Who supports the Green's initiative to abolish university fees? (1 Viewer)

[davidbarnes]

I support a lot of the greens policies though. The mining tax never should have been reduced.

 

[S4Saustralia]

What is going on in the UK though is terrible I. Fees are tripling there and will cost between 9.5K and 15K starting from next year (couple of days time ). Now that I think of it, I wonder if they are also tripling the international students fees there (I assume they have these, although are only assuming)?

Still pretty amazing to think that a large and violent protest could occur in the UK while the US are paying ~50k/degree and have no kind of govt scheme or subsidization such as HECS.

US students must find a loan and pay interest on it. I couldn't imagine how many intellectually capable students go without education due to their socioeconomic status. Thank fuck with live in Australia.

I support a lot of the greens policies though. The mining tax never should have been reduced.

agreed

 

[cosmo kramer]

I support a lot of the greens policies though.

Unfortunately then, you can only be accurately characterised as a homosexual.

 

[davidbarnes]

Unfortunately then, you can only be accurately characterised as a homosexual.

Err no lol. So long as a gay person is not trying to hit on me (as I am not gay), I have no problem with gay people.

Within this new decade (next 10 years), gay marriage will be legalised in Australia.

 

[kaz1]

What the fuck happened to this forum? That spectularly long post by Abbeyroad presented as a rejoinder to my remarks (which contained an enormous number of assertions regarding the Flynn Effect and the taxonomic validity of the race construct, including a misguided citation of Bamshad, et al) is now gone, and I am incapable of posting what I had prepared as a rebuttal to his post and saved into a notepad file. My rebuttal only contained an attempt to address several specific points and not the broad mass of what he/she had written because that is all I had finished writing before I went to Newcastle. Now the rest of his/her post is gone and I am unable to answer it in full.

This is disappointing.

The Greens however, are a homosexual political party headed by an emanciated homosexual who looks gay and unsurprisingly, is also gay and likes to have sex with men. The ultimate culmination of the Green's policies will be an immigration program that gives preference in admission to AIDS-ridden disabled homosexual Negro women with IQs of 65. The primary supportive demographic of the Greens are emanciated, inner-city effeminate competitive altruists who take part in homosexual parades despite not being gay themselves, and who consider tolerance and the celebration of loser cultures, ugly, single women, people with AIDS and atavistic populations as the highest possible virtue. The only sensible iniative that could possibly involve them would be one that deliberately aimed at abolishing them, preferably through systematic state sanctioned executions.

hahahahahaha, people like you make BOS great

 

[Phoenix Fury]

hahahahahaha, people like you make BOS great

+1

 

[abbeyroad]

This is unnecessary. Even if I wrote something ignorant or wrong...you shouldn't belittle someone for their opinion.
If we look at look at the employment % of the mining industry, its really not a lot.

(it's around 1.3% of jobs in Australia).

hey genius, guess what would happen to a company's surplus productivity when demand shifts from Q1 to Q2? They get laid off since they are no longer needed for production. The number of people employed by the mining companies is irrelevant. When demand drops and profits fall, people will be fired, in theory and in practice. Don't you ever pay attention to the news?

Theres a unit of measurement known as the Accessible Economic Demonstrated Resources (AEDR), basically the AEDR measures the amount of stuff in the ground we can actually use under current law in Australia. Laws based on various environmental restrictions, the minerals sitting underneath land owned by the the Dept of Defence or other restrictions based on govt policies.

Using the AEDR we can compare the available mineral deposits in Aus compared to other nations. As shown below.
Basically, Aus owns 15% of all known deposits.

This chart shows that Aus is not only a major supplier but also own significant amounts of minerals, which gives us a pretty significant market position.

Just because we own over 30% of the world's nickle, tantalum etc doesn't mean that we can flood the market with them. We don't have full access to them. What we can mine is determined by technology and the number of mines we have in operation. Owning <40% of the world's nickel and zinc doesn't give us "a pretty significant market position". Australia is not a price setter in the global resource market. China is both the world's largest producer and consumer of resources like zinc, iron etc. That's real market power. We're in no position to dictate the price of minerals. The global resource market is relatively competitive as no single player has absolute market power.

Your claims that china will stop purchasing minerals from Aus is pretty unrealistic. It could have some negative impact on foreign investment in the short term, but its stupid to assume that these nations wont come back for our giant 15% of the world's resources. The only people who would be angered by an increased tax would be the overpaid mining CEOs...But I'd love to read your source to China opting out on Aus resources or increasing their prices as a result.

wow "our giant 15% of the world's resources"!!! yeah that's enough to assure our global dominance as a resource monopoly! Like dogs, the rest of the world will be begging for our "giant 15% of the world's resources" regardless of how much we raise our prices!!! The demand for Australian minerals is not inelastic, that means as the price increases, demand drops. Minerals from countries like Canada which aren't currently as attractive to the Chinese will suddenly become much more attractive once you raise the price high enough. Don't forget that China has her own mineral reserves, they don't have to buy from us. How arrogant and stupid do you have to be to think that other countries can't survive without our "giant 15% of the world's resources"?

