Well done, Bill Shorten!

This Cruz canard went all around the world  in January 2016:

U.S. presidential candidate Ted Cruz has claimed that Australia's 1996 firearms buyback led to a significant increase in sexual assaults on women - as the debate about gun control takes centre place in the race for the White House. Republican Senator Cruz, who is vying to win the top job, made the comments during an interview with American radio host Hugh Hewitt on January 12. And as you know, Hugh, after Australia did that, the rate of sexual assaults, the rate of rapes, went up significantly, because women were unable to defend themselves,' Cruz told the conservative radio host.

While Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull didn’t utter a peep, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten put the record straight…………

FILE UNDER NOTHING CHANGES: Liberal & Nationals MPs poised to help out their banker mates once more

Assistant Treasurer and Liberal MP for Higgins Kelly O'Dwyer was quick to deny the content of the media release (below) concerning the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Transparency Measures) Bill 2015: Product dashboards.

However Allens Linklater appears to support Industry Super Australia’s take on the new rules:

The Bill sets up (and proposes changes to) the application of the product dashboard rules as follows:

* Choice product dashboards now only need to be provided for a fund's 10 largest choice investment options by funds under management (with some exclusions) rather than all choice products. For the purposes of working out a fund's largest choice investment options, a lifecycle option should be treated as one option.

* Although a choice lifecycle option should be treated as one option for the purposes of identifying its size, a separate product dashboard is required for each lifecycle stage in the option (and this applies to both MySuper and choice lifecycle options).

* Eligible rollover funds and pooled superannuation funds are specifically excluded from the product dashboard rules.

Industry Super Australia, media release, 28 January 2016:

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS WILL PREVENT CONSUMER “COMPARE THE PAIR”

A carve out of an estimated 72% of the bank-owned and retail super sector from requirements to disclose their investment returns, fees and costs on proposed “product dashboards” for super funds could make it nearly impossible for Australians to readily make informed choices about their superannuation, industry super funds have warned.

The new federal Government proposals carve out bank-owned super funds held through platforms and some legacy products from having to disclose details on ‘dashboards’.

Product “dashboards” are designed to provide consumers with a standardised and simple presentation of fees, all underlying costs, risk and net returns.

The proposed changes mean many bank-owned super products will not have to disclose many of their underlying investment costs.

According to independent analysis by Rainmaker, as at December 2014, 72 per cent of the $572 billion of retail superannuation assets were held via platforms.

“Australians need to be able to compare the net performance of super funds to be able to make informed choices”, said David Whiteley, Chief Executive of Industry Super Australia.

“It is unsurprising that the banks oppose having to disclose the performance of their super funds in an easily comparable and transparent manner. According to SuperRatings, industry super funds have outperformed bank owned super funds over the short, medium and long term to 31 December 2015.

The Government is also seeking to remove existing limited exemptions to choice of fund legislation introduced by the Howard government at the request of employers. It is estimated the exemptions currently cover less than seven out of a hundred Australian employees.

In submissions to Treasury, ISA has recommended that the Government not proceed with the changes until:

* The product dashboard regime includes all superannuation products and investment options with no carve outs for banks and retail funds; and

* A cost benefit analysis is undertaken of the plan to remove Howard Government choice of fund rules.

“Industry super funds support a strong default fund safety net, the ability of members to choose their own fund, and access to information to make informed decisions.

“We are concerned that these proposals have not been through a rigorous evaluation. In their current form the proposals are internally inconsistent, seeking to extend choice of fund without providing consumers with the necessary information to make informed decisions.”

“Despite very few Australians actively choosing a fund other than the default one their employer has in place, everyone needs to be able to compare the performance of funds to be able to make an informed decision. It is not good enough that the banks want to hide their chronic under-performance from consumers”, said David Whiteley.

