4th Apr 2018
FONT SIZE: A+ A-
Greens calling for a people's bank and universal basic income
Greens calling for a people's bank and universal basic income

A “People’s Bank” and universal basic income (UBI) will be the focus of Greens Leader Richard Di Natale’s National Press Club speech today, along with claims that the Government is aiding and abetting a banking system that has failed all Australians.

Senator Di Natale’s vision for a people’s bank involves low-cost mortgages and cheaper everyday banking through more competition with existing big banks.

“Banks are now an essential service. You can't have a job or get government support without having a bank account,” the Senator told Fran Kelly on Radio National today.

“In the face of ongoing misconduct and price gouging, it's time for government to step in and ensure that there is a low-cost banking service, backed directly by the RBA, which is focused on the everyday savings and mortgage needs of customers.

“It will help turn around the recent decline in home ownership rates. It will also help stem the flow of lazy profits to the banks and inject some real competition into the banking sector.

“It's the only way we can force them to actually provide a public benefit, instead of distorting the economy and loading up the financial system with risk.”

And, in an attempt to separate itself from parties who have ‘stolen’ previous Greens policies, such as the royal commission into banking, changes to negative gearing, eliminating franking credits, superannuation caps, the banking levy and marriage equality, the Greens will reveal plans for a universal basic income that guarantees a fairer go for all Australians.

The UBI would ensure that Australians have better access to adequate income and social services.

“With the radical way that the nature of work is changing, along with increasing inequality, our current social security system is outdated,” said Mr Di Natale.

“It can't properly support those experiencing underemployment, insecure work and uncertain hours.”

The Greens have also called for more government intervention on climate change and a government-owned energy retailer that would help to bring down power bills in a re-regulated market.

When questioned as to what another, albeit it publicly owned, bank would really do to help Australians, Mr Di Natale said: “So much of this money, these record super profits made by the Big Four banks, should be circulating in the economy, boosting infrastructure, public education, essential services and universal health care. They’re the sort of things, we should be doing with this money, not $42 billion profits lining the pockets of shareholders.”

Listen to Richard Di Natale’s interview on Radio National

What do you think of this idea? Do you trust the idea that a nationalised bank would help first-home buyers and guarantee lower banking fees? How do you feel about a universal basic income?

RELATED ARTICLES





    COMMENTS

    To make a comment, please register or login
    jackie
    4th Apr 2018
    10:14am
    Our Reserve bank is owned by the Rothschild family and so is the American Reserve bank. We are in perpetual debt to them. Breaking away from them would be a great move. Iceland did and are doing better than ever now.
    Rae
    4th Apr 2018
    11:52am
    Yes Jackie and the RBA has two main functions.
    To control inflation and ensure employment. In my opinion it is failing in both these areas.

    Regardless of the scammed CPI figures inflation is rampant and we all know what a dismal failure ensuring employment is turning out.

    Packing up the Central Bank and telling the IMF to rack off would be a good start to sorting out the mess they have put us into.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    1:04pm
    Jackie, what planet are you on? That is the sort of nonsense (the RBA is owned by the Rothschilds) that was spruiked in Germany in the 1930s - and look how that ended up! This country has not suffered a recession since 1991 - thanks in part to the efforts of the RBA. The conventional wisdom when I studied economics, was that a recession could be expected every 8 - 10 years, going on past experience. We have a lot to be thankful for in this country, and don't need the idiocy of comments such as yours!
    arbee
    4th Apr 2018
    3:33pm
    Big Al, Jackie's comment is exactly what you would expect from a left leaning socialist. She makes wild comments with nothing factual to back them up.
    Retired Knowall
    4th Apr 2018
    5:18pm
    The Reserve Bank of Australia commenced operations as Australia’s central bank on 14 January 1960. This was the culmination of a long journey towards central banking, which had begun much earlier. The full story is told in a monograph prepared for the anniversary by Professor Selwyn Cornish of the Australian National University.[1]

    Central banking functions had historically been carried out by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. A publicly owned commercial bank since its inception in 1911, the Commonwealth Bank had progressively assumed wider central bank responsibilities from the 1920s. By the 1950s, however, it was no longer tenable for the central bank to both regulate and compete with the private banks. Therefore, the Reserve Bank was established to continue the central banking activities, while the commercial functions were placed in the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, which in time became the CBA as we know it today.

