I am so sick and tired of the rubbish and scaremongering from people who (on paper) should know better.
It is a breath of fresh air to read something which actually nails the real cause of the problem and
what the problem is (solvency vs liquidity)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428279231046053.html
It is like people complaining about shares going down and their super (like 401k) being down 40% this year after 4 years of more of 20% gains!
Year 1: $100,000
Year 4: $207,000
Year 5 $124,000
Monday, October 20, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Zero interest rates?!?
Ahh the Global Financial Crisis otherwise known as Global Fried Capitalism or GFC.
Blame it on capitalism and use it as an opportunity for another experiment with socialism.
Doesn't Russia's 75 year bloody detour into hell tell you something, what about North Korea....
No the enlightened, elected few and their many unelected advisors believe they can do better to "manage" the economy.
With a fundamentally socialist organization at the core of each "free market" economy, I am talking a reserve bank, it is not capitalism, never was. It is what is called a mixed economy.
What the reserve bank does is set its target rate, which is normally what banks can borrow money from it.
It defends this rate by either buy or selling bonds. It is based on the idea of a natural rate of interest.
Here is the BS that is peddled by reserve banks and economists the world over. They set their interest rates in line with the natural rate of interest, which is in fact indeterminable (unknownable) at the time they set their rate.
Set it too low and the reserve bank is said to be running an "easy" money policy...
Set it too high and the reserve bank is said to be running a tight money policy.
So reserve banks the world over have been running a easy money policy, pretty much from 9/11/2001. Eventually the easy money, at one time confused as excess savings finds it way to the most profitable game in town and then beyond, causing inflation to rise.
The reserve banks begin to raise interest rates, the media reports, "Reserve banks has a tightening bias" and suddenly things which only work when money is close to free (to banks) are no longer profitable, whoops we need to blame, executive greed, extreme capitalism, mean street, the masters of the universe.
I actually want those idiots to go to the wall and go bankrupt. That is the best thing which could happen to them and their unproductive use of money. Shuffling/merging/bundling crap loans with good and calling them Triple A assets, is like wrapping a dogshit in a bun and calling it a hotdog. Both are going to cause violence reactions.
We have a solvency crisis (not a liquidity crisis), the only way banks are going to lend to each other, rather settle accounts with each other (noone trusts the solvency of the other bank) is when the Government owns 51% of the bank and forces the banks to lend and settle.
Simple as that.
The bankers are doing, at the moment, what makes good bankers, that is, being cautious and prudent.
The Governments of the world want them to go back to be incautious and reckless.
No doubt the music will begin again when reserves banks reach that magical point again where it is easy, close to free money and all the unproductive businesses (and profits) can start again.
Then we have this bloke saying zero rate interest is going to happen.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/zero-interest-rate-a-possibility-20081016-524u.html
Noone asks the Japanese how their little experience with zero interest rate went... whoops a 15 year period in the doldrums. No thanks I would rather have money mean something.
Here is the point.
The reserve banks are to blame, they are the root cause, and provided the incentives for all the unproductive use of capital. Trying to control/manage and thereby corrupting the price signal that money provides through time (I am talking the interest rate) they have corrupted the whole structure of the economy.
That people who are fundamentally opposed to free markets are using Wall Street and Capitalism as the scapegoat is nothing new.
Mostly they are control-freaks who hate the idea that things just work out without requiring government policy or intervention. Otherwise they are peddling a social agenda which takes from the productive and gives to the people who will vote them back into office.
If the local Australian government really wanted to fix things and use their surplus properly, they should give everyone back their money their paid in taxes rather than a select group.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24494843-5013946,00.html
The worse advice I have even seen was from Wayne Swan and Lindsay Tanner (who should know better).
Go and spend the payment!!! don't save it, spend it! FFS why not helicopter everyone $1000 dollars so we can all spend it! It will make us all richer won't it.... but wait, don't stop with $1000, what about $10,000 or even $100,000. How about everyone wins lotto courtesy of the government. That seems to be working in Zimbabwe and worked in the Wiemar Republic, and John Law's Mississippi Bubble as well didn't it?