Let's say that a firm was earning $10 on a product that cost $20 to produce, now because of a $5 increase in the cost of raw materials, they're only making $5. Hmm I bet their shareholders won't be very happy. So what would they do in order to boost their profit back to $10? Oh I know! The simplest thing for them to do is to raise the price of their product to $35! In reality, how much a firm can charge is contingent on a multitude of factors such as the demand elasticity for its product and its market power etc. Seeing how dependent we are on cheap Chinese goods, a price hike of $1-$2 would quickly add up. Coupled with the decreased demand for our minerals, it's enough to affect us negatively. The truth is, we need China, but they don't need us. One of the main reasons they keep buying from us is because of our proximity to them. All other things being equal, it costs them a lot less to transport a load of ores from Australia than from countries like Canada and Brazil. You nullify that advantage by making our stuff more expensive and they will stop buying our minerals.

You wanna read my source? k here you go
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_(accounting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_motive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_(economics)
http://www.stanford.edu/~webert/papers/Price-Theory-OUP-Preprint.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

what's your source? what makes you think that Chinese firms will simply absorb the extra costs? What makes you think that they will continue buying from us even if we were to raise our prices?

Now if you view the 2008/2009 profit margin for mining compared to other industries (remembering that mining only employs 1.3% of Australian jobs)


The 11.2% of total industries is the average of all the industries in Australia, so the mining industry takes more than 3x the profit of all other industries by pulling parts of Australia out of the ground.

Theres more information based on mining exploitation if you were to look...Something like the Aus Mining EBITDA (earnings before interest,tax,depreciation and amortisation)/Revenue is 43% while that of mining companies around the world is 30%.

The reason mining companies earn so much is because we're in the middle of a demand-driven resource boom and we're lucky enough to be located relatively close to China and India - the main driving force behind the boom. I love how you just pull that "3x the profit" out of your ass while the graph clearly shows that the service sector earns almost as much. Should we also tax the service sector, the health care sector and the utility sector because they earn more than the industry average? The 12.5% difference in profit between the mining sector and the service sector can be easily accounted for by the resource boom. Why can't companies earn an abnormal profit in times of prosperity? Let's not forget that the only reason they are earning an abnormal profit is due to the government's refusal to accept more Chinese investments in the sector. If the entry barriers were removed or even lowered, Chinese firms will continue to set up shop here until everyone is earning (relatively) normal profit. This would be a win win situation as the Chinese will have a secured access to minerals and the government will have a steady stream of tax revenue. By setting up a high entry barrier the government ensures that mining companies will make an abnormal profit, they then use this as the justification for more taxes. What it really comes down to is opportunistic money grabbing by the state. The government basically gets something for nothing. If you wanted a share of the profit, buy out the companies. Take over new investments. Act like a business instead of a highway bandit.

Even if the mining companies were stupid enough to absorb the tax completely, it will still affect investment in the mining sector in the long run. Here's how finance work in the real world:when a firm wishes to decide whether to invest in a new project, it looks at the cost of debt and cost of equity. Cost of equity= return on risk-free government bonds + risk premium. The risk premium must exceed the bond yield for the investment to be worthwhile. The mining sector is susceptible to fluctuations in the global resource market - when there's a boom, profits sour and new projects get started; when boom turns into bust, profit drops and mines get shut down. This and the high initial investment required makes investments in the mining sector riskier than investments in the service sector for example, thus a higher risk premium is required. Taxing the mining sector to the profit margin of the service sector means that private firms will no longer have any incentives to invest in new mining projects, instead, they will take their capital overseas or shift their capital to the service sector where it's less risky. Taxing mining companies to the global average return of 30% won't help. There's no reason to think that other resource-rich countries won't take advantage of Australia's stupidity and offer a lower tax or interest rate for mining companies. Taxing the mining sector to fund the government budget is unsustainable. When the boom is over, it will have to be scrapped.

More importantly, I really think it's important to acknowledge that an increased tax against the mining industry would equal Funding for long term infrastructure projects, education, future proofing Australia, bigger incentives for Research and development. Equally as important, I think we should try to acknowledge why the over-reaction towards the mining tax has occurred.

More importantly, I really think it's important to acknowledge that a deeper understanding of centaurs, dragons and unicorns would equal funding for long term infrastructure projects, education and a brighter future for humanity. Equally as important, I think we should acknowledge that the existence of the flying spaghetti monster is essential to our understanding of the invisible teapot.

