Home » Posts tagged 'China'
Tag Archives: China
There is a a hoary old chest nut that is dragged out on a regular basis from our domestic retailers . Its the exemption for online purchases of less than $1000 dollars from the GST. The retailers dream that lowering that threshold will make an improvement in their ability to compete.
I can’t see Abbott going anywhere near this to be honest, firstly the GST is workable only because retailers are forced to act as tax collectors for the government but the Australian government does not have the jurisdiction to force overseas suppliers to do the same for them. It just can’t happen. So how would such a tax be collected? from the shippers or via Customs? The reason for the $1000 threshold is to make the administrative burden of collecting the tax commensurate with the revenue gathered. Lowering the threshold would not lower the burden per transaction so it could very easily mean that the cost to collect the tax could exceed the revenue collected which is the Labor way of doing things (see the mining tax as an example) its unworkable and the government knows this.
The simple fact is that retailing is moving more and more online simply because we the consumers like to shop that way and personally I would be more than happy to buy from Australian based online traders and I do so when ever I can because domestic online stores have one very big advantage over those based overseas and that is reduced shipping times. In my experience any item purchased from China will take about a month to arrive items shipped from within Australia can be on your doorstep within days if not the next day. In this age of instant gratification that short of difference in shipping times is a deal maker/breaker for most people.
So I predict that this whine about GST on online sales will amount to nothing just as similar whining in the past has done. If domestic retailers want to retain their market share then they are going to have to try to play to their strengths more, namely work on their service, their ability to instantly supply the goods to a customer and being available to attend to any warranty claim that may arise finally they have to realise that the price for their products is a big determining factor in buying decisions and they can no longer just hope that we consumers don’t notice that the product they sell can be bought cheaper elsewhere.
- No change to OS internet sale GST – yet (news.theage.com.au)
- Net shopping tax talks (stuff.co.nz)
- McClay to consult on GST for online shopping (stuff.co.nz)
- Canberra to maintain current GST threshold for online purchases (zdnet.com)
What would happen if Labor won the next election?
Would the debt disappear? Or would Labor continue selling our country
out to China on our over-extended credit card?
What would happen if Labor won the next election?
Would the immigration debacle solve itself or would Labor simply leave
the doors open, as they have already done, to all and sundry, sweetening
the deal with free housing and a dole that illegal immigrants don’t have
to work for. Visas on arrival and family reunion being the added
What would happen if Labor won the next election?
Would our freedom of speech be further eroded, as it has been in 2012,
with judicial edicts prohibiting any mention of race in arguments about
entitlements and benefits?
Would our defence department be effectively wound down to nothing more
than a taxi service for queue-jumping refugees?
And would our young men and women continue to be sent to fight in Afghanistan, while this immoral government imports shiploads of fit, young Afghanis for the sole purpose of creating new welfare-dependent Labor voters.
What would happen if Labor won the next election?
We would have open borders, total censorship of the media, an astronomical debt and myriad useless, costly green schemes.
Beyond that I can’t imagine, because by then we will no longer be in control of our own country.
But that’s not going to happen, because Labor won’t win the next election.
Talking the talk is all that Labor has, because we can’t afford to walk the walk even if the destination was any good
Over the last couple of days I’ve been listening to and watching the usual media suspects in conga line (of suckholes?) mode praising the intentions of the Gillard government’s white paper. there has been a plethora of vested interests saying that we should expend a great deal of time and treasure teaching our children to speak an Asian language. Frankly I am less than excited about this idea for a couple of reasons.
Firstly we are fortunate enough to live in a country that speaks what is effectively the global language, ENGLISH, and as such it gives our players on the international stage an advantage if we have maximum competency in our own tongue rather than some rudimentary grasp of just one of the many Asian languages.
Secondly I think that Gillard and Labor are kidding themselves if they think that teaching a few individuals the rudiments of another language will make them players in the rising economies of Asia. All of these economies have more than enough of their own “players” who will be miles ahead of any wannabe Aussies even if those Aussies have some understanding of the language there. In any event if we do want to get involved in one of the rising Asian countries then the natural choice should be India rather than China for the very simple reason that there ENGLISH is the lingua franca of that nation and it like us draws upon a British legal system, its also a democracy rather than the totalitarian regime that rules China so ethically we can be more comfortable as well.
