Looking at it from a simplistic point of view, you'd still end up paying for it indirectly. Do you honestly think that if such a tax was passed onto big business they wouldn't pass it straight onto us? Sure, it's harder for someone like rio tinto to do such a think but for the banks/woolies etc, easy as pie :/

Big business were and are periodically asked to participate - you might remember the "mining tax". All part of the Henry Tax review, but I suppose that is old news now.

If it wasn't the miners it would have been the banks.

But what happened instead - the debate was derailed by a bunch of "Rolex Revolutionaries" that cried poor.

Now its the mums and dads paying through a flood levy.

I wonder who is laughing all the way to the bank now, but then again Clive Palmer, Andrew Forrest and Gina Reinhart are Mums and Dads as well.

Why would rich companies pay tax when they don't have to?

I think you're right BWD and Paradox I think they are bludging off you. Corporates don't contribute enough and seeing what James Hardie has done makes me think they ought to be in Guantanamo not people like Hicks or Assange. The corporate rate should not be lower than the top marginal rate. I once read an article on various tax offices from around the world getting together to see why Murdoch/News pays not tax anywhere in the world.

I also read that Warren Buffett, one of the world's richest, his company makes no attempt to minimise tax or even any tax planning. As a result the tax return is 9 feet high and is enough to fund American government for a whole day. Paying all this tax didn't stop him getting rich. The company recently made it into the S&P 500 so there are 499 other companies bigger than his and if they did the same, there need be no other taxes. No company tax for all but the most massive, no GST and no personal tax. You only need 365 for American goverenment to get the revenue they have now so the rest could solve their budget deiceit problem and go some way to solving health care and poverty and still no other taxes.

My friend lives in teh middle east and the country has no tax other than a resourse tax. There are so many people not working because they just have too much money, the goverenment offers a pension to anyone willing to knuckle down and work a whole 10 years.

Eveyday Mum & Dad's are not major contributers to either of the main political parties and since they tend to vote for one or the other regardless of how they are treated, it stands to reason that neither of the major parties would give a rats what they think. Afterall, for the most part, their jobs are secure and if they do loose their seat they will be rewarded handsomely for their poor performance.

As far as taxes go, this one is small. It's about $50 for me but unfortunately that means $50 that goes to the government instead of a repuatble charity that won't mysteriously loose the money in consultancy fees to companies owned by former politicians.

Bigwavedave said...

With Lady Ranga enforcing this new 'temporary' levy to assist flood victims, it has made me wonder why it is always mum and dad who get taxed more all the time.

Why isn't big business being forced to participate? Where is their charity? With record profits being reported from the grocery giants, mining giants and the banks, why aren't they being taxed??? Halve the corporate executive salaries and they still live like kings.

In the US and Europe, businesses make charity part of their constitution. Often in small towns, big businesses put the benefits of their employees before profits.

We aussies seem to enjoy being raped by big business.

This 'think of the shareholder' mentality is the downfall of humanity.

Maybe Karl Marx was more accurate than we give him credit for....

this is commy talk bwd

log man said...
You've got to be joking!! the government granted mining rights, and collected royalties and therefore they have partial responsibilities?. Governments pay for roads,collect rego are they responsible for road deaths? James Hardy were shown to be negligent in court agreed to an out of court settlement then tried to reneg on the deal. And some people try to defend them. disgraceful!

Who is defending James Hardie?

Do you not agree with shared responsibility?

^^

And failing for the last 2,000 years.

During which time so many other forms of goverance have succeeded like ...??

um, can't think of any.

Heard somebody say not long ago that outwardly we are all benevolent socialists, but inwardly we are all selfish capitalists.

log man said...

Question 1.... answer. You! Question 2.....answer. Not if they had bugger all to do with it.

That answer is as flippant as your first.

I suggest you re-read the post which got you rather excited in the first place, eg:

log man said...

You've got to be joking!! ...

The comment is about shared responsibility.

The government has "bugger all to do with" mining, do you not agree that the government and people of Australia are entitled to some form of royalty for the extraction of mineral resources?

Pugwash said...

Little Jon said...

Corporates don't contribute enough and seeing what James Hardie has done makes me think they ought to be in Guantanamo...

Two sides to every story... then there is the truth...

James Hardie may not have been the ideal corporate citizen, but don't forget the government issued the mining tenements and mining permits. The government collected mining royalties. Asbestos based products were widely endorsed for certain properties, such as being fire retarding.

Government pays it's share through health, but has certainly not paid it's fair share in the media.

[left] Claiming there are two sides to this is complete rubbish. By trying to include any government, of any persuasion in the same breath as James Hardie is unbelievable. Hardies were proven guilty in court when they accepted that they knew of the risks of asbestosis and chose to do nothing. they were proven to be negligent and responsible in some part for the sickness and death of their employees and others who worked with the product. So, that should be the end of the story shouldn't it. But oh no, Hardies set up a fund to pay compensation in an out of court settlement then fled the country, setting up in Holland(I think). Later they renegged on the deal claiming the shell company that they started to pay the compo was broke. Pugwash ,this is what you describe as "not the ideal corporate citizens", crikey, I'd hate to see a bad corporate citizen. OK yes the "other side to the story" is people died, families were destroyed and the suffering of the survivors continues to this day and the government has to pick up the pieces caused by JH.

I don't understand the mining thing.

If you assume that fuel prices will rise above inflation and above interest rates for the next fifty years, and that mining technology will get better, why are we mining at all now?

Why don't we just mine the bare minimum, sell it for a fortune and rely on the fact that in the future the coal will be easier to mine and worth much much more....?

We could do this sensitively to avoid totally pissing off the chinese...

Miners do work hard and I don't fancy the job, but they're not creating anything - technically they're putting in a small amount of effort in order to turn Australia's resources into their cash.

makes you realize just how few companies own Australia.
there are a few tightwads in that list, but nice to see westfarmers and woolies putting in.

GreenPat said...

doggie said...

(.)(.)

I reckon. Getting a bit heavy in here.

(Some interesting points though )

Funny thing GP is I read all this and at the end its all the same, not one gets out alive

hills said...

Little Jon said...

hills said...

I guess big business would be the top 100 in the ASX, if so here's what they've done for the flood victims: www.watoday.com.au/environment/weather/top-100-australian-listed-companies-response-to-queensland-flood-disaster-20110123-1a12h.html

I suspect their motivation is for marketing purposes only

Yeah you're probably right, but you can tell the victims who have lost everything to refuse the charity on principle.

Agreed, I guess I should encourage more big business philanthropy like american businesses and individuals