Mining companies do not add value to their product, they literally pull it out of Australian Soil and claim their product to sell around the world. Why shouldn't all Australians get some benefit considering those resources are fetching astronomical prices...and why should the mining industry get such tax breaks?

O rly? I mean they don't have to buy their machinery or pay their workers, geologists and pilots or anything. No, they do not add value to their product, they just literally pull it out of Australian Soil and claim their product to sell around the world!111!11! No sir, their capital goods are stolen, their workers are slaves and their contractors are all kidnapped!!!1! Those vile imperialistic capitalist running dogs!!1!!

It's actually pretty interesting to see the control that the media has on the Australian people. We all saw those ridiculous commercials of workers falling over due to the mining tax...however, we can pretty much see that an increased tax rate on the mining industry would affect none besides the corporate giants who are exploiting the Australian people. If anyone has the time, I really recommend reading Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent ...it actually got made into a documentary, but I havent watched it yet...The book itself talks about political control through the media, and I've never read such a book that relates so much today as it did during its publication.

Please excuse spelling and grammar...I'm in a rush.

This has nothing to do with "engineered consent". People aren't objecting because the evil media told them to, they do not pull these arguments out of their asses, they are based on economic models developed by economists more intelligent than you. How can we "pretty much see that an increased tax rate on the mining industry would affect none besides the corporate giants who are exploiting the Australian people." when economics tells us otherwise? You are economically illiterate and intellectually stagnant. Quoting Chomsky and making dumb ass assertions won't save you. While you're at it, why don't you talk about how we are brainwashed by mathematicians and philosophers such as Pythagoras and Aristotle to follow reason and logic instead of emotions and irrationality?

 

[Arcorn]

Firstly, S4S, you're an idiot, Abbyroad is right.

Secondly, this idea is absolute crap, the return won't be there from people going to university funded by the government. Universities will begin charging the government more because they can while not affecting the amount of students attending. HECS is already effective, why change it?

Thidly, anyone who supports The Greens is an ignorant fuck. Read through their policies, shutting down of the Lucas Height reactor, where are we going to get our medical isotopes dumbarses? Lowing voting age to 16, too many people aged 18 and over don't pay enough attention to make an informed decision and it will only positively effect The Greens themselves since 16 year olds are ignorant fucks. Their economic policy is based on the environment, the fucking environment, seriously, what...the...fuck?

 

[cosmo kramer]

All their policies are gay.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

my goodness can we all stop beating round the bush here? this all comes down to a persons belief in whether taxation is good for reallocation of resources to "needy people" or good for the county as a whole, which of course many of u realise its not. it does not make a rats ass of a difference how low or high u tax the mining industry no government driven benefits will be procured.

 

[jeshxcore]

How will they be funding our university fees? we're in enough debt already.

 

[Rothbard]

yeah get tradies and hard working people to subsidise retards doing arts degrees, good idea

ugh fuckin parasites

 

[cosmo kramer]

lol there are so many bullshit things you can learn at uni

a guy i know did DEVELOPMENTAL STUDIES

it sounded like leftist inculcation 101

indigenous studies lmao

isnt learning about abos now like compulsory in every course or something

 

[moll.]

As a non-tax paying uni student, I see no disadvantage for me.

also there might be net surplus for the economy as there is more skilled workers

Need I honestly have to point out that you're not going to be a non-tax paying student forever?

 

[moll.]

Idealistically it would be a great idea to make uni for free but it's just not practical

"Idealistically" isn't a word. Don't use it in public, or you'll be picked up on it and then your face will go red like a spanked monkey's arse.

 

[moll.]

So much motherfucking economic illiteracy in this thread. You're all retards.
For starters, a tax upon profits does not increase the price of the good. Assuming they're already profit maximising, they can't pass the tax onto consumers without shooting their net profits in the foot as well.

As to the original proposition, it's a stupid idea from a stupid man at the head of a stupid party with a stupid ideology.
University fees are not any barrier at all to study in Australia. We don't have to pay up front, so it is only living costs which a student has to struggle with at the moment, a situation which this proposition does nothing about.
Yes, eventually they do have to pay for (most of) their degree. But guess what? Statistically, they earn more because they have their degree. So why shouldn't they pay? Why should Joe Bloe the tradie, on $60k a year, support the education of an engineering graduate earning $100K?
The proposition is effectively a new regressive tax on the poor; and all this from the party with the greatest support for the welfare state. GG Greens.

Simply put, the beauty of the HECS/HELP system is that it allocates the cost of the degree to the person who garners the private benefit, but at the time at which the benefit is gained, not prior to this point. If no benefit is gained, then it becomes a free education.

 

[Arcorn]

tl;dr Greens like to stick their cock up your arse.

 

[cosmo kramer]

He was bagging them, FYI.

