Originally posted by Devilmaycare
Bill Shorten has to win the middle class and he is not very convincing. This is what it takes
1. Isolated the greens
2. Maintain the border security
3.target negative gearing to reduce housing prices
4. Target the multinationals to pay more tax
5. and Santa Claus is real!
still predicting a minority liberal government with an ever aggressive mixed bag of senators! Aahhh!
I don't think the LNP will win.
Originally posted by wbddrss
"
The household savings ratio has now hit a 10 year low,"
is a bullshit figure after everyone was forced into superannuation at employers and employees putting aside far multiples of what was necessary compared to cash savings.
Here is a picture of the savings ratio. See the drop under Howard, and thenthe GFC caused people to save but now with cost of living pressures they are now dipping into savings again noting this drop also accords with the unsustainable house price drops last 10 years -
https://www.rba.gov.au/chart-pack/household-sector.html
Also the HH savings ratio does include employer superannuation contributions in disposable income (which is I presume what you are referring to as the substitution for wages) so going to zero is a bigger concern - page 6
https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/2014/pdf/rdp2014-03.pdf - what reduces the savings rate is no wages growth (either in the hip pocket or through employer contributions to super LOL) for one which is what essentially has happened last 10 years, move to casual employment types or part time employment, and increasing debt by the price of where housing has gone.
You can't save if your average house to income ratio has gone to around 6 to 10 times in most cities (closer and beyond 10 in some) when that ratio was less than 4 times in the 1980s and 1970s. And that is also why you see the trend to two income households because unlike the 1970s and 1980s where one person can work and the mortgage could be paid of on one income and before 10 years and despite interest rates above 10% then, these days both parents work and still can't pay a mortgage before 10 years. And just imagine the mayhem on the economy now if interest rates even rose by 3% - absolute destruction it will be given our private debt levels caused by incompetent governments unable to control spiraling costs whilst living on GDP growth figures fueled by a housing Ponzi scheme and immigration growth. That is why the RBA is worried.
Originally posted by wbddrss
I think MRRT was opposed because PRRT taxed entities were left with a BIll and look at us now
oil refineries closing
oil and gas exploration not delivering replacement reserves
So please please rename PRRT the rape the industry tax
As when industry pays tax they are left with the bill to keep an industry sustainable after paying all the taxes. Just not a viable proposition
these are just opinions
And finally, the PRRT came in 1985 from recollection. Since then Australia's oil and gas industry has boomed. Infact Australia is about to become the world's largest gas exporter, despite not exporting any LNG back in 1985. I'll leave it at that as your comment is just wrong.
You don't pay PRRT or the then proposed MRRT unless economic rents are made (i.e. profits above your opportunity cost of capital which in effect under the legislation is 12% (and noting capital is not been recovered the 'losses' for PRRT purposes are indexed by around 5% to 15% depending on what type of expenditure it is). Under PRRT, given you can move exploration credits around to brownfields projects many don't pay that either, because doing exploration becomes a PRRT cost base issue, which is how the MRRT was modelled as well. Furthermore if commodity prices are low you don't pay either because of how the PRRT tax is structured, and the then MRRT as well, as been a tax on economic rents - basically Australians got fooled on the MRRT because they didn't understand it and how it works. So how do you explain the explosion in LNG projects since the PRRT tax, which MRRT was largely modelled against, is a destroyer as you put it.
And on that front lets talk Africa - noting in effect anyone doing business in Africa has to gift in effect a 10% - 30% stake in their project to a government over there before paying company tax on profits btw. And while we are at, lets talk about Singapore's and Cayman's mining industry.
My problem with the MRRT is it walked on State rights - onshore resources are the property of the Crown (the State's to make decisions) whilst Offshore they are the property of the Commonwealth in Commonwealth waters hence their PRRT. My problem was the ALP through the MRRT was seeking to walk on State's rights, as the State's already have a royalty regime albeit one can argue whether it is too concessionary.
Yes Australia does not have a vision as I posted in this thread. BS has some policies, not many but LOL they are more than the hopeless and pathetic rabble we have in government now. Compared to bygone days all I can say is Australia is losing its identity because laisser faire economics mean we are dictated to by multinationals as against set our own agenda. And Woodside makes me laugh, because if it wasn't for Charles Court back in the 1970s we would still be talking LNG start ups today, and even talking about how do we develop a local domestic gas industry - it was the Court government who had the foresight in the 1970s in WA to do a take or pay contract with Woodside to open up the gas developments in WA that almost sent the State broke and then Woodside after starting supplying the domestic gas market to meet the domestic gas supply Court wanted looked further ahead to LNG after using those early year profits to further explore and find more gas - then they all came and as to why Australia is about to be the world's largest gas exporter. Without Court I just wonder how long it would have been before gas took of in WA, given the areas of the coast where North Rankin is were largely unexplored until Court came along.
All IMO