Background

Brisbane Times, 28 January 2016:

ISA and the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, the lobby group for all non-profit funds including public sector and corporate funds as well as industry funds, argued that requiring funds to produce dashboards only for their 10 largest investment options meant too many retail products would be exempt. 

In their submission to Treasury, AIST pointed to the findings of a soon-to-be-released report it commissioned by SuperRatings that showed retail MySuper fees and costs were on average 28 per cent higher than those passed on to the public by non-profit providers. 

The upcoming report will also show that in the choice market, the like-for-like fees and costs charged by retail funds were 85 per cent to 300 per cent higher than the comparable investment options from non-profit funds. 

"Members of many bank-owned super funds are being kept in the dark about high fees that will materially affect their retirement," AIST chief executive Tom Garcia said. 

All MySuper products, the no-frills funds that employers can nominate for default flows, are already required to produce a product dashboard. The new rules will extend this requirement to choice products. 

Non-profit super providers dominate the $547 billion MySuper sector with a market share of 83 per cent, while retail providers dominate the $681 billion choice sector with a market share of 64 per cent, according to the regulator's latest statistics. 

A profile of personal incomes in the Northern Rivers region is a lesson in the unequal distribution of wealth

On 28 January 2016 the Australian Bureau of Statistics released its Estimates of Personal Income for Small Areas, 2012-13.

These estimates show that for Australia, the median total personal income in 2012-13 for people lodging tax returns was $44,940. The top 10 per cent of earners received 33.7 per cent of the total income and the median age of an earner was 42 years of age. Also, 77.9 per cent of earners reported employee income as their main source of income.

In NSW the per cent of total income (from wages/investments) held by the top 1% of earners  is 10.5% - with the top 10% having 34.9% of total income.

In NSW the median total income from all sources for individuals was $44,780 (excluding government pensions/allowances), in Greater Sydney it was $47,281 and in the rest of NSW it was $40,702, both with the same exclusions.

In the Northern Rivers region the median total income from all sources for individuals was less than $39,000 (excluding government pensions/allowances).

This is a basic profile of wage and investment earners in all seven local government areas within the NSW Northern Rivers region:

BALLINA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

* number of employees earning a wage – 16,348

* median age of employee – 44

* percentage of employees whose wage is main source of income – 67.3%

* average wage – $48,595 (half of those earning a wage receive $40,617pa or less)

* number of people with investment income – 17,131

* percentage of people whose main source of income was investments – 18.6%

* average investment income – $9,005 (half of those with investment income receive $573pa or less)
* Total income of all earners living in this local government area (excluding govt pensions/allowances): $1.07 billion with the top 10% sharing 33.2% of this billion

BYRON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

* number of employees earning a wage – 12,300

* median age of employee – 41

* percentage of employees whose wage is main source of income – 61.4%

* average wage – $43,947 (half of those earning a wage receive $33,634pa or less)

* number of people with investment income –  13,332

* percentage of people whose main source of income was investments – 18.1%

* average investment income – $12,365 (half of those with investment income receive $624pa or less)

* Total income of all earners living in this local government area (excluding govt pensions/allowances): $823.5 million with the top 10% of the population sharing 38.5% of these millions

CLARENCE VALLEY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

* number of employees earning a wage - 16,945

* median age of employee – 44 years

* percentage of employees whose wage is main source of income – 70.9%

* average wage – $45,005 (half of those earning a wage receive $38,958pa or less)

* number of people with investment income – 16,468

* percentage of people whose main source of income was investments – 15.7%

* average investment income – $4,880 (half of those with investment income receive $378pa or less)
* Total income of all earners living in this local government area (excluding govt pensions/allowances): $915.5 million with the top 10% sharing 31.1% of these millions

KYOGLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

* number of employees earning a wage – 2,777

* median age of employee – 45

* percentage of employees whose wage is main source of income – 68.7%

* average wage –  $43,789 (half of those earning a wage receive $38,678pa or less)