They should bring it forward to have the payments arrive on the first Monday in November (before the first Tuesday ala Melbourne Cup) it will have the same effect.
The words of the late Kerry Packer come to mind...
"if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read".
"the Government wasn't spending it so well that we should be donating extra".
Nice to see my tax dollars at work allowing people to blow it on the pokies, drink and piss it against the wall or spend it on retail goods.... I can do that as well, without having to support the ATO and government bureaucracy along the way. But wait, the politicians don't give a toss either, they are living off the tax money as well.
Have Fun (on my hard earned tax dollars)
Blame it on capitalism and use it as an opportunity for another experiment with socialism.
Doesn't Russia's 75 year bloody detour into hell tell you something, what about North Korea....
No the enlightened, elected few and their many unelected advisors believe they can do better to "manage" the economy.
With a fundamentally socialist organization at the core of each "free market" economy, I am talking a reserve bank, it is not capitalism, never was. It is what is called a mixed economy.
What the reserve bank does is set its target rate, which is normally what banks can borrow money from it.
It defends this rate by either buy or selling bonds. It is based on the idea of a natural rate of interest.
Here is the BS that is peddled by reserve banks and economists the world over. They set their interest rates in line with the natural rate of interest, which is in fact indeterminable (unknownable) at the time they set their rate.
Set it too low and the reserve bank is said to be running an "easy" money policy...
Set it too high and the reserve bank is said to be running a tight money policy.
So reserve banks the world over have been running a easy money policy, pretty much from 9/11/2001. Eventually the easy money, at one time confused as excess savings finds it way to the most profitable game in town and then beyond, causing inflation to rise.
The reserve banks begin to raise interest rates, the media reports, "Reserve banks has a tightening bias" and suddenly things which only work when money is close to free (to banks) are no longer profitable, whoops we need to blame, executive greed, extreme capitalism, mean street, the masters of the universe.
I actually want those idiots to go to the wall and go bankrupt. That is the best thing which could happen to them and their unproductive use of money. Shuffling/merging/bundling crap loans with good and calling them Triple A assets, is like wrapping a dogshit in a bun and calling it a hotdog. Both are going to cause violence reactions.
We have a solvency crisis (not a liquidity crisis), the only way banks are going to lend to each other, rather settle accounts with each other (noone trusts the solvency of the other bank) is when the Government owns 51% of the bank and forces the banks to lend and settle.
Simple as that.
The bankers are doing, at the moment, what makes good bankers, that is, being cautious and prudent.
The Governments of the world want them to go back to be incautious and reckless.
No doubt the music will begin again when reserves banks reach that magical point again where it is easy, close to free money and all the unproductive businesses (and profits) can start again.
Then we have this bloke saying zero rate interest is going to happen.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/zero-interest-rate-a-possibility-20081016-524u.html
Noone asks the Japanese how their little experience with zero interest rate went... whoops a 15 year period in the doldrums. No thanks I would rather have money mean something.
Here is the point.
The reserve banks are to blame, they are the root cause, and provided the incentives for all the unproductive use of capital. Trying to control/manage and thereby corrupting the price signal that money provides through time (I am talking the interest rate) they have corrupted the whole structure of the economy.
That people who are fundamentally opposed to free markets are using Wall Street and Capitalism as the scapegoat is nothing new.
Mostly they are control-freaks who hate the idea that things just work out without requiring government policy or intervention. Otherwise they are peddling a social agenda which takes from the productive and gives to the people who will vote them back into office.
If the local Australian government really wanted to fix things and use their surplus properly, they should give everyone back their money their paid in taxes rather than a select group.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24494843-5013946,00.html
The worse advice I have even seen was from Wayne Swan and Lindsay Tanner (who should know better).
Go and spend the payment!!! don't save it, spend it! FFS why not helicopter everyone $1000 dollars so we can all spend it! It will make us all richer won't it.... but wait, don't stop with $1000, what about $10,000 or even $100,000. How about everyone wins lotto courtesy of the government. That seems to be working in Zimbabwe and worked in the Wiemar Republic, and John Law's Mississippi Bubble as well didn't it?