I'm not going to lie, I'm absolutely impressed by the palpable hostility towards the Greens on this forum. I'm not a libertarian (I could probably be more accurately classifed as a quasi-fascist) but I think we can all reach a common ground here with our hatred for the Greens. I was expecting this forum to be brimming with leftist retards who worship them but I was wrong.

 

[abbeyroad]

So much motherfucking economic illiteracy in this thread. You're all retards.
For starters, a tax upon profits does not increase the price of the good. Assuming they're already profit maximising, they can't pass the tax onto consumers without shooting their net profits in the foot as well.

lol wut. A tax on revenue and a tax on profit is one and the same - in both cases the firm would be getting less than it was before. To use my earlier example, a 10% tax on a revenue of $30 would mean that instead of making a $10 profit, the firm would be making $7, in other words, the cost had gone up from $20 to $23. A 10% tax on profit would have the same effect: instead of getting $10, the firm would only get $9, the cost is now $21. Whether the firm can pass on the increased cost depends on the demand elasticity of its good: if the demand was perfectly elastic, then, of course, the firm can't pass the tax burden onto its customers without affecting sales, if on the other hand, the demand was perfectly inelastic, then ho ho ho. In reality, no goods are perfectly elastic or inelastic, so more often than not, the tax burden is shared by the producers and consumers. Taxation creates distortions, someone will be made worse off as a result. There's no such thing as a neutral tax. Taxation is robbery and you can't argue against that. What it really comes down to is whether such a robbery is justified.


tl;dr, price elasticity of supply and demand and tax incidence.

 

[moll.]

lol wut. A tax on revenue and a tax on profit is one and the same - in both cases the firm would be getting less than it was before.

In that sense, yes it's true. In fact, the same could be said for any two types of tax, no matter how different their form. That's kind of the point of taxation.

To use my earlier example, a 10% tax on a revenue of $30 would mean that instead of making a $10 profit, the firm would be making $7, in other words, the cost had gone up from $20 to $23. A 10% tax on profit would have the same effect: instead of getting $10, the firm would only get $9, the cost is now $21. Whether the firm can pass on the increased cost depends on the demand elasticity of its good: if the demand was perfectly elastic, then, of course, the firm can't pass the tax burden onto its customers without affecting sales, if on the other hand, the demand was perfectly inelastic, then ho ho ho. In reality, no goods are perfectly elastic or inelastic, so more often than not, the tax burden is shared by the producers and consumers.

There still remains a distinct difference between tax on revenue and tax on profit. A tax on revenue is exactly the same as a tax upon prices or upon quantity. If revenue(R) = price(P) x quantity(Q) then for a tax on revenue:
$tax(T) = tax rate(r) x R
= r x PQ
This is exactly the same as a tax on prices (T = rP x Q). Thus firms would respond to this by increasing prices by close to r%, the same as with a tax upon prices.
However, a tax upon profits is:
T = r(R - costs (C))
= r(PQ - C)
= rPQ - rC
They could, theoretically, raise their prices by r% and pass on the tax costs, but the problem is that if they're already profit maximising by cost minimising and revenue maximising (which they should be, or at least be close to doing so) then they would also decrease (R - C) - their profit - because higher prices would mean less quantity sold. This isn't the case with a tax on revenue or price, because a fall in gross revenue would also normally be accompanied by a fall in the untaxed costs, which together may leave the company with a higher net profit than if they hadn't passed on the tax.
As an example, we can have a company with a revenue of 100, costs of 75 (therefore with a gross profit of 25) and a universal tax rate of 20%. Under a revenue tax scheme, they'd pay 20 in tax with a net profit of 5. But if they reduced their revenue by 30 through increasing their price, their costs might go down by 25. Their gross profit would now be 20, but they would only pay 14 in tax and have a net profit of 6. Overall, better off by raising their price.
If it were a tax upon profits, however, in the first scenario the company would pay 5 in tax, with a net profit of 20. In the second scenario they would pay 4 tax and have 16 left over. They would be worse off.
True, it isn't possible under all scenarios that a company would be able to increase their net profit in a revenue tax scheme by decreasing their sales. However, the people at the head of these companies aren't idiots, nor are most of their subordinates. The majority of companies would be able to find an equilibrium point that is to their advantage by raising their prices.
Yes, it does also rely on there not being an inelastic demand; however perfect inelasticity doesn't exist, so if their revenue is already maximised then a rise in prices will always decrease revenue.
It deserves noting that a tax on profits can never force a company with a gross profit to then make a loss after tax, except in the case of a difference between taxable profit and accounting profit or a ridiculous tax rate of over 100%.

Taxation creates distortions, someone will be made worse off as a result. There's no such thing as a neutral tax. Taxation is robbery and you can't argue against that. What it really comes down to is whether such a robbery is justified.

Agreed. Not sure whether this was directed at me though. If it was, then you've misinterpreted what I orginally said.