* number of people with investment income – 2,841

* percentage of people whose main source of income was investments – 14.0%

* average investment income – $5,366 (half of those with investment income receive $473pa or less)
* Total income of all earners living in this local government area (excluding govt pensions/allowances): $143.4 million with the top 10% sharing 33.9% of these millions

LISMORE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

* number of employees earning a wage – 16,972

* median age of employee – 43

* percentage of employees whose wage is main source of income – 74.8%

* average wage – $45,989 (half of those earning a wage receive $40,751pa or less)

* number of people with investment income – 15,629

* percentage of people whose main source of income was investments – 12.8%

* average investment income – $5,289 (half of those with investment income receive $343pa or less)
* Total income of all earners living in this local government area (excluding govt pensions/allowances): $946.7 million with the top 10% sharing 29.7% of these millions

RICHMOND VALLEY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

* number of employees earning a wage – 7,587

* median age of employee – 42

* percentage of employees whose wage is main source of income – 76.4%

* average wage – $44,229 (half of those earning a wage receive $40,880pa or less)

* number of people with investment income – 6,617

* percentage of people whose main source of income was investments – 13.6%

* average investment income – $3,988 (half of those with investment income receive $271pa or less
* Total income of all earners living in this local government area (excluding govt pensions/allowances): $388.7 million with the top 10% sharing 28.1% of these millions

TWEED LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA

* number of employees earning a wage – 32,066

* median age of employee – 43

* percentage of employees whose wage is main source of income –  69.7%

* average wage – $49,061 (half of those earning a wage receive $41,592pa or less)

* number of people with investment income – 30,587

* percentage of people whose main source of income was investments – 16.7%

* average investment income – $7,320 (half of those with investment income receive $396pa or less)
* Total income of all earners living in this local government area (excluding govt pensions/allowances): $2.00 billion with the top 10% sharing 31.7% of these billions

Abbott the hysterical historian

There’s no doubt about Tony Abbott – he’s the gift that keeps on giving

Matt Golding cartoon.

This is Tones the historian giving a definition of marriage though the ages.

Forget cultures which practice polyandry or polygamy. Ignore “walking marriage”, “fixed term marriage”, “ghost marriage”, “marriage to a deity”, “woman-woman marriage” and marriage involving a “two spirit” person.

No, it has definitely been lifetime monogamous marriage between one man and one woman since time immemorial, according to the MP for Warringah.

*Sound of  thousands of anthropologists laughing out loud*

Excerpt from Tony Abbott’s speech to an assembly of right-wing extremists at an Alliance Defending Freedom dinner on 28 January 2016:

Marriage, actually, was never just about two people who love each other. Siblings love each other. Parents love their children and vice versa. Friends can love each other. You don’t need to be married to love someone.

It’s only in recent times, that marriage has been about romantic love. Marriage arose as a way of dealing with human imperfection. It was to keep men more committed and less likely to abandon their wives and children – and I doubt that we have become so flawless that this no longer matters.

In Australia, just a decade ago, almost unanimously, the parliament affirmed that marriage was between a man and a woman…..

Indeed, around the world, some 17 countries now provide for same sex marriage. But 176 don’t – and few of them are likely to change any time soon.

Now, I know that numbers aren’t the only test – but it’s hardly self-evident that the 17 that have changed are right and that all the others are wrong.

Not long ago most gay activists rejected marriage as an oppressive institution.

Now they demand as their right what they recently scorned; they demand what was unimaginable in all previous times and still is in most places. They are seeking what has never been and expecting others to surrender what always has. It’s a massive ask — for me, an ask too far.

I support people’s right to make a case for the things they ­believe, and want them cour­teously heard, but policymakers should strive to hold the common ground.

In today’s world, we need less ideology and more common sense; we need less impatience and more respect; we need less shouting at people and more ­engagement with them.

We shouldn’t try to change something without understanding it, without grasping why it is that one man and one woman open to children until just a very few years ago has always and everywhere been considered the essence of marriage and the heart of family.

