Talk:Harvester case
Add topicLatest comment: 5 years ago by Find bruce in topic Excise or Tariff?
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Untitled
[edit]Not to quibble too much, but this page should really be at Harvester Judgment. I know that most sources say "Judgement", but since this is a legal judgment, it should be spelt without the e, even in Australian English: . I might move it unless it's going to cause too many problems. --bainer (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am happy to have it at Judgment as the redirect will allow for both. As it is a very commonly referred to Judg(e)ment, also referred to as the Harvester decision and the Harvester Case (Macquarie Encyclopaedia of Australian Events), redirects should be in place to allow it to be found. Both with and without the "e" are in Australian English, though I acknowledge that legal terms seem to prefer without an "e".--A Y Arktos 22:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- redirects created--A Y Arktos 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Excise or Tariff?
[edit]The lede was confusing, I reworded it. But is it about Excises or Tarrifs? The former are usually paid on things like alcohol, the latter to protect from O/S competition. What is it?Tuntable (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Your re-wording was incorrect - it was not a tariff & had nothing to do with protection from O/S competition. It was an excise duty, also known as a tax. The duty was payable on various goods manufactured in Australia - eg the duty on a stripper harvester was £6. If the manufacturer paid a fair and reasonable wage, it did not have to pay the excise duty. --Find bruce (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)