Finally like a lot of Labor’s most recent brain farts there is no money to pay for this grand scheme. Its plucked from the air, intended to shift the public discourse away from Labor’s many manifest policy failures. So instead of getting caught up with the logistical issues of making this brain fart smell less like hydrogen sulphide and more like roses lets save time and consider can we afford to do any of this? Sadly due to Labor economic policy mismanagement we just won’t be able to do it anyway even if it were actually a good idea, which it isn’t.
- Govt to let Asian language program expire (news.theage.com.au)
- Australian students to study Asian languages as Gillard embraces ‘Asian Century’ (telegraph.co.uk)
- Govt to let Asian language program expire (news.com.au)
- Asia language plan ‘central’ to Australia reforms: PM (rappler.com)
To be entirely Francis I am no great fan of advertising per se, although I can appreciate the cleverness of some advertising campaigns I just zone out when the ads come on the TV but I am also no fan of Nanny state thinking either so I would like to know why the powers that be want to suck all of the fun and fantasy out of what is perhaps the second biggest purchasing decision of our lives by banning any add that suggest that a car can be driven fast or that it handles well:
At present this ad is on high rotation and as clever as it is just how is it not just promoting the idea that when it comes to using the roads then safety does not matter as much as getting laid?
I don’t know about anyone else but as a driver who enjoys the way a car meets its design parameters I don’t care so much about leather seats, stereos and other such frippery I want to know about what the car or Bike can do when asked the question and even if you never ask that question its nice to know the answer. The dour and Eco-obsessed want everything to be about energy efficiency which is important to an extent but in an increasingly accountant mentality shaped world do they have to ruin our right to occasionally imaging ourselves as the Stig even if its just for that moment between getting into the drivers seat and pressing the “start” button?
One of Jeremy’s favourite activities on his blogs is to defend Bob Brown, the leader of the Greens, of which he is a member. Jeremy even defended Brown for his outrageous comments which alleged that the Australian coal industry had contributed to the Queensland floods last year, when no scientist would draw such a causal link.
When Bob Brown delivered a weird speech at a Greens conference, which addressed the crowd as “fellow Earthians” he was rightly ridiculed. But Jeremy again leaps to his leader’s defence on his blog of intellectual
If Brown’s speech was really as “wacky”, “batty” and “barking mad” as Penbo and Sharwood claim, surely there’d be some other juicy quotes in it? Some more hilarious examples of this crazy person who’s gone way off the deep-end, this mad “UFO spotter” with his “thousands of words of madness”?
And yet… neither David nor Anthony could apparently find any.
The reason, of course, is that whilst Brown did pick an unfortunately odd-sounding opening phrase (“Earthians” doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, which is presumably why you rarely hear it from anyone but bad science fiction writers and crystal-wearing hippies who relish sounding weird), the rest of the speech made quite reasonable points.
Jeremy makes it sound as though other than the opening “fellow Earthians” line, which he insists was just an unfortunate choice of words (even though it implied that there was life outside of planet Earth when there is no evidence of that), the rest of the speech was perfectly sensible.
But you only have to keep reading to find out that even Jeremy concedes that this is not the case:
The biggest problem with Brown’s speech is his call for the development of a “one person, one vote, one value” global democracy. And that is because such a global democracy is more than a little incompatible with a world in which authoritarian nation states like China contain such a large proportion of the world’s population. I don’t know if Bob has a particular proposal for tackling this problem (and keep in mind, in the speech he was calling for global democracy to be an aim we work towards, not something we impose in five years involving submission to overpopulated dictatorships: it’d hardly be a “democracy” if a fifth of the voters have their votes effectively controlled by their government) but it’s something worth asking him. It’s something worth having a serious discussion about.
There are a number of problems with a world government, and not just the fact that most nations are not democracies. Firstly, the majority of people on earth are poor, so this would necessarily lead to a massive redistribution of wealth from wealth-creating nations to poorer nations with no guarantee of long-term benefits for the developing world. Secondly, the vast majority of the world’s population have very low levels of education with very little understanding of global issues. Thirdly, the world’s population does not share the same values or political goals, when this would surely be required if nations were to unite under the one government.
