Terms of use Privacy About us Media Contact

Author Topic: 2015 COAG  (Read 1942 times)

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93160
    • RAIL Back On Track
2015 COAG
« on: April 18, 2015, 03:09:32 AM »
Media Release
Premier and Minister for the Arts
The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk

Statement regarding COAG

I'm very pleased that myself and other first ministers have convinced the Federal Government to stand by the independent Commonwealth Grants Commission and endorse the proposed GST distribution at today's COAG meeting.

This means that Queensland stands to gain an extra $556 million in much-needed revenue.

Queensland has also secured an agreement from the Commonwealth to consider 'flexibility' when it comes to access to NDIS funding. Queenslanders are paying for this funding through the Medicare levy and this funding should not be withheld by the Commonwealth. This is a major breakthrough that could lead to far more Queenslanders accessing the NDIS scheme sooner.

The Commonwealth has also agreed to discuss an NDIS trial site in Queensland, something the former Government did not want.

It is crucial that Queensland gains a trial site ahead of the scheme's establishment in 2016. I look forward to discussing this further with the Prime Minister as soon as possible.

I also made it clear that it was not acceptable to withhold Commonwealth infrastructure funding because Queenslanders had exercised their democratic right to reject the LNP's plan to sell income earning assets including our power network and ports. The Prime Minister undertook to provide greater flexibility of access for infrastructure funding.

Finally, Queensland will be an active participant in a national effort to combat domestic and family violence. I congratulate the Prime Minister and my State and Territory colleagues for the constructive way in which every jurisdiction pledged to make this campaign a national priority.

First ministers will meet again in July to continue discussions around the Federation and tax reform.

I pledged to Queenslanders that I would do everything I can to stand up for them and protect Queensland's fair share, and by securing our GST allocation and making significant steps forward on the NDIS in particular, I have delivered on that pledge.

========================

This ..

Quote
... I also made it clear that it was not acceptable to withhold Commonwealth infrastructure funding because Queenslanders had exercised their democratic right to reject the LNP's plan to sell income earning assets including our power network and ports. The Prime Minister undertook to provide greater flexibility of access for infrastructure funding. ...

My own view is that unless Abbott gets out of the ' roads only Tony ' mode, he will be replaced sooner than later as PM ...

All states are looking for funding for major PT improvements. 
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93160
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: 2015 COAG
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2015, 03:29:28 AM »
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Online James

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
Re: 2015 COAG
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2015, 09:45:50 AM »
All states want funding increases, yet Tony Abbott (rightfully) has no interest in doing so because it would require hiking the GST, which would almost certainly kill his government for no gain of his own. The simple solution is to give control of the GST back to the states and let them set their own revenues. You want to fund a cross-city transit project? There's the GST, go raise it! Need to pay back $90 billion in debt? Go raise the GST!

I think if the GST were handed back, there should be two conditions:
a) That the GST should still be included in the price of an item.
b) That the base of the GST should remain consistent across the nation.

I also made it clear that it was not acceptable to withhold Commonwealth infrastructure funding because Queenslanders had exercised their democratic right to reject the LNP's plan to sell income earning assets including our power network and ports. The Prime Minister undertook to provide greater flexibility of access for infrastructure funding.

There's no point in Canberra providing money if George St can't stump up the other half...

Queenslanders voted for Anna and her nothing plan. There is no reason why she should now be demanding extra money... Qlders voted for nothing at the last election aside from no asset sales, so that should be the way forward from here...
Is it really that hard to run frequent, reliable public transport?

Offline ozbob

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 93160
    • RAIL Back On Track
Re: 2015 COAG
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2015, 09:53:39 AM »
Abbott is prepared to give billions for roads but not PT or urban rail.

The Feds have the bulk money, more roads is misdirected.  Abbott is on borrowed time on this.

Ed:  This is interesting >> http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/federal-auditor-called-on-to-look-at-east-west-20141218-12a15z.html
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 11:55:50 AM by ozbob »
Half baked projects, have long term consequences ...
Instagram   Facebook  @ozbob13@mastodon.social

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20298
Re: 2015 COAG
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2015, 10:41:16 AM »
Simple fact is States could raise revenue themselves. All states and territories (except NT, which could introduce it) have some form of Land Tax. It is one of the most efficient and non-distorting taxes there are (companies can take profits overseas, people can work less or leave the workforce to avoid taxes, but you cannot hide land).