They should bring it forward to have the payments arrive on the first Monday in November (before the first Tuesday ala Melbourne Cup) it will have the same effect.
The words of the late Kerry Packer come to mind...
"if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read".
"the Government wasn't spending it so well that we should be donating extra".
Nice to see my tax dollars at work allowing people to blow it on the pokies, drink and piss it against the wall or spend it on retail goods.... I can do that as well, without having to support the ATO and government bureaucracy along the way. But wait, the politicians don't give a toss either, they are living off the tax money as well.
Have Fun (on my hard earned tax dollars)
Sunday, June 01, 2008
More pain for working families
Unless you read the financial section or watch some decent finance programs you may not have seen the continuing saga which will lead to higher natural gas prices in Australia. Especially in the main consumption areas of the Australian Eastern Seaboard (Brisbane down to Melbourne).
Basically the local price for natural gas is completely disconnected (at least for most Eastern states) from the global price for natural gas by the tune of roughly 250-350%.
There are companies both in Australia and overseas trying to cash in on that difference.
One such company is Origin Energy, they hold a large amount of natural gas reserves (recently updated). Last week they rejected in offer from BG (British Gas) to be taken over. What BG and others are looking at is creating a LNG train and export facility in Queensland.
So why would this increase the price of natural gas in Australia?
In setting up a new demand source (exporting natural gas as LNG to China, US, Japan etc) whilst the supply remains relatively fixed means the price must increase. Export demand will mean that gas producers will export into that market in preference to supplying locally until the market price locally is almost the same as they can receive selling overseas.
Look at the numbers for Origin Energy.
It has Proven, Probable and Possible (3P) reserves of 10,222 Petajoules (PJ).
Australian natural gas prices are quoted in dollars per GigaJoules around $3.80 per GJ (see Govt. research paper)
1 PJ is 1 million GJ.
So 10,222 PJ is 10,222,000,000 GJ
So Origin has $38.8 billion dollars of natural gas and a market value (capitalisation) of $13.7 Billion.
Here is the reason for this article.
One Gigajoule is approximately equal to one thousand cubic Feet (Mcf).
The Henry Hub futures price in the US is around $12.50 per Mcf. That is a 328.95% difference in price compared to the local Australian natural gas price.
So if Origin were to export all that gas. It would mean those gas reserves are worth $127.7 Billion.
Now if the local market has discounted this new reserve information in, has it discounted in the price those reserves are worth at world prices or Australian prices?
Is it worth $14.60 or $48.08?
See what I mean about more pain in the pipeline for retail consumers who rely gas for heating or cooking. How would a 328% increase in your bill feel like?
Have Fun
Paul
Australian Government research paper of Natural Gas
LNG Conversation tables
ABC Inside Business Origin CEO interview
GJ per Mcf 1.000
EastAus per GigaJ (GJ) $3.80
EastAus in McF $3.80
US Henry Hub McF $12.50
Difference 328.95%
Basically the local price for natural gas is completely disconnected (at least for most Eastern states) from the global price for natural gas by the tune of roughly 250-350%.
There are companies both in Australia and overseas trying to cash in on that difference.
One such company is Origin Energy, they hold a large amount of natural gas reserves (recently updated). Last week they rejected in offer from BG (British Gas) to be taken over. What BG and others are looking at is creating a LNG train and export facility in Queensland.
So why would this increase the price of natural gas in Australia?
In setting up a new demand source (exporting natural gas as LNG to China, US, Japan etc) whilst the supply remains relatively fixed means the price must increase. Export demand will mean that gas producers will export into that market in preference to supplying locally until the market price locally is almost the same as they can receive selling overseas.
Look at the numbers for Origin Energy.
It has Proven, Probable and Possible (3P) reserves of 10,222 Petajoules (PJ).
Australian natural gas prices are quoted in dollars per GigaJoules around $3.80 per GJ (see Govt. research paper)
1 PJ is 1 million GJ.
So 10,222 PJ is 10,222,000,000 GJ
So Origin has $38.8 billion dollars of natural gas and a market value (capitalisation) of $13.7 Billion.
Here is the reason for this article.
One Gigajoule is approximately equal to one thousand cubic Feet (Mcf).
The Henry Hub futures price in the US is around $12.50 per Mcf. That is a 328.95% difference in price compared to the local Australian natural gas price.
So if Origin were to export all that gas. It would mean those gas reserves are worth $127.7 Billion.
Now if the local market has discounted this new reserve information in, has it discounted in the price those reserves are worth at world prices or Australian prices?
Is it worth $14.60 or $48.08?
See what I mean about more pain in the pipeline for retail consumers who rely gas for heating or cooking. How would a 328% increase in your bill feel like?
Have Fun
Paul
Australian Government research paper of Natural Gas
LNG Conversation tables
ABC Inside Business Origin CEO interview
GJ per Mcf 1.000
EastAus per GigaJ (GJ) $3.80
EastAus in McF $3.80
US Henry Hub McF $12.50
Difference 328.95%
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Why Earth Hour is wrong
A percentage of people in Sydney 2% last year will turn off their lights for one hour.
The generators still run, even these people's fridges, hot water heaters, electronic devices still
run.
It is a bunch of people trying to feel good about themselves. They are supporting a idea which is trying to make the rest of us feel bad about ourselves and our current way of life.
Their underlining argument taken to the logical conclusion would be for noone to use electricity, no lights anywhere, not just in Australia but the entire globe. They would deny this but this mentality is anti-modern life, and for most people this means anti-human.
They want people to go back to the pre-modern times without electricity and without light (after dark).
Turn your lights off and go back to the stone age.
OR
Leave you lights on and enjoy your weekend.
I keep writing these rants as I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
Paul
The generators still run, even these people's fridges, hot water heaters, electronic devices still
run.
It is a bunch of people trying to feel good about themselves. They are supporting a idea which is trying to make the rest of us feel bad about ourselves and our current way of life.
Their underlining argument taken to the logical conclusion would be for noone to use electricity, no lights anywhere, not just in Australia but the entire globe. They would deny this but this mentality is anti-modern life, and for most people this means anti-human.
They want people to go back to the pre-modern times without electricity and without light (after dark).
Turn your lights off and go back to the stone age.
OR
Leave you lights on and enjoy your weekend.
I keep writing these rants as I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
- Life: The sanctity of human life, no-one has the right to demand human sacrifice of any kind, physical, mental or economical.
- Liberty: Freedom from the use of arbitrary force.
- Pursuit of Happiness: Be happy as long as you don't violate the first two rules.
Paul
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Housing affordability
Big issue in Australia, especially in large cities is the lack of housing affordability, and rents which are increasing rapidly.
Tonight the SBS insight program skimmed over the issue.
All interested parties are lobbying hard for the Government to step in and "make a difference".
The new PM ol' mate Kev says that is it the number one problem (amongst other number one problems) affecting working families.
By now you should known that I think getting the Government involved is a sure way to make it worse. We even have a classic recent example.
The First Home Owners Grant (FHOG) introduced, had the opposite effect. Damn law of unintended consequences...
Instead of improving the ability for first homeowners all it did was put a fire under the existing demand, $1 Billion per year, leveraged by the banks to 95% (with mortgage insurance) of course and you have $20 Billion dollars looking for a home in property.
But wait, in an unconstrained market, tonnes of entrepreneurs (and investors) would jump in and provide supply for all that extra demand... right?
Like MySpace and Facebook caused a huge increase in the number of social networking sites on the internet.
Housing has some characteristics (not an exhaustive list)
What should and eventually will happen in Sydney and Melbourne is what has already happened overseas. New York is a good example. Everyone wants to live close to work, densities increase and we have apartment blocks and skyscrapers where people demand to live!
At the moment we have everyone wanting to live with a enjoyable traveling distance of their place of work. Most work is concentrated in CBDs, so you can draw a radiating circles around it in terms of travel times and map reasonably accurately where free standing houses are a waste of space and need to be replaced by higher density housing.
You can join the mortgage treadmill or make your asset work for you and get the normal tax deductions of an income producing asset. Living elsewhere for the first 7-10 years of the mortgage is the best thing you can do. Mortgage interest is dead money as well.
The most interesting tidbit I got from the Insight problem was the Federal minister mentioning reviewing fair rental rates. This sounds like rent controls in disguise (similar to the NRMA and ACCC petrol price witch hunt).
Ask New Yorkers what rent controls have done to parts of New York City!
Guess what happens to supply if you limit or legislate the return on investment?
Have Fun
Paul
Tonight the SBS insight program skimmed over the issue.
All interested parties are lobbying hard for the Government to step in and "make a difference".
The new PM ol' mate Kev says that is it the number one problem (amongst other number one problems) affecting working families.
By now you should known that I think getting the Government involved is a sure way to make it worse. We even have a classic recent example.
The First Home Owners Grant (FHOG) introduced, had the opposite effect. Damn law of unintended consequences...
Instead of improving the ability for first homeowners all it did was put a fire under the existing demand, $1 Billion per year, leveraged by the banks to 95% (with mortgage insurance) of course and you have $20 Billion dollars looking for a home in property.
But wait, in an unconstrained market, tonnes of entrepreneurs (and investors) would jump in and provide supply for all that extra demand... right?
Like MySpace and Facebook caused a huge increase in the number of social networking sites on the internet.
Housing has some characteristics (not an exhaustive list)
- It is a long term durable asset.
- Supply is illiquid due to a couple of reasons (see below)
- It is reasonably expensive to build new or replace existing with higher density.
- Zoning laws and associated regulations. Mostly local government related.
- It takes time to build houses and units.
- New land releases are slow and in outlying areas.
- Noone wants to live 2-4 hours commute from their job.
- Existing homeowners: They are the ones wanting heritage listing, facade orders, height and density regulations. Anything which reduces supply when demand is the same or strong will increase the value of their primary asset (their house).
- State Labor Parties: Political donations from big property developers help ease the pain of working in State politics versus the glory of Federal.
- State Governments: Increasing house and land prices equals more stamp duty and more land tax!!
- Local Councils: Increased house and land prices equals more rates. I am sure the power of controlling development goes to the head of some people as well.
What should and eventually will happen in Sydney and Melbourne is what has already happened overseas. New York is a good example. Everyone wants to live close to work, densities increase and we have apartment blocks and skyscrapers where people demand to live!
At the moment we have everyone wanting to live with a enjoyable traveling distance of their place of work. Most work is concentrated in CBDs, so you can draw a radiating circles around it in terms of travel times and map reasonably accurately where free standing houses are a waste of space and need to be replaced by higher density housing.
You can join the mortgage treadmill or make your asset work for you and get the normal tax deductions of an income producing asset. Living elsewhere for the first 7-10 years of the mortgage is the best thing you can do. Mortgage interest is dead money as well.
The most interesting tidbit I got from the Insight problem was the Federal minister mentioning reviewing fair rental rates. This sounds like rent controls in disguise (similar to the NRMA and ACCC petrol price witch hunt).
Ask New Yorkers what rent controls have done to parts of New York City!
Guess what happens to supply if you limit or legislate the return on investment?
Have Fun
Paul
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Abolish Capital Gains
I was reading a interesting article on Institutional Economics regarding capital gains on residental and investment property
Why not abolish capital gains tax completely on all assets. It is a tax on investment.
We increase our capital stock and maybe productivity will increase as well eh?
That would kill the stagnant productivity and lack of infrastructure problems with one stone.
Of course this will never happen, similar to having a flat income tax rather than progressive. People like the idea that rich people get taxed more, and pollies pander to popular feeling.
I have always hated the idea that as I build up a business, at some point the Government is waiting in the wings (if I sell any portion) to take their cut. On the understanding of course that I am currently, presently and until I sell any portion not already being taxed so that the Government can provide the necessary public infrastructure to enable my business to grow.
You could argue if my business are almost completely of an online nature, that somehow the Government is still providing my business with "soft" infrastructure in the form of education.
When in doubt refer to the tax office reports (I noticed they are dragging the chain on releasing new statistics).
