car is in a high speed drift...errr carry on.
Oddjob
Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
The three categories that come to mind are unmanned vehicles, missile delivery systems, and small scale nuclear power.
All are cutting edge technologies, we have some history and a skills base for them, and all are a strategic need for the country.
Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk
Squidfayce
Eats Squid
Stand by it. no one is begrudging you the opinion.
Properly funded is part of the problem. its not a paradigm that will ever occur because of how this country has operated, continues to operate and will operate into the future. Tell me that in your lifetime there has been a period where all services, infrastructure and social programs have been properly funded at the same time.. And no trolling, just a legitimate question - where the threshold from going happy to unhappy to pay for more?
If i could direct my taxes rather than the govt (ala Grill'd bottle cap charity style), then maybe i would be happy to do pay more too, but because i cant. id be happy to pay exactly zero% more than I have to.
But I disagree that if everything was properly funded that I wouldnt need as much money. Well maybe not need, but that doesnt change that money pays for everything we do. While we may not "need" more, surely you wouldn't say no tro having more disposable income to pay for the things you want? Need/want two factors that both influence quality of life.
The whole corporate tax debacle is just that. The argument to tax corporations properly is a sound one, untill the risk of them shutting up shop and moving to more tax friendly jurisdiiton raises its head. Granted, that wouldnt be all, but it could be many. It could have a negative tax revenue impact. Also dont have the maths to back that up, but if it was easy as just raising it, pretty sure it have been done by now. I mean what's the risk, right?
Squidfayce
Eats Squid
100% this. its a sad state when kids these days have to rely on "finfluencers" on tiktok to get financial advice.
My dad was a highly educated professional and even his financial advice was fucking stupid. "dont buy a house" it ties you to one place for 30 years. a mortgage costs more than rent yada yada. what a gronk. I have googled the sales results for the homes we live din the ACT that we could have bought back then. kind of sobering how bad his advice was.
Squidfayce
Eats Squid
i dont think either is a good strategy. Tax minimisation in general yes, but not by buying useless stuff just to do it. Paying down a home loan fast is a potential opportunity cost loss for many people.
moorey
call me Mia
I never said there was a time everything was suitably funded. It never has been, I wasn't saying it ever was.
And it's not a panacea, but as a country, we could spend a bit more on essential services and save a money down the track. Education should be free, as should dental for example. Mental health, family violence and homelessness services are underfunded for example. The amount we (personally, and as a country) spend on trying to fix things down the track, is staggering. What if I told you that some of the young people I work with cost well in excess of $1m each per year to support? It's mostly bandaids too, unfortunately.
Directing your tax to personal hobby horses is silly, and would likely compound the issue of underfunding in critical areas.
The most well off people I personally know, pay virtually zero tax, through creative accounting. Far less than those I know on struggle street. Sure, it's legal, it's just morally bankrupt IMHO.
This area is well outside my expertise, and I'm tapping out, but I DGAF if I pay more tax if it's being spent where needed. Even if it doesn't give more disposable cash.
Signing off.
beeb
Dr. Beebenson, PhD HA, ST, Offset (hons)
This is the crux of the matter for me. Make tax a flat-rate % per dollar of income. No exceptions.
Squidfayce
Eats Squid
so no deductions at all?
moorey
call me Mia
Nice strawman....
Squidfayce
Eats Squid
no im trying to understand the "no exceptions" comment.
because even at a flat rate for all, the same tax minimisation strategies exist. Besides, didn't you bow out? l
Scotty T
Walks the walk
More wages. You do not need more wages. Nor do I. We both own carbon fibre toys worth thousands. Yet we are not rich in the context of Australia.
Well I'm assuming a bit here, I dunno if you are a normal above average wage earner with very expensive taste in bikes or you own a business/assets worth millions. On the surface you seem somewhere in between.
No. This is why we can't have nice things like free basic dental. Tax minimisation is for well off people. They don't need it. I agree with @moorey it's morally bankrupt when people can pay no tax and earn loads, but those people see it as a badge of honour. Greedy cunts.
No. This does nothing and is unfair for poor people, we definitely need a sliding tax scale.
More importantly we need to tax (or stop them avoiding tax) billionaires and huge companies. Rhetoric about companies leaving, well fuck off then.
It's obscene that people are billionaires. I saw a post comparing a millionaire to a billionarie in a time scale. A million seconds is 11 days. a billion seconds is 32 years.
moorey
call me Mia
Bowed out of attempting to wax lyrically on issues I know nothing about. I'm just saying that Beeb didn't mention deductions, and I don't think he was eluding to that at all, so I'm not sue where you got that.
Not only is it obscene that there are billionaires, who most certainly are not self made, what's worse is that we hand it to them.
As if Australia needs Gina to sell our natural resources.
Look at Norway and their sovereign wealth fund from their 'super-profits tax' on oil. Currently valued at $1.2 trillion.
Australia's national debt, $1 trillion.
Litenbror
Eats Squid
Well this turned into a bit of derail didn't it.
Regarding resource companies leaving for tax havens if they have to pay more tax? I'm not sure how the math works on that but good luck taking all the iron ore with you.
If anyone is interested look up the Prelude floating LNG plant built by shell. Cost them $30 billion I think and they will never see a profit from that investment. That's bad for shell shareholders but also very bad for Australian tax payers because we see no royalties from the gas they are extracting because it's all getting written off against the $30 billion investment. I don't remember getting a shell dividend cheque when they are making money so I'm not sure why I'm subsidising their poor investment choices when they loose money. This is the kind of subsidy that could go to cutting edge manufacturing or tech not Shell shareholders.
This was originally about economic diversity and how it can create a more robust economy and society. This bs about not subsidising unproven tech or companies is rubbish we subsidise mining to a wild amount and farmers as well (remember 90% of farm produce is exported so that's not to help keep our food prices down). It's about priorities and the Australian people and economy are not one of them for politicians or business. A good example that's popped it's head up is an Australian strategic fleet as the politicians call it, we need it to protect Australia. Go look up the origins of ANL shipping lines, seems like we had one but decided it was better off sold to China.
Just saying we are, as an aggregated society not individual people, greedy and shortsighted and no one has really made an argument that refutes that yet.
Regarding resource companies leaving for tax havens if they have to pay more tax? I'm not sure how the math works on that but good luck taking all the iron ore with you.
If anyone is interested look up the Prelude floating LNG plant built by shell. Cost them $30 billion I think and they will never see a profit from that investment. That's bad for shell shareholders but also very bad for Australian tax payers because we see no royalties from the gas they are extracting because it's all getting written off against the $30 billion investment. I don't remember getting a shell dividend cheque when they are making money so I'm not sure why I'm subsidising their poor investment choices when they loose money. This is the kind of subsidy that could go to cutting edge manufacturing or tech not Shell shareholders.
This was originally about economic diversity and how it can create a more robust economy and society. This bs about not subsidising unproven tech or companies is rubbish we subsidise mining to a wild amount and farmers as well (remember 90% of farm produce is exported so that's not to help keep our food prices down). It's about priorities and the Australian people and economy are not one of them for politicians or business. A good example that's popped it's head up is an Australian strategic fleet as the politicians call it, we need it to protect Australia. Go look up the origins of ANL shipping lines, seems like we had one but decided it was better off sold to China.
Just saying we are, as an aggregated society not individual people, greedy and shortsighted and no one has really made an argument that refutes that yet.
Last edited: