Combet takes lover on $72,000 taxpayer funded junket

[David]

[pietillidie]

[David]

I see where you're coming from and I very much agree on the need for incentive (and its role in generating productivity), but I still think there's an important difference between a) a perk that's actually relevant to the job and/or helps you become a better employee and b) a perk that's just free shit that you get because you're already in a high tax bracket.

I'm not sure if this is a valid economic analogy, but consider the AFL grand final: a substantial percentage of the seats go to corporate fly-ins who've never watched a game of football in their lives and couldn't give a damn who wins. Now, they all got their tickets fair and square as part of corporate packages, and because they get a few more than they need they give them to their mates. Thus, you get a situation where only a minority of actual supporters of the competing clubs get to attend, and many, many more get frozen out both because of the limited seat availability and the inflated prices (which, one might imagine, are set so high because that's the only way that the AFL can make sufficient profit from the event which is already being attended by heaps of people who didn't even have to buy a ticket [and ironically were probably plenty rich enough to afford it]).

What happens when privileges like these are held in all areas of society? You get rampant inequality, for one, and the disenfranchisement that accompanies it.

Of course, I need to remember that it's lower net wages for upper income workers I'm in favour of, not lower gross wages. As you say, allowing people to earn absurd amounts of money is a good thing, so long as they are taxed accordingly. But I think there's slightly more grey area when it comes to these side entitlements, because (for one thing) they are untaxable. It's true that more tax could be taken out to compensate; but it seems to me that, on their own, these perks will still act as a form of hoarding.

[pietillidie]

^No, they've got nothing to do with hoarding. You can't hoard a night in an expensive hotel with your partner or a flight in first class, which is precisely why such things are relatively innocuous. Worry about the intergenerational wealth or miraculous right-place-right-time billions that are used to distort politics.

(I suspect you also might be confusing a very high-end business trip in a very high-end setting with benefits in lieu of salary, something already taxed under the FBT).

You can't force scarce labour to go on business trips in an economy seat any more than you can micromanage how companies choose to run their organisations beyond measures like an FBT and related tax code; this is old ground the tax system is already well aware of. That leaves you to accept a market price for such labour. (Beyond that lies the way of centrally-planned madness).

The tax system of course has to keep up with avoidance measures (IT earnings mischievously clocked in Ireland, anyone?), but that has always been the game, with the alternative being something like a wage ceiling. (Unions deal with floors, with ceilings then left to find their own level with whatever remains).

If organisations have to bargain for suitable talent, that means they have to have competitive terms and conditions. There are no ifs, buts or maybes about it. In this instance, that leaves us to compare Combet's arrangement with his peers of equal standing , skills and responsibilities in private business (whatever that might be, exactly, though IIRC he has a pretty good resume, and his responsibilities in this case were extremely high).

Progressive equalisation is the role of the tax system, and then social service provision, legal access measures, anti-monopoly/competition law, and so on. There's no need to start running organisations for people and setting prices; just get the tax collection right. In other words, we already have the answer.

[3.14159]

I was watching Clive Palmer being interviewed last night.
He mentioned that he is about to embark on an overseas trip to Florida.
He has some business over there (a dinosaur theme park) and that he is a huge fan of JFK and will be attending the Annual JFK fan club nosh up
He is taking the Rick Muir from the motoring enthus' party to show him how the political ropes work (how to enjoy a slap-up tax payer fundeddinner on the other side of the world more like).
It will be tax-payer funded because as Clive said, it's educational.

The age of entitlement is over we are told, yet this wasteful junket (and personal business trip) is all above board.

I would like this "Commission of Audit" to look at trips like this along with ALL the other perks Mps and retired P.M get and do some heavy (relatively) lifting themselves.
But seeing as the Attorney General had his snout in the Bollywoood trough (he decided that as long as he and his LNP mates fessed-up, NO action was to be taken ), I won't be holding my breath.

The Age of entitlement is over, My Arse!

[stui magpie]

Commission of audit or some other independent ongoing oversight body that can't be stuffed around with by the government of the day. These "study" trips are and always have been junkets. I reckon pay them more money and remove most of these "perks". If they want to package up some of their remuneration as PTiddy refers to so they can use it for these overseas jaunts, then fine, it's their money. The public purse should only pay for this travel where it's clearly defined as in the national interest.

Just for interest, Combet's 10 day trip expenses was broken down as follows:

[pietillidie]

^Yes, surely business class is sufficient.

Their argument will be about "networked status". You can't fraternise with people of a certain class and get deals done with them if you're not operating within their class.

But this of course creates a cost arms race and a separate elite class of diplomats who become increasingly detached from the average person.

At the same time, they're partly right; it definitely would blunt their effectiveness because the other elites are almost certainly discriminatory.

[3.14159]

Stui, your employer (sort of), what would you do if you found 1 of your staff had repeatedly taken hospital money for business expenses but had instead gone to participate in oh I don't know, a bike race or an iron man event, friends weddings (several times, once to India) or even used the money to promote a book he'd written, all on an "honour system" (ho ho ho).

Would you sack him?
Or say...well, he's not as bad as some!

[HAL]

Say what?

[3.14159]

I said..."Your audio circuits are malfunctioning"! I'll call some-one!!!

(Deaf as a bloody post).