The summary, Capital Gains Tax (CGT) made the government $7 billion in 2004-2005. That
is 7% of Personal income tax. 17.% % of Company tax and about the same for GST.
What would $7.9 billion mean in terms of new investment?
In 2004-2005 $79 Billion was spent on new assets, so the CGT was 10% of that. It is not likely all the money would have gone into new assets. That would depend on the companies Return on Assets (ROA). So either it would held as cash, invested or given back as dividends.
Capital gains tax
http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/81183.htm&page=36&H36
OVERVIEW
For the 2004–05 income year:
* net capital gains totalled $25.7 billion, and were reported by 974,284 taxable individuals, 18,657 taxable companies and 75,075 taxable funds
* CGT payable on the net capital gains of taxable individuals, companies and funds was estimated to be $7.0 billion
* 461,713 taxable individuals, companies and funds declared $56.4 billion in total current year capital gains on their CGT schedules. Around 62.3% or $35.1 billion of these total capital gains were sourced from shares.
Personal income tax
http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/81183.htm&page=31&H31
OVERVIEW
For the 2004–05 income year:
* 11.2 million individuals lodged income tax returns
* individuals had total income of $447.5 billion, taxable income of $423.7 billion and net tax payable of $103.6 billion
* individuals claimed $23.8 billion in total deductions, including $11.9 billion in work-related expenses
* 7.7 million individuals were entitled to tax offsets and credits totalling $13.6 billion
* 73.0% of tax returns or 8.2 million were submitted by tax agents, and 11.6% or 1.3 million were submitted using e-tax.
Company tax
http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/81183.htm&page=32&H32
OVERVIEW
For the 2004–05 income year:
* 707,455 companies lodged returns, a 3.4% increase from 2003–04
* companies reported total income of $1,638.8 billion, a 7.3% increase from 2003–04
* total company expenses were $1,486.8 billion, a 5.8% increase from 2003–04
* companies were liable for $40.5 billion in net tax, a 16.2% increase from 2003–04.
For the 2005–06 financial year:
* petroleum resource rent tax totalled $2.0 billion.
GST
http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/81183.htm&page=39&H39
OVERVIEW
For the 2005–06 financial year:
* total net GST liabilities (including Customs collections) increased by 5.3% to $37.3 billion, up from $35.5 billion in 2004–05
* wine equalisation tax liabilities (including Customs collections) decreased by less than 0.5% from the previous year to $663.0 million
* luxury car tax liabilities (including Customs collections) increased by 7.3% to $322.4 million.
Why not abolish capital gains tax completely on all assets. It is a tax on investment.
We increase our capital stock and maybe productivity will increase as well eh?
That would kill the stagnant productivity and lack of infrastructure problems with one stone.
Of course this will never happen, similar to having a flat income tax rather than progressive. People like the idea that rich people get taxed more, and pollies pander to popular feeling.
I have always hated the idea that as I build up a business, at some point the Government is waiting in the wings (if I sell any portion) to take their cut. On the understanding of course that I am currently, presently and until I sell any portion not already being taxed so that the Government can provide the necessary public infrastructure to enable my business to grow.
You could argue if my business are almost completely of an online nature, that somehow the Government is still providing my business with "soft" infrastructure in the form of education.
When in doubt refer to the tax office reports (I noticed they are dragging the chain on releasing new statistics).
The summary, Capital Gains Tax (CGT) made the government $7 billion in 2004-2005. That
is 7% of Personal income tax. 17.% % of Company tax and about the same for GST.
What would $7.9 billion mean in terms of new investment?
In 2004-2005 $79 Billion was spent on new assets, so the CGT was 10% of that. It is not likely all the money would have gone into new assets. That would depend on the companies Return on Assets (ROA). So either it would held as cash, invested or given back as dividends.
