Page 675 of 755 FirstFirst ... 175575625665674675676685725 ... LastLast
Results 23,591 to 23,625 of 26413

Thread: Oz Politics.

  1. #23591
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Australia and Tasmania
    Posts
    20,091

    Default

    Rick, really? I'm surprised and disappointed.

    Sent from my CPH1851 using Tapatalk

  2. #23592
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,963

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Y View Post
    There's nothing nasty about abortion John. Nasty is middle class middle aged mostly "Christian" white men denying women the right to control their bodies and their futures. The anti abortion lobby disgusts me more than I can civilly express.
    We're not going to agree on that, Phil. It's pretty messy, it's very self-centred, and it does the women no good either. And it's certainly not mainly men who are most against it. Indeed, I think the number of abortions procured because a selfish bloke pressured his previous conquest into it would be pretty high. It's hard to see too many noble motives in play in the abortion industry, on the part of clients or providers, contrary to lying protestations.

    If the other side was only legislating it for incest and rape, I don't think too many people would campaign against it - even though they'd still think it wrong. It just wouldn't get the oxygen.

    But it's not an honest discussion: they say "what about incest and rape???!!!" when they know full well that 99% of abortions are just late-contraception, a very self-centred notion to say the least.

    I should add, I don't campaign against it anyway, and never have. I don't believe in that kind of politics.

    Regards,
    John.
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  3. #23593
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    20,181

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Yes but. I agree that superannuation shouldn't be taxed, up to a point, for the reason you point out. But dividends from shares and income from share transactions is not the same. Company tax has been paid but income tax has not and they are not the same. I could accept an arrangement where company tax has been paid and that is taken into account to some degree but the current system is far too generous at the expense of PAYE employees.

    I don't accept the 'I'll pay tax when Google does' argument. PAYE employees pay the highest proportion of tax and ate the real income stream for the government, as they also pay GST etc etc. Independent trades people, small and large business owners, contractors etc.pay very little tax compared to PAYE employees, due largely to the claims they are able to make against every day items that PAYE earners are unable to claim but, nevertheless, require and pay for. Every scheme that reduces tax fit any particular group or individual, let alone actually increasing income, increases the tax burden on PAYE earners, who are generally not able to creatively reduce their tax.

    How is a factory worker, retail worker etc. going to be able to access the housing market, let alone negative gearing it franking credits in today's environment in Sydney or Melbourne, or Perth, Hobart or Darwin?

    If Google can be made to pay tax then that will help PAYEs. But PAYEs cannot reduce their tax and the country cannot afford them to. If others who can scheme to reduce their tax do so because Google doesn't pay their share then PAYEs will make up the loss and that's not fair.

    Rick

  4. #23594
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    20,181

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Y View Post
    Rick, really? I'm surprised and disappointed.

    Sent from my CPH1851 using Tapatalk
    By what? I'm guessing you mean abortion? Let me clear that up. Of course I believe that it's always a woman's right to choose and abortion should be legal and available and women having abortions should never be harassed by anyone. But, I don't like abortion as a practice. I think as a society we should work a lot harder to render abortion unnecessary. I know how idealistic that sounds but I do believe it's a worthwhile goal to have.

    Am I opposed to abortion? No. Do I like abortion? No. Do I have any right to advise or permit re abortion? No. Do I think we need much better ways of dealing with our young people around lifestyle, drugs etc? I think so. I think that for some people, abortion is a symptom of a broader problem. I also think it's a very invasive procedure and I've known people who feel their life has been diminished by having abortion

    Rick

  5. #23595
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Australia and Tasmania
    Posts
    20,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    We're not going to agree on that, Phil. It's pretty messy, it's very self-centred, and it does the women no good either. And it's certainly not mainly men who are most against it. Indeed, I think the number of abortions procured because a selfish bloke pressured his previous conquest into it would be pretty high. It's hard to see too many noble motives in play in the abortion industry, on the part of clients or providers, contrary to lying protestations.

    If the other side was only legislating it for incest and rape, I don't think too many people would campaign against it - even though they'd still think it wrong. It just wouldn't get the oxygen.

    But it's not an honest discussion: they say "what about incest and rape???!!!" when they know full well that 99% of abortions are just late-contraception, a very self-centred notion to say the least.

    I should add, I don't campaign against it anyway, and never have. I don't believe in that kind of politics.