Of course, we can’t shirk our responsibilities to the future, but let’s also respect and appreciate values and institutions that have stood the test of time and pass them on, undamaged, when that’s best.

Some readers might also question Abbott's notion that in the West traditional marriage evolved as a way to protect women and children. Rather than as a way for men to protect their own political, property and inheritance rights.

Will Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull explain to voters why it has only been Mal Brough who has stood aside from his ministerial position during this Australian Federal Police investigation?

Liberal-National Party MP for Longman Wyatt Roy has been federal Assistant Minister for Innovation since 21 September 2015.

It has been alleged that he is a parliamentarian who sometime in 2012 (along with Mal Brough) requested a member of the Speaker’s staff, James Ashby, to make a copy of sections of then Independent MP for Fisher and Speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper’s official diary for a political purpose.

In 2013 Peter Slipper lost his seat and Mal Brough was elected to federal parliament as the Member for Fisher.

In September 2015 Mal Brough (along with Liberal MP for Stuart and now Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science  Christopher Pyne & Wyatt Roy) supported the sacking of Tony Abbott as prime minister and the installation of Malcolm Turnbull in his place

In December 2015 it was reported that Wyatt Roy was under investigation in relation to longstanding allegations against Special Minister of State and Minister for Defence Materiel and Science Mal Brough and, on 1 February 2016 it was further reported that he (along with Christopher Pyne) is 'assisting police with inquiries’ in relation to associated allegations.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull needs to explain to voters why it has only been Mal Brough who has stood aside from his ministerial positions during this Australian Federal Police investigation.

Because as it now stands it can be suspected that it is purely the prime minister’s naked self-interest which is protecting Roy and Pyne from temporary demotion until the police investigation resolves the matter one way or another, as he can ill-afford to alienate more of those parliamentary supporters who gained him his present high office.

Are we in the first years of a global tax war?

Tax evasion and avoidance has been called a trillion dollar evil and right now in Australia the corporate fight-back has begun as big business and wealthy individuals decide that they want to hold on to every single dollar of their share of this trillion.

Expect a national public relations campaign explaining why business and industry pay their fair share of Australian taxes if the Tax Advisory Panel (and the industry sectors it represents) gets its wish.

I suspect that they are all watching what is going down in Europe with a great deal of interest……..

Financial Times UK, 27 January 2016:

The uproar about Google paying £130m in back taxes and raising the amount it pays in the UK by just £10m a year is merely a little local difficulty compared with what comes next.

Apple could soon be instructed to pay billions, triggering a showdown between Europe and the US and a potential breakdown of the international tax system. This sounds apocalyptic but it is a decent bet.

If you doubt it, consider the following. From irate taxpayers and infuriated politicians to defiant bosses of multinationals, many are at the ends of their tethers about corporate tax.

Countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have spent two years trying to fix the system; one of the first results, Google’s UK deal, has gone down terribly.

Apple disclosed on Tuesday that its minimally taxed pot of overseas cash has grown to $200bn.

Tim Cook, chief executive, flew to Brussels last week to protest at the likelihood of being told by the European Commission to pay a chunk to Ireland, where it has operated since 1980.

American politicians are angry at what some call “a direct threat to the interests of the US”.

The question on which the future of global tax harmony rests is not whether Google should pay more in the UK and less in Ireland.

It is whether US multinationals pay much tax anywhere on overseas earnings, and whether they ever will.

For now, billions in profits are booked in Bermuda and offshore entities, annoying everyone.

The centre is not holding for Alphabet, Google’s parent group, as France and Italy reinterpret their laws to make it pay more tax before local profits escape to Ireland and then, via the Netherlands, to Bermuda.

It will surely fracture over EU cases against Apple and Amazon since the US lives in hope that one day, over the rainbow, their cash will come home to be taxed.

We face a historic moment.