Capital gains tax
http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/81183.htm&page=36&H36
OVERVIEW
For the 2004–05 income year:
* net capital gains totalled $25.7 billion, and were reported by 974,284 taxable individuals, 18,657 taxable companies and 75,075 taxable funds
* CGT payable on the net capital gains of taxable individuals, companies and funds was estimated to be $7.0 billion
* 461,713 taxable individuals, companies and funds declared $56.4 billion in total current year capital gains on their CGT schedules. Around 62.3% or $35.1 billion of these total capital gains were sourced from shares.
Personal income tax
http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/81183.htm&page=31&H31
OVERVIEW
For the 2004–05 income year:
* 11.2 million individuals lodged income tax returns
* individuals had total income of $447.5 billion, taxable income of $423.7 billion and net tax payable of $103.6 billion
* individuals claimed $23.8 billion in total deductions, including $11.9 billion in work-related expenses
* 7.7 million individuals were entitled to tax offsets and credits totalling $13.6 billion
* 73.0% of tax returns or 8.2 million were submitted by tax agents, and 11.6% or 1.3 million were submitted using e-tax.
Company tax
http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/81183.htm&page=32&H32
OVERVIEW
For the 2004–05 income year:
* 707,455 companies lodged returns, a 3.4% increase from 2003–04
* companies reported total income of $1,638.8 billion, a 7.3% increase from 2003–04
* total company expenses were $1,486.8 billion, a 5.8% increase from 2003–04
* companies were liable for $40.5 billion in net tax, a 16.2% increase from 2003–04.
For the 2005–06 financial year:
* petroleum resource rent tax totalled $2.0 billion.
GST
http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/81183.htm&page=39&H39
OVERVIEW
For the 2005–06 financial year:
* total net GST liabilities (including Customs collections) increased by 5.3% to $37.3 billion, up from $35.5 billion in 2004–05
* wine equalisation tax liabilities (including Customs collections) decreased by less than 0.5% from the previous year to $663.0 million
* luxury car tax liabilities (including Customs collections) increased by 7.3% to $322.4 million.
Monday, March 10, 2008
ooohhh white flight from NSW public schools
Sydney Morning Herald front page lead with the digg bait heading "White flight leaves system segregated by race"
I am not going to even link to it. Google will find it for you.
It is a nasty little article, the aim to increase funding for public schools within NSW, re-remove parent's choice of schools and of course label all those white Anglo-Australians as racist.
Those parents are discriminating bastards! Parents are noting and observing the differences between schools. They are distinguishing accurately that one school is different from another. Of course they are discriminating. One school is crap and the other less crap or maybe even good!
The NSW government allocates (when I last looked at the NSW Education 2002 budget) around $6,500 per kid at primary and $8,500 for secondary. If parents want to spend their own after-tax money on sending their kids somewhere else it is their choice.
Of course there is always an "enlightened" elite who wish to make the choices for everyone.
Unfortunately they can't just rule outright, so have to raise thought balloons, shape opinion, guide policy makers, lobby politicans, setup Non-Government Organizations (NGO), institutes and think tanks etc etc.
Have Fun
Paul
I am not going to even link to it. Google will find it for you.
It is a nasty little article, the aim to increase funding for public schools within NSW, re-remove parent's choice of schools and of course label all those white Anglo-Australians as racist.
Those parents are discriminating bastards! Parents are noting and observing the differences between schools. They are distinguishing accurately that one school is different from another. Of course they are discriminating. One school is crap and the other less crap or maybe even good!
The NSW government allocates (when I last looked at the NSW Education 2002 budget) around $6,500 per kid at primary and $8,500 for secondary. If parents want to spend their own after-tax money on sending their kids somewhere else it is their choice.
Of course there is always an "enlightened" elite who wish to make the choices for everyone.
Unfortunately they can't just rule outright, so have to raise thought balloons, shape opinion, guide policy makers, lobby politicans, setup Non-Government Organizations (NGO), institutes and think tanks etc etc.
Have Fun
Paul
Monday, January 14, 2008
Baby bonus is for everyone
When the baby bonus was introduced into Australia there were are large number of naysayers as is expected.
People tend to forget the treasurer at the time (Peter Costello) introduced the bonus as a way to increase the fertility rate, so that the demographic nightmares which will engulf Japan, Europe and China can be lessened or reversed in Australia.