    On 14 January 1960, when the Reserve Bank opened for business it had 1,800 staff from the Commonwealth Bank, including the Governor, Dr H.C. ‘Nugget’ Coombs. The Reserve Bank also maintained the same board and, importantly, the same charter.
    Tib
    4th Apr 2018
    10:19am
    We used to have a people's bank it was called the Commonwealth bank and having it kept the other banks honest or as honest as they can be. So I agree let's start another one. This idea will frighten the other four banks more than anything else. If we do let's not sell it again.
    Tib
    4th Apr 2018
    10:27am
    I may vote green even though they are as crazy feminist as the labor party.
    Cowboy Jim
    4th Apr 2018
    10:40am
    We might have some difficulty getting people to invest in a new financial institution and without money coming in first there is none to lend. Agree the CBA should never have been sold, got our home loan thru them half a century ago.
    A postal bank would be good like they have in Europe - checking accounts and payment facilities first; later on we could see whether
    term deposits and personal loans would be possible. Home loans for
    25 years might be more difficult to achieve. The RBA would have to be convinced about the equity in a new bank.
    Tib
    4th Apr 2018
    11:35am
    Jim if they offer a decent return on term deposits retirees will flood them with money.
    Cowboy Jim
    4th Apr 2018
    11:53am
    Tib - you're right. At the moment I am getting 2.4% for a commitment of 12 months, deemed at 3.25%. Suppose getting the deeming rate would already be an attraction. I think only the Military Bank gives deeming rates but that is in Canberra.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    1:11pm
    Geez you are a scary lot! I well remember when Bob Brown advocated the closure of all mining in this country. When asked what the miners would do, Bob reckoned there would be plenty of jobs going as park rangers, and we would have a massive tourist boom. Now Bob, (and it would seem also, you, Tib), knows about this money tree, that is like a magic pudding and you keep plucking twenties and fifties off it, and there is a never ending supply. Make sure you keep it secret, although there are a few state Labor premiers who also seem to know of its existence, and if, heaven forbid, Shorten gets the keys to the Lodge, he will be raiding it with 'gay' abandon, so it might be put to the test! Come on, you lot, when have the Greens ever produced a rational economic thought? It is just not in their DNA!!!
    Tib
    4th Apr 2018
    2:02pm
    Big Al I don't remember Bob Brown wanting to close all mines? I do remember when the greens wanted to close down wood chipping in Tasmania. Which never seemed to make them any money and replace it with tourism. Tourism seems to be that states biggest earner these days , so they were right. At the time the right were still pushing forestry which never made them any money at that time, the right has always been a bit backward. Even the right has caught up now. Someone must of drawn them a picture with crayons.
    arbee
    4th Apr 2018
    3:38pm
    And who started off the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, Keating of course, and he let it go for a song.
    Tib
    4th Apr 2018
    5:19pm
    Abee I don't agree with the privatisation of some industries no matter who is responsible.
    Old Man
    4th Apr 2018
    8:47pm
    I disagree Tib about the CTB keeping others honest. Until the banking sector was deregulated, all banks had their interest rates controlled by the RBA. Each state had a state controlled bank which was also regulated by the RBA. All banks in Australia fell under the regulations of the RBA, including the CTB.
    Tib
    5th Apr 2018
    10:42am
    OM the way I see it if the government has a bank that the four main banks have to compete with they should be able to do that comfortably. After all it's a government run business. But the government bank will be carefully regulated, so it won't be gouging and if the other banks want to compete neither will they. When we try to stop gouging with private banks at the moment all we hear is their BS and lies and no change. A government bank will drive change.

    4th Apr 2018
    1:01pm
    Oh for heavens sake
    This looney tunes party are at it again
    Bernie
    4th Apr 2018
    2:54pm
    I totally agree Raphael!!
    KSS
    4th Apr 2018
    1:11pm
    So the Greens policy is to nationalise, banking and energy supply.

    Mr Di Natale might want to pause for a moment to realise that most of the banks' shareholders are ordinary Australians who have a superfund!

    And just note he is also taking credit for the following:royal commission into banking, changes to negative gearing, eliminating franking credits, superannuation caps, the banking levy and marriage equality. And they also want more aggressive action on 'climate change'.

    So next election you will know who to blame!
    AutumnOz
    4th Apr 2018
    2:14pm
    A Universal basic income paid to all after age 65 makes a lot more sense than the never ending form filling out by people of pension age who are dependent on the old age pension, self funded pensioners are also treated unfairly by not being given a health care card. The Universal Basic Income combined with payment of tax on the combined income from the UBI and self funded income would make life a lot easier, and more pleasant, for everyone.
    Re the nationalisation of banks. The gov't has proven it couldn't run a chook raffle so there is no hope it could deal with a bank even by paying the CEO billions of dollars for merely warming a seat.
    When I was growing up there were several other banks as well as the current big four or five, now they all seem to have been taken over and merged with the big four.
    We do have the Bendigo Bank which, as far as I know, isn't owned by any of the major banks.
    We used to have the Commonwealth Bank which was Australian owned and deposits by the public was backed by the Australian Government against the failure of the bank so the people's money was safe.
    arbee
    4th Apr 2018
    3:39pm
    Keating sold it
    Tib
    4th Apr 2018
    5:25pm
    Arbee your point is?
    Oars
    4th Apr 2018
    2:56pm
    Sounds great- but without a FULL and unbiased set of projections as well as a complete understanding of how banking works, these comments may be yet another "green fantasy". But let's look at their details- soon- not just before an election.
    Nerk
    4th Apr 2018
    3:33pm
    The loopy greens want a never ending cash coming out of the hole in the wall and destroy businesses at the same time.
    arbee
    4th Apr 2018
    3:48pm
    This red ragger socialist idiot would have us all in red uniforms, goose stepping down the road if he ever got into power. Thank god there are enough of us that don't want the communist experiment in this country. The man is a raging lunatic who should have been committed years ago. As usual, this publication only printed the parts of his statement that they think is favorable to their line of thinking. He also said everyone should be paid The same basic wage (not politicians of course) irregardless of whether they worked or not, now tell me who is going to work if you can get the same remuneration if you don't work. LOONEY TUNES best describes this madman.
    Tib
    4th Apr 2018
    5:23pm
    Everyone should be paid the same basic wage. Proof? You sound like a one nation voter?
    arbee
    4th Apr 2018
    9:46pm
    Tib, if you looked elsewhere on the internet you may have seen the full report earlier today on face book, and what I have stated on here was exactly what that lunatic said. He is close to being certifiable. Then again, those who are blind enough to vote for his party come under the same category as well.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    8:05am
    arbee my eldest works on farms as a labourer. He is a mechanic by trade and keeps the irrigation systems and machinery running. Some fencing and help with mustering etc. A mechanic gets $19.60 an hour. Farm labour is hard work.

