On the Greens’ super-profits tax proposal:
Tim Stephens writes: Whilst I frequently agree with Bernard Keane and Glenn Dyer, I feel they have lost the plot on this one. I have a vested interest in superannuation (like most Aussies), so I would hate to see poor returns. However, lots of the big corporations pay bugger all in tax, as pointed out in Crikey at the end of last financial year.
Many also have huge foreign ownership, shipping profits overseas — not to Australian super funds. A shining example is gas. Australia is one of the largest exporters but returns about $1 billion in revenue to Australia, whereas Qatar manages $50 billion in tax revenue on gas exports.
Let’s face it, in the retirement phase a lot of money from super gets spent on healthcare. If we had cashed-up governments paying for a decent healthcare system (along with everything else that people need), then retirees could probably forego some returns.
Russell Searle writes: The analysis overlooks the effect of the tax on both the companies generating the profits and the super funds receiving the dividends. These oversights are at the level of a first year university accounting course.
Firstly, not all profits a distributed as dividends, some are retained by the company
Secondly, you’ve ignored franking credits. Higher taxes on these companies do not necessarily deprive the super funds, as the dividends received will be weighted more in favour of franking credits and less cash. But profit is profit; corporation tax to investors is netted off in their final tax position. The franking system also needs consideration to avoid a transfer of wealth from consumers to investors via gouging.
If extraordinary profits are the product of gouging, then perhaps the higher taxation (whatever is retained after franking credit refunds) could be applied to some relief for the poorer folks who are being gouged.
Keane and Dyer’s piece seems to suggest everyone is going to suffer and it has zero net effect. If the hypothesis is true then the people most affected remain those being gouged, while the investors may not see much difference. If they do alter the franking credits, then the magnitude of the impact will be marginal and proportional to the size of the tax-advantaged super fund. Hardly a zero-sum game.
Sandra Jones writes: Adam Bandt is right on the money going after super-profits. Perhaps it’s time to revisit franking credits, or reduce them to share the wealth? These companies make billions from consumers. It’s time to give some back — not just generate extra for wealthy shareholders.
Poverty and homelessness is still a big issue, not to mention the JobSeeker allowance is a pittance. If poverty is reduced, crime will go down.
On the ‘radical’ arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov:
Pauline Bleach writes: As someone who worked in the sphere: there is no privacy. Anything that is encrypted can be decrypted. And yes, all your phone calls could always be intercepted. As is the lesson from the Millennium Challenge 2002: if you want secure messages, don’t use digital.
However, we cannot allow evil to flourish. The most strident free speech advocates would tear down the walls of hell to get their 13-year-old child’s nude photos removed from a Telegram channel.
Instead of needless culture wars and thought experiments, we need rules and tools. Tools like using AI to identify and report encrypted information, without a human having to see it themselves. It could provide limited information to humans to identify, and then pass on the stuff we all agree is bad.
The “two key system”, which has been useful in so many methodologies, could allow law enforcement and moderators to access data via a digital key only provided in cases of clear evidence.
Let’s stop whining about free speech, and instead put in place the limits and guardrails required. If we don’t, governments will.
Bill Wallace writes: All individuals, organisations etc have a responsibility to the community in which they live and operate. Historically communities have built expectations, rules and laws to ensure use of facilities in their communities.
For example, road rules. I don’t hear anyone suggesting these should be abolished and we should have freedom to do whatever we wish on the road. The result would be chaos, increased injuries and deaths.
The same should apply to the “electronic highways” that have been built. The builders have a responsibility to ensure they do not have an adverse impact on individual users and the communities in which they operate. That means working with governments and communities to meet these expectations.
On Jordan van den Lamb’s Senate bid:
Lynne Hamilton writes: I have been a follower of @purplepingers for some time, and believe he has a lot to offer as a potential senator. Having been a Labor voter since I could vote, I have finally had enough and believe it’s time for a new left in this country; a serious alternative to what is on offer, including the Greens.
To focus on one issue that is obviously important to van den Lamb: housing, whether it be a crisis or market manipulation, needs a clean slate. Get rid of negative gearing, enforce the vacant residential land tax (which is a joke and obviously not working because no-one is complaining about it). However, with so many sitting members owning investment properties it’s hard to imagine that any of them would support real change.
If van den Lamb can have a voice on issues such as the climate crisis and our appalling attitude towards asylum seekers, maybe I will feel proud to vote again.
Bring on the democracy sausage, with vegan options available!
