Tax rebates used wisely reinforce good social policy and can enhance productivity by encouraging investment and associated behaviours that favour our country’s strategic direction. And then there are tax rebates that just distort a market place in order to win votes or reinforce an ideological position. The latter verges on a corrupt, self-serving practice. Oh hey, here’s Tony ‘Small Government’ Abbott handing out money that he and Joe Hockey just told us we don’t have. So much for tightening the belt, those cuts must be aimed elsewhere, eh?    

Yes, yes, we are all pro-choice and it’s a free country and all, but do we really have to extend education rebates paid for by everyone’s taxes to cover those who choose to opt out of publicly funded education? Isn’t this the opposite of free choice? Oh yeah, it sounds nice and helps pay the bills for struggling families; and it even reinforces a few voters who want to save some cash but don’t want their kids going to a government school. Bonus for Tony and team. But is that a good enough reason to effectively splash more of our cash on private schools? It’s a clear signal from Abbott that under his rule government school funding will again be compromised in favour of the Liberal/National party voting demographic.

Thanks, Tony, that’s an economic reform we had to have, isn’t it? Why not just outsource public schools to the private sector and be done with it?

As for covering music lessons, I have no problem there. We should have more music training and the music training industry clearly needs the subsidy. Here, just take my money. If we are going to distort every market we may as well be thorough. Tony Abbott for socialist of the year I reckon.  

Federal Election 2010

“A very, very large percentage of parents at government schools these days face what are called voluntary fees,” he said.

Under the coalition’s policy, the current 50 per cent rebate will be lifted to $500 dollars a year for each primary school student and $1000 for each high school student – and extended to private schooling.

Federal Election 2010

Mr Abbott said the rebate would cover more than laptops and could be used for school fees and other costs such as tuition and costs incurred for children with special needs.

Tax rebates used wisely reinforce good social policy and can enhance productivity by encouraging investment and associated behaviours that favour our country’s strategic direction. And then there are tax rebates that just distort a market place in order to win votes or reinforce an ideological position. The latter verges on a corrupt, self-serving practice. Oh hey, here’s Tony ‘Small Government’ Abbott handing out money that he and Joe Hockey just told us we don’t have. So much for tightening the belt, those cuts must be aimed elsewhere, eh?    

Yes, yes, we are all pro-choice and it’s a free country and all, but do we really have to extend education rebates paid for by everyone’s taxes to cover those who choose to opt out of publicly funded education? Isn’t this the opposite of free choice? Oh yeah, it sounds nice and helps pay the bills for struggling families; and it even reinforces a few voters who want to save some cash but don’t want their kids going to a government school. Bonus for Tony and team. But is that a good enough reason to effectively splash more of our cash on private schools? It’s a clear signal from Abbott that under his rule government school funding will again be compromised in favour of the Liberal/National party voting demographic.

Thanks, Tony, that’s an economic reform we had to have, isn’t it? Why not just outsource public schools to the private sector and be done with it?

As for covering music lessons, I have no problem there. We should have more music training and the music training industry clearly needs the subsidy. Here, just take my money. If we are going to distort every market we may as well be thorough. Tony Abbott for socialist of the year I reckon.  

Federal Election 2010

“A very, very large percentage of parents at government schools these days face what are called voluntary fees,” he said.

Under the coalition’s policy, the current 50 per cent rebate will be lifted to $500 dollars a year for each primary school student and $1000 for each high school student – and extended to private schooling.

Federal Election 2010

Mr Abbott said the rebate would cover more than laptops and could be used for school fees and other costs such as tuition and costs incurred for children with special needs.

What surprises me most about the vocal over-reaction to the resources super-profit tax is that so many people are prepared to ignore the clear, obvious and well documented facts and blithely comment against the tax, without any apparent understanding of the issues. They are almost marching in the streets over it, if you believe the old media. But it’s a fair tax on excessive profit made from our shared resources, not a pressing social issue at all. The social issue here is only that the mining barons think they can hoodwink the people of Australia. Do we really want to protect big miners at all costs? It seems bizarre to me that so many people think it’s worth siding with the profit-takers when they are so clearly biased against the greater good. Are they all shareholders and/or Liberal/National voters? Do they really believe that making the miners pay a fair rate of tax will force them to close mines?   

The tax is not new and it’s not a surprise at all. It taxes inputs and credits outputs but at a lag – which is the real issue here. The uplift used to “correct” for this lag between incurring a cost and gaining a credit is lower than they’d like. It’s hardly worth the drama at all, but it’s been spun so hard no-one seems to understand what the details are anymore. What has caught the ire of the mining lobby is perhaps that final detail of the uplift rate, which is not exactly what they would prefer. They should get over it.  

Sovereign risk? No, superannuation is at risk, thanks to mine bosses

So it was something of a shock to return to Australia recently to find all anyone could talk about was executives of very rich mining companies bleating about a tax that they themselves had asked the Henry tax review to impose. The miners had argued to Henry that they preferred a profit tax to the crude royalty system that each state imposes on the amount of minerals they dig up and sell.

What surprises me most about the vocal over-reaction to the resources super-profit tax is that so many people are prepared to ignore the clear, obvious and well documented facts and blithely comment against the tax, without any apparent understanding of the issues. They are almost marching in the streets over it, if you believe the old media. But it’s a fair tax on excessive profit made from our shared resources, not a pressing social issue at all. The social issue here is only that the mining barons think they can hoodwink the people of Australia. Do we really want to protect big miners at all costs? It seems bizarre to me that so many people think it’s worth siding with the profit-takers when they are so clearly biased against the greater good. Are they all shareholders and/or Liberal/National voters? Do they really believe that making the miners pay a fair rate of tax will force them to close mines?   

The tax is not new and it’s not a surprise at all. It taxes inputs and credits outputs but at a lag – which is the real issue here. The uplift used to “correct” for this lag between incurring a cost and gaining a credit is lower than they’d like. It’s hardly worth the drama at all, but it’s been spun so hard no-one seems to understand what the details are anymore. What has caught the ire of the mining lobby is perhaps that final detail of the uplift rate, which is not exactly what they would prefer. They should get over it.  

Sovereign risk? No, superannuation is at risk, thanks to mine bosses

So it was something of a shock to return to Australia recently to find all anyone could talk about was executives of very rich mining companies bleating about a tax that they themselves had asked the Henry tax review to impose. The miners had argued to Henry that they preferred a profit tax to the crude royalty system that each state imposes on the amount of minerals they dig up and sell.