‘Pretty honest’, PM, but are you fair dinkum?
Well, Scott, as you like to say, ‘‘Well it’s just fundamental economics 101.’’ Your mantra of Coalition ‘‘tax cuts’’ (targeting highly paid full-time workers) and flipside on Labor’s ‘‘high taxing’’ agenda just does not compute. The OECD regularly publish their member countries rate of total taxation as a percentage of GDP.
It is interesting how expert politicians become even in areas in which they have no training or experience.
Peter Hartcher characterises Labor’s proposed tax changes as ‘‘redistributive in the interests of greater fairness’’ (‘‘Shorten shows true grit. He’ll need it’’, February 2-3). Quite to the contrary, these changes would reduce fairness.
If an income earner pays too much PAYG tax through the year, the government refunds the excess. But if a dividend earner has paid too much tax (in the form of a reduced payment, since the company has already paid the tax), no refund would be paid. Further, if an income earner receives franked dividends, the government would refund the franking credits to them in the form of a tax deduction. But if a person has no income other than dividends, no refund would be paid.
Teachers, hairdressers, nurses, paramedics, firefighters, aged, disability and early childcare workers are typical of those taxpayers who contribute to the yearly $5 billion cash payments for refundable franking credits. Labor believes that this largesse, provided by John Howard, is unfair and unsustainable in the future and plans to remove it.
Meanwhile, these same taxpayers are helping to fund hundreds of thousands of dollars to Scott Morrison and senior Liberals as they tour the country, not promoting policies of their own, but predicting fire and brimstone should Labor succeed.
It’s just as well the tree didn’t fall across tram lines (‘‘Extremely lucky to be alive’’, Sun-Herald, February 3).
‘‘Buses were diverted via Margaret Street, Kent Street and Erskine Street to return to York Street and were missing stops along York Street at Wynyard.’’ Where would the tram have gone? Nowhere.
Australia is an immigrant country and politicians are subjected to lobbying from community, business and political groups linked or not linked to a foreign government (‘‘Abbott rues dinner with China ‘influence pedlars’’’, February 2-3). Every country has an agenda and it is up to our government to remain independent despite lobbying. The media reporting is biased, sensational and discriminatory; and appeared polarised by geopolitics. Political donations are labelled sinister because of a polarised political view.
Both major parties accept donations in a level playing field where the law applies to all. The Foreign Interference Transparency Scheme Act 2018 applies to all. This only applies to lobbying. To be really transparent, the bill should be extended to cover the donor, the amount and to which political party.
There is one quite notable difference between the Bible and the Koran on the point of violence (Letters, February 2-3). The message of the Koran will never be changed. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Koran are mostly open ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text as in the Bible.
In the battle for Mosul, it is alleged 18 civilians were killed by Australian Defence Force Super Hornets ("PM says 'not clear' ADF killed civilians", Februrary 2-3). Were we at war? Yes? Do civilians get killed as collateral damage in wars? Yes. Then why is there always a fuss about such minimal deaths? I am proud of our ADF, and especially proud of the accuracy of our skilled pilots who risk their lives in strategic battles instigated by our politicians.
I am proud to be an Aussie when I read: "Officers negotiated with a man before firing beanbag rounds to resolve the situation" ("Man charged after 'emergency situation' at Brisbane International Airport", smh.com.au, February 3).