    He recently was unemployed for a few months due to health issues.

    The welfare payment for the family was only $50 less than his wage.
    But they also get discounts and benefits.

    He works because of work ethics and his own desire to be self sufficient and provide for his family. Certainly not for the money.
    He wants to set a good example to his children.

    He is devastated that his labour is deemed to be worth no more than the unemployable who will never work.

    I'd say a lot of families are exactly like this after a decade of no wage growth but welfare being CPI adjusted.

    It's a disgraceful situation and it is the Fair Work Commission to blame.
    Anonymous
    5th Apr 2018
    8:47pm
    It's not a recent thing, Rae. From the early 70s to the early 90s, I worked for 2% more than unemployment benefits and my costs of holding a job were 8% of my income. I'd have been way better off on benefits. Like your son, I worked because I have a work ethic, and I wanted my children to have a work ethic. Ultimately, sickness forced me out and on recovery I was unemployed after a lot of stress and frustration, I confess I stopped looking for work. I took benefits and started a business. Best thing I ever did - but it didn't feel right until I convinced myself that the system forces people to be dishonest, and it's not their fault.

    I paid my debt many times over, but now I'm at that point of resorting to what I consider unethical conduct again, because I am suffering for doing what's ethical and good for the nation, and it seems both Government and Opposition are determined to make it impossible to be SFR unless you are filthy rich. And sadly, many here are very happy to see struggling SFRs bashed and beaten and forced to live on less than the pension. Little wonder hundreds of thousands manipulate to claim a pension they don't need - thus making the OAP problematically expensive and driving call to delay retirement.

    It would make far more sense for OAPs to support a demand for a system that respects and encourages people who strive to be self-sufficient. Cutting the number of pensioners, instead of increasing it, would improve the chances of pension increases.
    Adrianus
    4th Apr 2018
    3:50pm
    The Greens just don't stop coming up with these ideas LOL. All in the name of the people and the environment of course.
    I am still not sure what a people's bank is to achieve?
    We had a "people's Bank" the CBA.
    So the RBA will issue 1st mortgages with a competitive rate to doubtful borrowers? on a 60% debt to valuation ratio then.... wait for it... one of our retail banks will pick up the 2nd mortgage?? But here's the bit that had me ROTFL, the 2nd mortgage would be issued at such a competitive rate that the purchaser would have an overall lower commitment.
    LOL!!!
    Di Natalie you're only going to convince bank haters that this is a good idea.
    Anonymous
    4th Apr 2018
    9:08pm
    at last a comment that states the truths of this greens proposal, not only do they want other banks to pick up the outstanding 40% they also want to guarantee that this so-called people's bank be guaranteed to be the main creditor and be paid out first the total amount owed to their bank, backer the rest, can anybody see other banks putting their hand up to lend money on that basis?
    2nd the price of houses will go through the roof, see when 1st homebuyers premiums came in or 1st homebuyers received the bonus
    as for some of the above comments, Tib I am surprised by yours in regard to decent returns on the elderly investments, if that bank charges borrowers 3% how much do you think they will pay you on your investment and as for your comment that tourism is the greatest investment in Tasmania, sorry to say it is the assistance of every other state in Australia through their GST to keep Tasmania from going bankrupt and for all this you can thank the greens, able assisted by labor, for running Tasmania into the ground, believe the greens and be prepared for judgement day, the fairies in my backyard are looking better by the day.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    8:22am
    Tasmania only has Tourism and logging. The wood chip company has been losing money by the millions. It's not viable at all. We just don't need all that paper any longer. China doesn't want it and won't pay much for it. Certainly not enough to cover production.

    Something is very wrong inside banking and debt in Australia. The proof is the APRA Bank Bail In Legislation snuck through the Senate recently.

    All of this is merely another distraction so people don't panic.

    Wait until rates start rising. I wouldn't be holding bank shares or hybrids now and also be able to sleep well at night.
    Adrianus
    5th Apr 2018
    11:00am
    Tasmania's economy has been given a real boost with the FTA's. They are always short on farm workers now.
    Don't know why Tasmania closed hydro generators?? I know they didn't do well by selling power to Victoria then buying it back at a higher price, but surely that was no reason to close down hydro?
    Curious
    4th Apr 2018
    4:57pm
    With globalisation across the world, many systems have been broken: fair wage bargaining system, financial systems, monetary control system, fiscal control system, and above all the Keynesian economy.