The tax system formed under the League of Nations in 1928 relies on the idea that companies should be taxed largely where profits are created, not where they sell their products and services.

It could soon fall apart and what happens then is anyone’s guess, although it will not be pretty and will probably resemble a global tax war.

Read the rest of the article here.

The Guardian, 28 January 2016 

The UK government’s controversial tax deal with Google could fall foul of European competition rules and will be investigated if a complaint is made, the European commissioner responsible for the rules has warned.

Margrethe Vestager said that so-called sweetheart deals between member states and companies were unfair and could amount to illegal state aid.

The SNP has already written to Vestager calling for a European commission investigation into Google’s tax settlement

Asked on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme about the government’s £130m deal with Google on back taxes, she said: “That’s way too early to say because I don’t know the details of the deal.”

Asked whether she would investigate, Vestager said: “If we find that there is something to be concerned about, if someone writes to us and says: ‘Maybe this is not as it should be’, then we will take a look.”

She added: “We should be in a union where everyone has a fair chance of making it. If you are in a small innovative company … the bigger ones shouldn’t close the market and disable your opportunity to find customers.” 

Vestager’s remarks will add to the mounting pressure on David Cameron, whose government has been accused of being too close to Google……

The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 October 2015:

We are entering a new world of tax revenue wars, and no one can say who will emerge as the victor. 

All we know is that there will be tension over the next five years as governments seek to implement the global plan to end to tax havens from Luxembourg to Bermuda.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development plan - known as Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) – will put an end to non-taxation.

From the OECD's perspective, in a world where there's no longer zero tax, everyone's a winner. In practice, there's likely to be winners and losers.

Tensions will arise because there's still no clear guidance on where or how much profit should be taxed.

BEPS action item 1 (there's 15 parts) said it was impossible to ring-fence the digital economy. It stopped short of recommending whether profits should be taxed where the customer is and value is created (source), or the country where the product originated (residence)…..

The OECD estimates that there could be up to $US240 billion ($325 billion) in revenue being lost due tax avoidance. But that's likely to be tied in with bigger problems such as money laundering.

How many companies with annual turnovers in excess of $250 million pay tax in Australia?

[Australian Tax Office, Corporate tax transparency report for the 2013-14 income year]

Anthony John "Tony" Abbott has decided that contrary to popular belief he is still Australia's prime minister

This is the very arrogant MP for Warringah backgrounding mainstream media……

Sky News, 1 February 2016:

Tony Abbott has met US President Barack Obama privately in Washington, it's been reported.

The former prime minister also held secret talks with the president's spy chief, News Corp reported on Monday, noting that the meetings could irk Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

Mr Abbott and Mr Obama met at an exclusive banquet on Saturday night, with sources saying the two had a very warm and intimate discussion.

A day earlier, Mr Abbott reportedly held secret talks with the US director of National Intelligence James Clapper - it's believed they discussed the war effort against Islamic State as well as broader global threats….

The Daily Telegraph, 1 February 2016, p.4:

WHO ABBOTT MET IN THE US

Barack Obama, US President

Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations

James Clapper, National Intelligence Director

John McCain, Republican senator and former presidential candidate

James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank Credit

And the reason for this high-level foray into foreign policy?

Well, in the first instance it is bound to get up the nose of two people most likely high on Abbott’s hate list – Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.

Secondly, Abbott has been travelling during that period of the year in which backbenchers typically go on taxpayer-funded ‘study tours’ and I’m betting that these meetings (along with a photo opportunity with former presidential adviser Henry Kissinger) will form the basis of a claim that he was on just such a tour.

Snapshot from Tony Abbott's Twitter account, 28 January 2016

Thus Abbott, who in all probability was paid to speak at the Alliance Defending Freedom dinner in New York on 28 January, will be able to claim a second time for expenses associated with his recent trip.

After all, this is the man who in 2009 decided that taxpayers should fund his own book promotion tour until he was sprung and had to pay back $9,400 in 2010.