So Brown’s idea of a global democracy is a joke, a leftist fantasy which simply does not stack up with reality. No wonder Brown was ridiculed. Jeremy should admit that Brown’s critics have a point rather than defend the indefensible.
Surely that would be more intellectually honest than serving up what is arguably pro-Greens propaganda.
For the faithful of religion it is not unusual to to dedicate a certain percentage of your income to the Church so that it may carry on its charitable works, build churches that are worthy of the glory of God and of course to ensure that the professional clergy are in receipt of an adequate stipend.
“Low-income households spend a greater proportion of their income on basic necessities . . . and will, therefore, be disproportionately affected,” he said.
“Petrol and food prices will rise as a result of the emissions trading scheme’s coverage of emissions from transport, energy and, eventually, fertiliser and livestock.
He advised the Government to lower the marginal tax rate for those on lower incomes and provide $1000 grants for low-income households to buy energy-efficient products. He also recommended the private sector be paid $150 to carry out energy-efficient audits for low-income households and that the Government’s $20 billion Building Australia Fund be extended to cover energy infrastructure.
Joint Garnaut/Treasury modelling released yesterday predicted that cuts of 10 per cent (or stabilising CO2 levels at 550 parts per million in the atmosphere) would increase residential electricity prices by 21 per cent.
At 25 per cent (or 450 ppm), it would send residential electricity prices soaring 37 per cent.
Professor Garnaut warned that Australia could not make overly-ambitious cuts without a global agreement.
“On the balance of probabilities, the failure of our generation on climate change mitigation would lead to consequences that would haunt humanity until the end of time,” he said.
Anyone looking at the proposals from that most reverend gentleman, Professor Ross Garnaut, can not help but conclude that his scheme really amounts to a sort of green tithe upon all of the people of Australia. We will all have to pay a premium upon every good and every service we buy. We will all have to contribute to the coffers of the Green Faith even if we do not subscribe to the religion.
Worse still as the prophets tell us that global co-operation is necessary for salvation and the faith has not made sufficient inroads into the hoards of unbelievers in China ,India , The United States and all of the third world we are all doomed anyway, so no amount of piety on our part is going to make a blind bit of difference if the tenants of the green faith are true.
Add to that the current ructions in the church of Mammon that are encouraging acts of great religious fury and panic as the high lords of that faith are undone by the legacy of their own ineptitude and greed. Which means that the worlds economy is even less likely to embrace the penance demanded by the prophets of Giaia. Still the true believers are a determined bunch and they will probably see this new Tithe enshrined in law so that we the long suffering and sensible will have to pay the money and being assured all of the time that if we don’t that natural wonders like the great barrier reef will be destroyed (as a punishment for our own lack of faith) Our farm lands will be blighted (even though no amount of piety and dedication to the faith here will be enough to make up for the 98.7% of the rest of the worlds emissions that will remain in the thrall of disbelief) I suppose that in the end the Green faith is no different to any other that promises a place in heaven for the pious and that the only difference is that instead of papal indulgences for our sins we will just have to pay for carbon credits instead.
Now repeat after me Comrades
There is no God other than Gaia, and Al Gore is her Prophet.
KEVIN Rudd has put Australia’s trading relationship with China ahead of concerns about human rights abuses in Tibet, reigniting free trade talks and launching a new climate change partnership after meeting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.
The Prime Minister said differences could not be allowed to stand in the way of the broad-based relationship with China on trade, security and climate change because Australia’s relationship with China was “not a zero sum game”.
“We have disagreements, on human rights generally and on Tibet most recently, but I have always had the view that the best way to prosecute our relationship with China is to be broad-based about it and not pretend problems do not exist when they do,” he said in Beijing after a 2 1/2-hour meeting with Mr Wen at the People’s Palace.
At the meeting, which included considerable discussion of Tibet, the two leaders effectively agreed to differ on the issue.
Yesterday, after some prompting from Ray Dixon, I offered some praise to Brother Number One for raising the issue of Tibet and China’s woeful record on human rights. But having read the piece I quote above I can’t help but feel that Brother Number One was just going through the motions for the benefit of his own party and the true believers from the left who voted him into office.