    John Keynes believed in capitalism on the basic that it is a good system within a closed economy. In a capitalist system, people earn money from their work. Businesses employ and pay people to work. Then people can spend their money on things they want. Within this closed economy, a country may have a competitive advantage over other countries, for example, exports of our excellent wool and quality minerals. Other countries import their goods to our country. Under this economy, we have an entire network of producers, distributors, and consumers of goods and services in a local, regional, or national community.In this environment, government can control through the manipulation of the monetary policy and/or fiscal policy and balance the trade accounts through tariff. RBA can control inflation and employment through monetary policy, providing the leakages from our economy is controllable. In other words, profits generated in Australia are not leaving our shores and lining the pockets of overseas shareholders and profits earned locally are taxed for their dues.

    Globalisation is a game changer. The global economy has changed the mobility of resources, labour, capital and finance without boundary. The conglomerate of companies, international corporations, organisations with heavily subsidies and supports by foreign governments in the name of free trade agreements and competitions torn-up our fair wage system through imported labour, resulting lower wages for our labour market. Consequently, lower wages, lower income tax. Mobility of international companies allows leakages of corporate taxes from our economy. Privatisation of our public utilities would save governments' outlays in the short terms but the public (you and I) is paying for them through our nose over a generation or more. These public utilities are usually bought by foreign billionaires or big companies, whose shareholders are mostly overseas. Guess where the profits generated in Australia will ended up? Foreigners can also borrow money from our Banks, but they don't pay taxes here and their profits don't plough back to our economy. If foreigners or foreign companies borrow big from our Banks, guess who are supporting the Banks, yes, we are. I wonder to what extent the risk of these foreign borrowings from our Banks will bear on their ability to borrow money on the world market, i.e. IMF?

    Secondly, I still cannot understanding how globalisation works on the credit rating for our economy. This rating is important for our Banks to borrow money in the world market.
    Our governments can no longer have a good grip of our economic basics to influence employment, wages, inflation or deflation, rectification of budget deficit, tax reformation and above all stimulation of our economy. The more the government believes in small government and an invisible hand in a free market in the name of democracy, the less the government can govern our economy, protect and defend its citizen. If anyone thinks that a big tax cut to big companies will generate job and increase wages in the context of globalisation, he or she is blind to see these leakages from our economy. This tax cut may work for a closed economy but for a global economy, there is no chance in a million or a billion. Keynesian theory on capitalism is no longer applicable in globalisation. Big money rules to the extend no single government or state can control the beast, just look at Facebook and other social medias......no rules or governance over these operations.

    If political parties or governments try to look towards to pensioners, self-retirees and low-income earners for solutions over the "Beast", please dream on.
    Rae
    5th Apr 2018
    8:27am
    An excellent explanation and frightening as our Government and Public Servants seem unable to negotiate or regulate to prevent Australia becoming poorer and poorer.
    Curious
    5th Apr 2018
    10:01am
    Rae, the PM and his government can do something about it. However, it will take a strong PM, Foreign and Trade Ministers to do something about the "Beast" through the G20 by promulgating the following: -

    1. International companies and conglomerates should show their causes why they should be allowed to come this country. While granting them an ability to earn a profit, their profit must plough back to our economy through taxes and local shareholders. This is important that we decide who come to our country, the circumstances they come, how they come and what rules they should operate and observe. Just like what Johnny Howard said about the refugee.

    2. The Productivity Commission and the Fair Work Commission should be working together and set the rules who and what circumstances foreign workers can come to this country. The accountability of these Commissions should be transparent that the supply of labour is justifiable in terms of demand and the benefits to our economy. This is to ensure that our labour market is not being exploited by any commercial business of all sizes.

    3. ASIC and ACCC should have a broader role in examining the equilibrium between shareholder values and customer services, who are sharing the same pie of profit outcome.

    4. ATO and Foreign Affairs and Trades should work together, finding a set of rules to encourage foreign investment in this country at the same time this investment will benefit our economy through taxes, research and development and also benefits to members of G20. We would like to have a fair tax system for a fair work and the burden of social security be shared fairly from top earners to low income earners.

    5. ATO, ASIC and ACCC should have a role in establishing governance and surveillance of digital intelligence and social media, including online purchasing.

    6. All free trading agreements are subject to all the vet by the rules mentioned 1 to 5 above.

    7. All boarder security should be based on all the rules sets in 1 to 6.

    8. Continuous surveillance and prevention of economic leakages from our country and exploitation our systems to protect and defend our boarder and citizens and to preserve our heritage and values.

    These are by no means an exhausting list to plug the leakages and to tame the "Beast". If you can think of anything to add onto this list, you are most welcome.
    Adrianus
    5th Apr 2018
    10:56am
    Let me see if I understand?

    You both agree that we are at the mercy of foreign investors who pay next to no tax, and that we no longer operate in a closed domestic market but a global competitive one.