At the moment, only investors pay land tax and only over a very generous threshold ($600K). Owner occupiers exempt. Land Tax (properly designed) encourages efficient use of land, reigns in sprawl, encourages higher density, penalises NIMBY and captures spillovers from public works such as new LRT or heavy rail lines. It also makes housing more affordable and cannot be passed on to renters (as rents are set by supply/demand, landlords who attempt to increase prices will face the prospect of vacant apartments and thus have to drop the price again or face losses).

This could replace other taxes as well, such as Stamp Duty.

Land tax often overlooked in the tax debate
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/land-tax-often-overlooked-in-the-tax-debate-20150407-1mfro2.html

Quote
Land tax is one of the most efficient taxes for precisely the reason it is unpopular: it is hard to dodge.

Of the roughly four things governments can tax – companies, individuals, consumption and land – economists agree that land is by far the most efficient source for taxation.

The tax rates are also extremely low, around 1-2%!!
« Last Edit: April 18, 2015, 10:58:02 AM by LD Transit »
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8059
Re: 2015 COAG
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2015, 11:42:43 AM »
^ Land tax is recoverable under most commercial leases since a change in the law in 2009, and you would be very naive to assume that rents (commercial or residential) don't already account for land tax in some form or another. 

Providing that land tax is payable by the tenant actually makes it more transparent as it lowers the "face" rent.

Rates are already a form of land tax anyway.
Ride the G:

Offline #Metro

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20298
Re: 2015 COAG
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2015, 07:05:40 PM »
If the commercial property is vacant, is the tax still payable?  :is-
Negative people... have a problem for every solution.
Posts are commentary and are not necessarily endorsed by RAIL Back on Track or its members. Not affiliated with, paid by or in conspiracy with MTR/Metro.

Offline SurfRail

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8059
Re: 2015 COAG
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2015, 08:46:34 PM »
If the commercial property is vacant, is the tax still payable?  :is-

Vacancy has no effect on statutory outgoings or taxes.
Ride the G:

Offline pandmaster

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
Re: 2015 COAG
« Reply #8 on: April 21, 2015, 11:39:49 PM »
All states want funding increases, yet Tony Abbott (rightfully) has no interest in doing so because it would require hiking the GST, which would almost certainly kill his government for no gain of his own. The simple solution is to give control of the GST back to the states and let them set their own revenues. You want to fund a cross-city transit project? There's the GST, go raise it! Need to pay back $90 billion in debt? Go raise the GST!

I disagree with your GST proposal. Allowing states to set their rate of GST will increase compliance costs and lead to a race to the bottom, not to mention creating "tax havens" (e.g. Delaware). What you suggest is very similar to the US, just at the state level: where they have local referendums on raising sales tax to fund a project. Consumption taxes are regressive, so unless you compensate lower income households then they end up paying a higher proportion of their income in taxes.

I do not think the GST has to be raised to fund infrastructure. Abbott can find plenty of money for rail projects:
  • Just borrow it. Australia has comparatively low debt and interest rates are at record lows
  • Phase out diesel fuel subsidies to mining companies
  • Crackdown on multinational profit shifting and tax avoidance
  • Phase out negative gearing
  • Eliminate superannuation tax concessions
That is just for starters.

There seems to be a consensus on here that there are fundamental structural issues with the funding of infrastructure between tiers of government.

Offline Jonno

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1971
Re: 2015 COAG
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2015, 08:16:18 AM »
I honestly believe we have a big enough tax base but we are building cities, towns and an econony that is as inefficient as possible.  Our transport network is costing us $9 per $1 the public spends, our neighborhoods designs result in higher obesity/heart disease, road trauma costs us billions, our freight network is inefficient, we force people to buy big houses when they would prefer more urban living, our cities are cost us up to 40% more to build and 10% to run,...

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 


“You can't understand a city without using its public transportation system.” -- Erol Ozan