Comments
“Increase income Tax”
“Greens Economic Policy, Tax and Revenue”Income tax, eh? Interesting Constitutional issues here, regardless of the politics.
No State has imposed income tax since the decision of the High Court in South Australia v Commonwealth (1942) 65 CLR 373.
A common misunderstanding is that this decision, together with Victoria v Commonwealth (1957) 99 CLR 575, prevents the States from raising income tax.
That is not true. However, a State that wished to raise its own income tax would lose certain Commonwealth grants, which are made conditional upon the State not legislating to raise income tax.
Some of the hot heads, of all political persuasions, would do well to remember this when advocating the imposition of State income tax.
Remember, vertical fiscal imbalance benefits Tasmania. There is a strong argument in NSW that we should be done with subsidising the pauper States like Tasmania and use the extra $3 billion/year to fix Sydney’s infrastructure:
Tasmanian GSP: $33,243/person
NSW GSP: $45,153/person
WA GSP: $50,355/person
ACT GTP: $56,303/personStark figures. So, go ahead, Tasmanian political parties, advocate the levying of State income tax. The rest of Australia would be delighted should you choose to forego the subsidies that maintain you at OECD income levels.
More on this topic from me in mainland media soon; stay tuned.
Posted by Geoffrey Hills on 16/03/06 at 07:57 PMThank you very much, Wes, and good work (again). As if I needed one, I now have another reason to avoid the Liberals like the plague on Saturday.
Perhaps they’ve a taken leaf out of John “re-election at any cost” Howard’s campaign manual—except, of course, that Rene et al could only ever dream of matching Howard’s political savvy for manipulation and issue exploitation.
Cameron Hindrum, rampant pedagogue and seditious scribe, Laura St, Launceston.
Posted by Cameron on 16/03/06 at 10:23 PMWhat are you talking about Geoffrey?
This article is about “misleading statements” and you are taking them as true?
No Tasmanian political party is advocating State income taxes!
Posted by Barry Brannan on 17/03/06 at 01:30 AMIn West Hobart, where I live, this exact Exclusive Brethren pamphlet was delivered by my postie - yes, by Australia Post.
I got it yesterday and confirmed this fact with my postie today.
He was delivering yet another unsolicited, unaddressed pamphlet from the State Liberals today. As he said that is the way things are going these days. It didn’t matter that I had a ‘no junk mail’ sticker on my letter box.
Does Australia Post now see this type of delivery as a legitimate service for a fee? In an election campaign particularly, is it appropriate for Australia Post to distribute unaddressed, and in my opinion, highly questionable election pamphlets?
Posted by David Obendorf on 17/03/06 at 03:04 AMYou’re right Barry, the big issue about all this is that with the exception of ‘access to marriage laws to same sex couples’, the content inaccurate & misleading in the extreme. In fact a real hate campaign against the Greens which the Liberals are in up to their necks.
Trouble is guys that on the strength of this coming out Labor might get a majority again….and where does that leave us?
All I can say (as a partner of a Bass Greens Team member) is for the sake of all of us:
THIS TIME VOTE GREEN.Joy
Posted by Joy Elizabeth on 17/03/06 at 05:37 AMWe got one this morning (in the South Hobart area—Denison electorate). My partner read it and thought, gee, the greens sound okay, without realising it was produced by phobic extremists…
Counterpoint on details to Geoff I suppose, though Geoff is a bit more off the beam!
Posted by meika on 17/03/06 at 05:42 AMa small point.
the exclusive brethren are presently exempted from voting as a matter of conscience. they can demonstrate a conscientious objection to involvement in the political process.
now that they are so overtly involved in the very poltical process they formerly shunned, the courts and the electoral commission may take a very different view of the legal grounds of that exemption.
yours,
alan taylor
policy convenor
tasmanian greens
162 Macquarie St
HobartPosted by alan on 17/03/06 at 05:49 AMNo, I’m not taking them as true, although it is plausible that the Greens have at some time run on a platform of increasing income tax (particularly at a federal level). The Lib-Dems usually do so in the UK.
I wrote that, Barry, because I’m writing a newspaper op-ed at the moment, on reform of Cth-State fiscal relations and was stupid enough to think that TT readers might be interested in it as an aside.
How naive of me to think that I could just make a contribution to the public debate and not have it interpreted through the Green v Everyone Else prism!
I’d better stick to doling out advices to people who pay for them - and not at Tassie rates, which wouldn’t hire you a paralegal here!!
I mean, after all, we only want a public debate if the protagonists are supporting the Greens, don’t we? Once we have Green government, I hope and expect that advocacy of all other political parties will be made unlawful. Go, Go, Go Green Government, as they used to say!
Posted by Geoffrey Hills on 17/03/06 at 07:49 AMTop job Wes.
The show is turning into an extravaganza of epic proportions.
Some new actors for the production…….Not just any, but “exclusive ones”.
Special actors for special parts, working with special people for……where’s my moustache stamp gone????
I am in zee bunker as well at kayena
Posted by Dave Groves on 17/03/06 at 01:14 PMRant on, Geoffrey.
Can you ever admit you are wrong?
Can we have just one contribution from you that doesn’t remind us how important you are?
We might be interested in your “Cth-State fiscal relations” article but it is of no relevance here and you have written as if it is.
Posted by Barry Brannan on 18/03/06 at 01:15 AMImagine the outcry, hurrumphing & indignation if Muslim people were “exempted from voting as a matter of conscience”, instead of some Christian sect.
If these religious sects don’t want to participate in our society by voting as does every other eligible citizen, then why live here?
Why not move to the USA where they don’t have to vote. Perhaps the UN should be here overseeing our elections as the pre-poll intimidation, blatant misinformation & hidden political donations seem to me to be completely overpowering any real issues.
What would happen if a total ban was placed on all political advertising. This would mean that the candidates would have to get out into their community & work their butts of to get elected, instead of relying on a quick advertising spin immediately before the election. oh to dream…
Posted by christopher Purcell on 18/03/06 at 02:17 AMWell, Christopher, yes I guess they could move to the US, but why bother?
When our Prime Minister is doing the work for them of turning this country into a satellite of the US, changing its laws to match the US, changing its culture to match the US etc.
I could go on of course, but in the interests of keeping my blood pressure down I won’t.
We know these people are supporting the religious right elements who now control the Liberal party, we know they cannot imagine there is an alternative point of view.
I feel sorry for those people who are convinced the Liberals are a good party -they’ve been utterly conned.
At least now, the truth is starting to come out.Toby Rowallan
Mt Nelson, as alwaysPosted by Toby Rowallan on 18/03/06 at 02:45 PMDoes anyone have any idea of exactly how extremist these so called brethren are behind their closed doors?
As an escapee, I say, that in my opinion, the world needs to wake up to what could be the biggest mind control scam ever known to mankind, sitting undetected right under their very noses and insist extensive and detailed investigative journalism be conducted into the brethren.
Posted by Mark on 18/03/06 at 04:14 PMIt is quite obvious that the Exclusive Brethren are an Extreme Fundementalist Sect.
They are dangerous to the point of influencing right wing parties in the US and here.
If they are true christians then why do they support people like George Bush, John Howard, Rice, Downer and Cheney and Ruddock, who defend attrocities that happen in prisons where captured Muslims are incarcerated?
Why do the Exclusive Brethren allow regimes support Israeli aggression against its neighbours?
The Exclusive Brethren way of life seems to be sick and twisted.
Posted by Ken Ling on 07/09/06 at 05:37 AM