    With this in mind you feel the best solution is to make Australian businesses pay higher taxes?? How does this strengthen the Australian economy?
    Curious
    5th Apr 2018
    12:23pm
    Adrianus, the basic of the argument is that laissez-faire regime is not the answer to the solution to our problems we are in. We desperately need a tax reform for a fair distribution of wealth from top earners to low income earners.

    Traditionally, majority of the tax revenue to government is income tax. With the stagnation of low income tax, this income tax is no longer a fair share for the distribution of the national wealth for all our needs.

    For those who believe in capitalism of free market in a closed economy cannot see the Keynesian theory and rules cannot be applicable anymore. Big businesses with billion dollars empires dictate.

    They become unmanageable, uncontrollable and ungovernable. Just imagine, a giant company of Facebook and Google with mega billion dollar empires paying no tax, answer to no one, and no single government or state on earth would like to tackle them.

    If they make billion of dollars in our country, should they plough back their profit in our economy through taxes and dividends to our local shareholders?

    What I am trying to say is, local businesses should pay tax according to the local taxes. Foreign companies, which make profit in Australia, should pay their share of profit according to their privilege of earning a giant profit in Australia. Stop the leakage and you stop the imbalance of distribution of wealth and our national needs.
    Adrianus
    6th Apr 2018
    8:49am
    Curious, if shareholders dictate then should we not ask the question. How do we get more of the population into share ownership? Isnt that the surest path to having some control over your financial destiny?

    I could never understand why the unions/Labor strongly opposed employee share schemes?
    The only possible motivation I could think of is the Fabian concept of keeping the proletariats down. Lean mean and hungry if you like?? Interestingly the average wage is rising faster than a soufflé.
    Curious
    6th Apr 2018
    9:35am
    Adrianus, Johnny Howard wanted Australians to buy more shares, so we all have a bit of Australia's companies. However, the volatility of the share market with overseas influence scares a lot of mum and dad investors. Additionally, even the big investors like superannuation funds cannot influence the share market, as the share market in the world stage is just too big for the control over our "financial destiny" as you call it.

    Not even any government or any state in the world can control this mega dollar share industry. I don't know whether you remember the rise of the tiger economy in Asia. At that time, the trillion dollar US superannuation funds invested in the Asian shares and at the height of these markets the US super funds sold the shares and left the Asian countries with a disaster aftermath.

    Shares as an investment vehicle is good. However, governments over the world believe in capitalism of free market and have no clues how to regulate this industry, which has a lot of speculations in shares, futures contracts and other gambling form of contracts. Many companies and private investors got burnt.

    As to why unions/ Labour strongly opposed employee share schemes, once you own shares, you are a shareholders of a company. You own a part of the company. The concept of shareholder value does not go well with the concept of employee values or customer value. The bottom line is more important than looking after your employees or customers. Just look at the four big banks.
    Adrianus
    6th Apr 2018
    12:51pm
    I see, so the share market is too big to be controlled? In what way should it be controlled other than the existing laws and procedural regulations? If you're referring to control of volatility then why does it need to be controlled? I agree owning shares can have some risk. I think what you're saying is that risk should not be shared with employees or customers because they have a different view of trade because it creates profit. Is the bottom line really that important? If employees and customers aren't accepting of business practice then do they feel uncomfortable enough to work or buy from this company? Why should we be making sure the banks don't make a profit? Is it because the government doesn't want them to pay tax? The big 4 banks paid almost $12 billion in tax for the 2016 year. They are our biggest tax payers.
    In 2016, banks paid $25 billion in wages and salaries to staff, $26 billion in dividends to shareholders – many of whom are mums and dads and pensioners – and $66 billion in interest on bank deposits and bonds.
    Adrianus
    5th Apr 2018
    11:12am
    EEEKK!! Profits lining the pockets of shareholders???

    How dare shareholders in a bank get a return on their investment??!!

    Lawdee!! We've got Shorten wanting us retirees to pay extra tax on share dividends and Di Natale is going one better and wants us retirees to have NO DIVIDENDS!!!

    I often wonder what Australia would look like after another 6 years of a Labor/Greens government? :(
    arbee
    5th Apr 2018
    12:55pm
    Probably would look like Venezuela.
    VicCherikoff
    5th Apr 2018
    11:30am
    Let's do away with banks entirely and look to the blockchain for the same services a lot cheaper, faster and transparent. OK. So fractional lending will be hard to beat but it is the one 'innovative' use of deposits that has made banks and bankers rich and the population poor.
    Adrianus
    6th Apr 2018
    8:57am
    The block chain method of banking provides a great vehicle for money laundering. Vic, one of the well liked features of Australian banks is the regulatory framework which provides no real nasty surprises. Are you willing to give that up for the unknown? I suppose we would save on the expense of keeping the banks in line. Recently the CBA was caught out on a non disclosure issue, are you saying you don't want this sort of regulation?
    TREBOR
    5th Apr 2018
    2:09pm
    A good argument for ensuring that no bank grows beyond a certain unsustainable size and falls over of its own dead weight...
    Adrianus
    6th Apr 2018
    9:35am
    We do need our banks to stay domestic. No sense in Australian Taxpayers propping up failed foreign ventures. No sense in our RBA having LLR liability on foreign matters. But as far as size is concerned, well.. why? How could all, no, any Australian benefit from restricting banks' growth?? Sorry, I cant see it?
    Banjo
    7th Apr 2018
    9:59am
    I don't agree our banks should stay domestic. Why? We live in a global age and need foreign investors. If banks are regulated there would be no need for "Australian Taxpayers propping up failed foreign ventures" as you say.
    Adrianus
    7th Apr 2018
    11:05am
    Our bigger banks have had to pull back from overseas operations for that reason. While banks in Australia have tighter regulatory controls the same cannot be said about any foreign operations. They would operate under that country's jurisprudence. I don't see why they would accept the higher risk while the Australian market continues to grow as it does. Is there anything more profitable than the Oz housing loans? Is there anything safer than an OZ bank deposit?
    GrayComputing
    6th Apr 2018
    9:54am
    Dear green senators