To put it simply. The Government introduced the baby bonus as an investment (in their eyes), the return being that there will be a similar number of taxpayers as there are now to cope with aging population demographic.
So the government GIVES NOW, knowing it will TAKE and TAKE TAXES in the future from these recent newborns.
Now we get the funny and sad bit.
Most major newspapers rang stories on how the RICH suburbs are also claiming the baby bonus. So the Government should means test the baby bonus. This will stop middle-class welfare apparently. Blah blah welcome to Marxist class warfare garbage peddled as an opinion piece.
Wrong, bad idea. Go read the previous paragraph. This is about the next generation of taxpayers remember.
Now go and read the ATO tax reports by postcode for NSW.
The average Kirribilli taxpayer pays an average net tax of $37,000.00!!
Compare this with Liverpool, NSW, which apparently has the most claims for the baby bonus.
The average Liverpool taxpayer pays an average net tax of $8,891.00. That is 4.6 times less than the average Kirribilli taxpayer.
A little arithmetic and little data gathering from public available sources on the net and we find that if anything, the government should be encouraging those $100K income per year "rich" bastards in Kirribilli to have more babies, especially given those children are likely to pay 4.5 times more tax!
Over their working life of 40 years.
Average Kirribilli Taxpayer will pay $1,480,000 in tax.
Average Liverpool Taxpayer will pay $355,640 in tax.
Now you see why the government is not going to scrap this policy (nor means test it) anytime soon.
Cynically the Return on Investment (ROI) for the government is massive. Outlay $5000 dollars now and get a 7112% ROI on the kid in Liverpool, and 29,600% ROI on the kid in Kirribilli!
I thought the idea of paying only on the 2nd child would have merit. However potentially it is worth more (to the government) to continue the 1st child payment and increase the 2nd child payment by 50% and third (the so-called "child for your country") maybe 150%-200%.
If I had time, you could work out in financial terms what the average taxpayer is worth to the government based on those numbers.
People tend to forget the treasurer at the time (Peter Costello) introduced the bonus as a way to increase the fertility rate, so that the demographic nightmares which will engulf Japan, Europe and China can be lessened or reversed in Australia.
To put it simply. The Government introduced the baby bonus as an investment (in their eyes), the return being that there will be a similar number of taxpayers as there are now to cope with aging population demographic.
So the government GIVES NOW, knowing it will TAKE and TAKE TAXES in the future from these recent newborns.
Now we get the funny and sad bit.
Most major newspapers rang stories on how the RICH suburbs are also claiming the baby bonus. So the Government should means test the baby bonus. This will stop middle-class welfare apparently. Blah blah welcome to Marxist class warfare garbage peddled as an opinion piece.
Wrong, bad idea. Go read the previous paragraph. This is about the next generation of taxpayers remember.
Now go and read the ATO tax reports by postcode for NSW.
The average Kirribilli taxpayer pays an average net tax of $37,000.00!!
Compare this with Liverpool, NSW, which apparently has the most claims for the baby bonus.
The average Liverpool taxpayer pays an average net tax of $8,891.00. That is 4.6 times less than the average Kirribilli taxpayer.
A little arithmetic and little data gathering from public available sources on the net and we find that if anything, the government should be encouraging those $100K income per year "rich" bastards in Kirribilli to have more babies, especially given those children are likely to pay 4.5 times more tax!
Over their working life of 40 years.
Average Kirribilli Taxpayer will pay $1,480,000 in tax.
Average Liverpool Taxpayer will pay $355,640 in tax.
Now you see why the government is not going to scrap this policy (nor means test it) anytime soon.
Cynically the Return on Investment (ROI) for the government is massive. Outlay $5000 dollars now and get a 7112% ROI on the kid in Liverpool, and 29,600% ROI on the kid in Kirribilli!
I thought the idea of paying only on the 2nd child would have merit. However potentially it is worth more (to the government) to continue the 1st child payment and increase the 2nd child payment by 50% and third (the so-called "child for your country") maybe 150%-200%.
If I had time, you could work out in financial terms what the average taxpayer is worth to the government based on those numbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)