Where that our money goes...

they have cut back on all of those though?

 

Assuming you started work at 18 thats an average of approx $77,000 per
year in tax.
You either have a massive income or you made a big typo?



Daryl

 

Erm, yeah. I did stuff up there.

 

No it's not, but you're right, I made a mistake.

 

In to Consilodated Revenue, and back out to wherever the gummint
sees fit.

None of it has to go back in to roads.

It's not available, and they can spend the money on anything
they like.

We have pretty good streets as it is.


A common misinterpretation that is often taken by the tabloid
(tv, newspaper, etc) press and (perhaps by osmosis?) punters in
general is that monies exacted by governments and dropped in to
the various (federal and state) Consolidated Revenue funds can or
should be somehow tracked and re-appropriated to causes somehow
related to those from whence they came. Comments to the effect of
"Government income from fuel tax and speeding fines should, nay
*must* be spent on improving roads, driver training, whatever"
are common.

It is a fundamental principle of Australian Constitutional Law
that you cannot.


In fact, the High Court's interpretation of the Constitution is
that the whole point of having a federal Consolidated Revenue
fund is that monies that go in there aren't to be tracked for
or assigned to a specific porpoise.

This isn't new news. It happened way back in 1965. In "Logan Downs
Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation"[1], a wool grower got
all upset that someone who bought a bunch of wool from him witheld
money from him and paid it to the Commissioner of Tax as a wool
exise. He tried to argue to the High Court that because law (2)
said that the government would pay money from consolidated revenue
to the Wool Marketing Board for stuff relating to marketing wool
(a 'non public porpoise' in his argument), law (1) that provided
for the taxing of wool sales (the wool excise) was not a valid
tax law because (a) it was designed to extract funds for law (2),
and (b) tax laws have to be "for a public porpoise".

High Court told them to piss off. Even though law (2) was very
specific about how much money was being paid out (tying it pretty
much exactly to the amount of tax that was extracted by law (1),
the court said that you can't track money into and out of
consolidated revenue, so the two laws can't be connected, so
Logan Downs Pty Ltd can pay their damn tax and they can damn
well like it!


In that instance, the two laws were quite obviously linked, yet
the High Court wouldn't have a bar of the legal attempt to connect
them.

None of the current tax, excise, fine type laws have any linkages
with fix roads, train drivers, make dole payments type laws, any
attempt to force a government to plough fines and fuel taxes back
into roads doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.


Still, whining to that effect seems to sell plenty of newspapers,
so I guess we have to put up with it.


**** off Nev [2]


GB


[1] (1965) 112 CLR 177 at page 187
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1965/16.html

[2] Nev never reads that far down one of my posts, so he'll never
see that.

 

No it shouldn't.

GB

 

His reply was far more detailed than your clueless question
deserved IMV.

GB

 

Doesn't matter what the liar^H^H^H^Hpoliticians *say* the tax
is for, if it fits the definition of a tax, then you can't tie
it to any specific porpoise.

Tax law is convenient like that. You get take the money, drop it
in one big bucket, then take money out of that same bucket again
and spend it on whatever you like, with no requirement to tie
input porpoises to output porpoises.

GB

 

I'll think you'll find that's a furphy Geoff, Australia has a net
natural population growth (not including immigration)

http://tinyurl.com/9uena

"Natural increase for the year ended 31 March 2005 was 120,300
persons, contributing 52.2% to Australia's annual population growth.
During this period, births added 251,900 babies to the population and
deaths removed 131,600 persons."

HTH

Bill_h

 

So what happened to the Aust Pension Fund started back in the 50s?
everyone who worked paid a % into this fund and this was to be to help
pay for pensions when you retired

Oh that's right successive Govt realised that most people had forgotten
about it and it just dissapeared and became part of the normal income
tax and thus ended up in general revenue

then one Govt decided that there was going to be a problem in the future
with funding pensions and that people should be self funded when they
retire, so set up the superanuation guarantee, where the employer pays
for this and the employee can contribute, so when you retire you can
have a nice fat fund to live on


then the successive Govts saw people were getting money tax free and
decided that they should pay tax on their money that they put away to
save the govt money by not having to pay as much for pensions

so now the current Govt has decided that there is not going to be enough
money to pay for pensions due to the aging population, so they want
people to have more children to become taxpayers to fund future pensions


I Think I'll go have a little lie down now, by head hurts


Kev

 

If you can't work it out for yourself, I'd just be wasting my keystrokes
explaining it.

Nev..

 

It is not so much a negative population growth but an insignificant
population growth to cover for older generations. The problem is that
because of the huge waves of immigration in the past we have an abnormality
in the "bell curve". I don't recall the figures off the top of my head but
unless our population starts to grow (and fast) we will end up being a
country where the majority of the citizens will be olderly reitred people
and there will not be enough working age people to generate the money to
keep the wheels of industry turning as well as support the non-working
people (in terms of social security handouts). This was noted 15 years ago
in the early 90's which is why compulsary super was forced upon us as the
government knew that there would be no way they could afford to pay "the
pension" in the future.

The other reason is that it is viewed globally that our nation is too small
to maintain a strong and lasting economy (though we are doing very well at
the moment thanks) and needs to double in size. If we don't increase in size
via reproduction then the government will need to increase immigration. So
all of you should be having one kid for mum, one kid for dad, and one kid
for your country!!!

Getting back to pay-outs, it is the long term dole bludgers who need their
money cut, and should be encouraged to "work for the dole". As well as
tightening down on the disability pension which is paid to an
extraordinarily high number of people for, in many cases, bogus claims.

My 5 cents worth ...

 

Yeah, last week I was paying 10% tax on things I was buying in Hanoi.

Nev..

 

In aus.motorcycles on Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:58:56 +1000

Don't see why make work is any good. Why bother? What good does it do?
(hint... in order to make any changes in personal habits, there has to
be more than "paint rocks, that's been proven.)

On the other hand, if you were an employer and had 10 applicants, one of
whom had been on the dole for 5 years, would you even bother
interviewing that person?

Then of course there are the men over 50, whom no one will employ if
they have lost their jobs. Especially the blue collar men, although
many white collar ones are in the same boat.

There are still more people wanting work than there are jobs for them.
Especially jobs that actually pay enough to live on.

I doubt there are very many "long term dole bludgers". There are likely
a lot of people who can't get jobs - live in the wrong place and can't
afford to move, are mentally ill, are "too old", can't speak good English,
aren't very literate, have injuries or arthritis, have been in prison,
have been "unemployed too long", all of which mean they aren't
considered worth employing.

How much are you willing to spend to make them employable? Would you
employ any of them and pay a living wage?

If so, get on and do it already!

Zebee

 

Maybe we could pay road crews more than double the stupid amounts we pay for
them to sit around and do **** all for twice as long.

Maybe.

justAL

 

You won't find any legislation, it might even be difficult to find it
written down anywhere but I can remember many instances of politicians
claiming the need for some new tax is to fund some promise they are making.
Of course the reason for the tax and the promise that the money
collected was for a particular purpose is forgotten as soon as the cash
starts to flow.


Daryl

 

Harleylooya, someones awake. ;-)

 

I didn't imply anything. Don't use big words you don't understand.

Nev..

 

I used to be a fruit picker. I had to climb a ladder.

Moike

 

If you're
jealous of people on the dole why don't you quit your job and join
them? Personally I'd rather have my shitty job than a dole payment
which isn't even enough to cover half of my mortgage payments.


Nev..
'03 ZX12R