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVERV AGAIN!
    A pension is not welfare.

    For the retired and retiring people in your electorate do you think they really look forward and want 100++ visits to/from Centrelink and be part of 3 million waiting queues and lost calls?

    Most economist say we will save taxpayers money by dropping asset testing because of the massive overheads cost in running Centrelink and the 10,000 conflicting rules
    Even Poorer New Zealand has a no asset test for a pension! It is cheaper and fairer

    Do you or other MP like being part of the system that allows this indirect abuse of the elderly?

    This abuse is actually sponsored by our government and forced down to Centrelink and borders on a criminal act.

    Why do you as a compassionate person let this Centrelink abuse happen at taxpayers’ expense?

    You even stand to lose your chance at directing the government unless all these criminal asset tests for a pension are dropped now.

    NO ASSET TEST FOR A PENSION EVER AGAIN!
    Gee Whiz
    6th Apr 2018
    11:17am
    The greens never do anything right and have some of the dumbest politicians ever.

    But this one time they have just come up with an idea that will get public support
    Banjo
    7th Apr 2018
    9:56am
    Quote Adrianus: "The big 4 banks paid almost $12 billion in tax for the 2016 year. They are our biggest tax payers.
    In 2016, banks paid $25 billion in wages and salaries to staff, $26 billion in dividends to shareholders – many of whom are mums and dads and pensioners – and $66 billion in interest on bank deposits and bonds."

    You make it sound as if the big banks are in the same league as not for profit organisations!!
    Those words written by Toney Pearson the Director of Industry Policy at the Australian Banker’s Association, is a bit biased and self serving don't you think?
    Adrianus
    7th Apr 2018
    10:47am
    Quote Banjo: "You make it sound as if the big banks are in the same league as not for profit organisations!!"
    How so?? When the banks pay so much tax, how can they be likened to NFP's?? Your post makes no sense Banjo.
    Banjo
    7th Apr 2018
    11:06am
    Nothing anyone says will "make sense" to you Adrianus, unless it is in your best interests and fits in with your narrow thoughts.
    No offence meant but there is no point in having a real conversation with you.
    Curious
    7th Apr 2018
    12:18pm
    Adrianus, if shares are designed as an investment vehicle, they should be regulated to an extent where they are not abused. For example, people cannot sell the shares that they don't wholly own. This is called short selling. Australian government has stopped this happening. However, the futures contracts for any produce or produces allow short selling of any shares. If speculations or gambling are allowed without adequate regulations, financial crisis as we saw in 2008 was not manageable over the world.

    Just because the 4 banks paid $12 millions in tax for 2016, it doesn't mean they made adequate tax contributions to our economy out of their billion dollar profits. Do you know that they are allowed to have tax deductions for their bad debts/loans: home loans, credit loans, car loans, personal loans and any contingent liabilities.

    If our economy has a AAA rating, our banks can borrow money in the world market a lot cheaper. However, under the deregulation of the banks, these cheaper rates may not be passed on to borrowers like you and me. The banks do not have to observe ARB cash rate anymore. if the banks have too much bad loans and liabilities, this will affect not only the AAA rating, interest rates will generally raise to the detriment of borrowers.

    The performance of the banks is judged by not what they do but how well they do and how trustworthy they are conducting their business in serving their customers as well as looking after their shareholders. Their performance must be judged by the quality of customer service, the return to shareholders and their equitable contributions to our economy through tax...all in one equation. To do less is not why they are there for.
    Adrianus
    7th Apr 2018
    1:18pm
    I'm sorry I don't know what got into me. This is a bank bashing thread isn't it? I swear I need a good kick in the rump sometimes!

    Curious, just one more question before I go?
    You ask if I know if banks don't pay tax on any income they don't receive? Is that a trick question? I don't know of any business which does?
    Curious
    7th Apr 2018
    1:32pm
    Adrianus, I can do the good kink in the rump for you, if that's what you deserve. If the banks have proper procedures to assess loan applications, ensuring the borrowers can afford the repayment, then nothing is to be worried. When there are no rules for brokers to get loan applications for the bank on a commission basics. Bad loans pay no profits, dividends and tax but can get a tax deduction.

    Haven't you heard of business loss in one year can be deducted from profits in future years? I am sure you have. If not I should give you that kick you wanted.
    Adrianus
    8th Apr 2018
    9:32am
    Curious, you seem to think that a loss of revenue is some kind of advantage?
    Am I wrong in assuming you want unrealised revenue taxed?

    Think about this scenario?
    A corner store gets robbed of the weekly takings of $10,000. It is reported to the police but the money is never recovered.

    A. Should the ATO tax that $10,000?
    or
    B. Should the ATO "deduct the $10,000 from Gross receipts?

    I expect many businesses would have carry forward losses from 2008 to 2014. So why should they pay tax on these catch up years?
    Once they clear the deck of losses they can then start paying more tax. That's fair isn't it?
    LOL You can kick me after I finish banging my head against this brick wall. I'm doing it tough here mate!
    Curious
    8th Apr 2018
    11:45am
    Adrianus, your example is too simplistic full of holes, a herd of elephants can walk through them without any troubles.

    For the start, that simple corner store of yours would have insurance coverage for her/his business loss. If he/she did, the loss would be somewhat or fully covered. In this scenario, the proprietor of the corner shop has to declare the amount reimbursed by insurance.

    If there was no insurance coverage, the proprietor would incur a loss for his business. Subject to Tax Rules, he/she would properly allow to claim tax deduction for this loss or carried against future year's income.

    For a start, ATO doesn't tax on Gross receipts? ATO assesses on declared taxable income and calculates tax payer's tax liability for the year.

    Losses can be advantages sometimes, depending how you organise your business. For example, if I can use my losses from one of my subsidiaries to deduct against the income of another associated company. The net outcome can be somewhat rewarding.

    As why should they pay tax on the catch up years, this depends how the proprietor organises his affairs with his/her accountants or arranges with ATO. It may suit the proprietor to do that and within the Tax Rules.

    Your example is just too generalised and many scenarios can be formed to have many different outcomes.

    Nevertheless, I give you credits for thinking about it. Enjoy your weekend and please don't take life too seriously. Please don't bang your head against the brick wall and I promise I won't kick you, OK.
    Adrianus
    9th Apr 2018
    9:49am
    Quote: "For a start, ATO doesn't tax on Gross receipts? ATO assesses on declared taxable income and calculates tax payer's tax liability for the year. "

    Curious, you may not have heard of assessable income, which is all of the businesses' income not just profit. Deductions are taken from assessable income which provides a net taxable profit.
    Curious
    9th Apr 2018
    10:24am
    Adrianus, you are talking in circle....not making sense.
    ABE
    9th Apr 2018
    8:09pm
    Hahaha, he never does!
    Adrianus
    9th Apr 2018
    9:34am
    Curious, I'm not gonna let you off the hook that easily mate. You must be a lawyer? You sure know how to use weasel words LOL!!

    Quote: "Bad loans pay no profits, dividends and tax but can get a tax deduction."

    Please explain how a tax deduction is a financial advantage? I mean other than paying no tax on income not received. Because in effect that's what a tax deduction is, isn't it? A return of capital which is outlaid in order to produce revenue. You're not getting it confused with a rebate are you?
    Curious
    9th Apr 2018
    10:31am
    Adrianus, I never said, " a tax deduction is a financial advantage". I said, " Losses can be advantages sometimes". There is a big difference between the two statements.

    I don't think, it is healthy to continue this conversation, as you like to twist words for your argument. Let just say, I entitle to my opinion and you think what you like.
    gerry
    9th Apr 2018
    1:39pm
    Ole Dopy down the road,who nicks my bikes and washing says he will have no need to do that anymore cos he and his kids will get a nice gift for starters and borrow 580000 to live in a 600000 house and the bank wont mind if he never pays a thing. God bless the Greens
    Adrianus
    9th Apr 2018
    5:44pm
    Yes disgraceful isn't it. You can lay the blame on Banjo and Curious and others who encourage this sort of misplaced largesse.
    ABE
    9th Apr 2018
    8:12pm
    "misplaced largesse"

    Adrianus when are you going to stop speaking out of your rear end?
    KEVINJ
    9th Apr 2018
    2:45pm
    12 PG Here, INcredib HIST, RE CorrupTion In BanKing & BANKS 'LET Downs' ETC NOT 1 Word on Our perceived CORRUPTION In AUS "NRG" mrkt, SO, here Goes, frm 1 Of its 10s of 1000s of Victims OF "NRG" PRICE gouging. A RetailerS PRICE WAR is Promted To-Day, ONLINE. It NeedS 2B said, -bec ALL NRG Retailers ARE as LOW, in their CORE being -I. E, ManaGinG ENTITIES, RE CREEPS, involved,-AS LOW AS, The EVIL & POWER CORRUPT-E D 2,018 AUS {LABOR STAND-I N STOOGE} P. M,-Now with 3 0 [-Lunatic SPIV S Morrison PLAYED DOWN-] FAIL E D NEWS-POLLS, -ANY INFO given ABT "N R G" Price BREAKS,-can N O T be G_TEED At ALL, bec OF VERY NATURE Of, a SPIV C.E.O, AT, "A. G. L ", on N.S.W CENTRAL COAST ..
    -- With ANY like-hood OF a Sudden Catastrophe I N, ANY COAL FIRED POWER PLANT, THIS
    PROBLEM, SPEAKS TO, VERY ReasoN WHY, there can Be N O, GUARANTEES, to ANY, NSW
    - PRICE Incentives, ESPECially 1 2 Months AHEAD.- THEY A R E, ONLY CONFIDENCE TRICKS, -& NEED TO BE EXPOSED, FOR, -WHAT, -THEY ARE. MOST PPL I N PUBLIC HOUSG ARE POOR.. The LOW LIFES in THE DIFF par L I A ments, around AUST, would NOT Know THIS, Neither would THEY CARE 1 J O T.. -K E V I N J has a 2,011 par L I A mnt HANSARD PRINT OUT fom, MACQUARIE STr "BEAR PIT". - When, V NATURE Of THIS 2 9 5 P G, 3 DAYS & 3 NightS HANSARD LUNACY IS,- Properly Under-Stood, ANY V O T E R Would ASK, W H Y AREN 'T THESE Dis-gusting T A X--PAYER MONEY WASTE R S, I N J A I L S ??? - THIS Above WASTE Of 3 DAYS & 3 Nights HANSARD LUNACY, wenT ON BEC,- NSW LABOR -& GREENS
    WanteD To S E E, - W H O COULD SPEAK, LONG EST.. - AUSTRALIANS ShouLD KNOW, HOW MUCH, ABOVE COST ? ? - &, KEVIN ' S REF IS TO, THE 2 N D Reading Of industr relatns Amendment (Publ Sector Conditions Of Employment BILL) 2, 0 1 1 & of Course, It ran Under,- WINE BOTTLE D I L L- E D, N S W Dis-grace-Fully F A I L - E D P R E M I E R, -- BARRY O' FARRELL, - &,- WHO WAS,- Personally a CROOK, - T O- W A R D S K E V I N J, IN 2,0 1 2. - I Have NOT 4gotten, U R LOW LIFE ACT, TO- WarDS M E .. R E- ALL "N R G" Failings, i like to think, MY words FROM KEVIN J --are "REPRESENTING" 10' S OF 1, 0 0 0 'S, --I N, AUST PUBLIC HOUSING & the TENANTS There-IN, WHO DESPISE, - R I P-- O F F &, P O W E R CORRUPT - E D, AUStraliaN, SHONK-Y, USE--L E S S, IGNORANT, &, ONLY,, MONEY HUNGRY, POLITICIAN S. - THIS WAS SENT, MON, 9- 4- 18, T O, an ' ENERGY WAR " -- CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR, - 9TH APRIL, 2, 0 1 8. -- THANKS FOR Reading &, INCREDI HISTory ON THIS Particular FORUM HERE-IN, ABT ROTTEN AUST BANK THEFT S, from UN -suspecting BORROWERS.. Rememeber, the $ $ s U Borrow, R, just, a FIG,- typed IN, a Computer.. A BIG CON. - THINK ABT it - &, BE ACTIVE &, ASK PPL, abt Same. Only PPL who, - do KNOW. -Not, - 1/2 informed PPL
    KEVINJ
    9th Apr 2018
    3:42pm
    Rmmber CORRUPT "NRG" Prices R Destroying, Every-1''s WEALTH - Savings. NOT CORRUPT POLITICIANS. Bec, They ARE, ALL, a STINKING, EVIL, "LAW", UnTo, Them ROTTEN SELVES.
    A FISH ROT- S,- frm, the HEAD :- a P. M WHO does N O T, IMMEDI instigate 'WAR TIME' EMERG provisions, AGAINST, Andy VESY, "C.E.O",-"Liddell PWR Station, IS CORRUPT, TOO --& a SCUM BAG, U N--FIT as "P. M". ELECTRicity IS, a VITAL, Modern, Necessity -&- Must B E, Protected - I.E, - TakeN O F F, - ANDY VESY, - NOW.- USING, EMERG POWERS.
    KEVINJ
    9th Apr 2018
    4:01pm
    GrayComputing 6 th Apr 2018 9:54 am; " BEST ALL HERE READ, B4 Chance GONE, re- Very corrupt CENTRe--LINK & STYLE OF Aus FED GoVT, Under ALL Recent Times LoonY, "P. M s", INCL, - the "M I S--Named FED WRECKER", - T. ABBOTT..
    ABE
    9th Apr 2018
    8:10pm
    KevinJ, can you break that down a bit mate, looks interesting but I can't read it.
    ABE
    9th Apr 2018
    8:16pm
    A "People's Bank", now that rings a bell. Think we had one of those.
    The UBI encourages laziness and even if one gets a job you still get the UBI, even if you're rich.
    What sense does that make?
    jaycee1
    23rd May 2018
    1:56pm
    Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have a peoples bank?
    Wasn't it sold off and we were promised it would promote cheaper fees because of more competition.
    Wonder what happened there!


    Tags: money, finance, banking,

    Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

    • Receive our daily enewsletter
    • Enter competitions
    • Comment on articles