    Regards,
    John.
    Plenty of couples, of all ages, but more young than old I guess, make the mistake of having sex without contraception. I absolutely think women who get pregnant in those circumstances should have free access to abortion. I suppose the case is even stronger in the case of failed contraception, rape, incest. But maybe not. For me it's as simple as if a pregnant woman doesn't want to have a child she should be free to have an abortion. I think you are right that we will not agree on this.

    Sent from my CPH1851 using Tapatalk

  6. #23596
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,828

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    As you can probably tell, I REALLY hate lies. And the only thing worse than lies, are lies at the expense of the poor and the ordinary battler, and these days that's the entire middle class.

    The Labor Party just got mauled, badly..
    Are you trying to say that the entire middle class in Australia are poor battlers? By quite a few measures they are much better off than in earlier eras. Those who have a significant interest in their home, at least, benefit from vastly superior health care, from owning technology they could never have owned, from being able to fly like earlier generations could only dream of, even having lots of still useful consumer goods.

    Compared to the wealthy the middle class are not doing well, and IMHO that is a bad thing. But that inequality is one of the things Labor was trying to address.

    Oh, and Labor's vote went down by 0.3% more than the Coalition's. How is that a "mauling"? The big change this election seems to be the rise of the Greens in the Senate.

  7. #23597
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,828

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Let me know when one of these servants-of-the-true-rich political parties decides that Google is going to pay tax here.

    Regards,
    John.
    Surely you know that Labor was going to give it a go?

    https://www.afr.com/news/politics/na...0190505-p51k9n


    While on tax - the ANU says that removing franking credits would hurt the rich and not the poor;

    "On franking credits, the analysis says the largest impact in dollar terms and as a percentage of disposable income of Labor’s policy falls on the top 10%.
    The top 10% would, on average, pay $2,641 a year, or 1.1% of disposable income, if Labor wins and franking credits are removed. It says there is “virtually no impact” on low income groups in the bottom half of the income distribution."

    If you are on 260k and can't afford to lose $2641 you should learn to budget better.

  8. #23598
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,828

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post

    The other thing to keep in view is that successive Australian governments, for decades now, have defrauded our retirees of their pension insurance, which has been re-named "the pension" and discussed as "welfare." My father and grandfather both paid 7% income tax as pension insurance, and when that pool became substantial, it was stolen by the federal government and put into general revenue, then the re-labelling occurred and younger people don't know the history.
    John.
    The DSS says it differently. "At the turn of the century there was no social security system in Australia. Charitable relief was provided to needy persons by voluntary organisations, in some cases with the assistance of government grants.

    The main areas of need which attracted charitable assistance were the 'sick poor', neglected children, old people who were destitute and women who had been deserted or who had 'fallen' pregnant. The unemployed were assisted by grants of wages, or rations, in return for relief work provided by the government.

    THE BEGINNINGS

    The Commonwealth of Australia was formed on I January 1901 by federation of the six States under a written constitution which, among other things, authorised the new Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in respect of age and invalid pensions. In the event, the Commonwealth did not exercise this power until June 1908 when legislation providing for the introduction of means-tested 'flat-rate' age and invalid pensions was passed. The new pensions, which were financed from general revenue came into operation in July 1909 and December 1910 respectively, superseding State age pension schemes which had been introduced in New South Wales (1900), Victoria (1900) and Queensland (1908) and an invalid pension scheme introduced in New South Wales (1908).........

    There was a further development of specific relevance to social security in 1945. The Commonwealth split the personal income tax into two components. One, the social services contribution, was to be used exclusively to finance social security cash payments. Revenue from the contribution was paid into the National Welfare Fund, from which all such cash payments were to be made, but there was no link between personal contributions and entitlements. The fund was supplemented by subventions from payroll tax and general revenue. In the event, the social services contribution was again merged into a single personal income tax in 1950. All cash payments are now made direct from general revenue."

    Not only that, YOUR OWN LINK shows that the scheme did not operate as you claimed. Your link says that Chifley's labeling of tax increases during WW2 as a "National Welfare Fund" was a "clever little political ploy" that "made it seem like the Australian tax system was a quasi-contributory and fully-funded insurance program." So your own source refers to the fact that Chifley "made it seem" like an insurance scheme - not that it WAS an insurance scheme. It was, as your own source says "really just a smokescreen for unpopular wartime tax rises on lower income earners."

    So just to say it again, your own source says that your claims are untrue. There was mis-labelling, in the midst of a war when the country needed cash. But there was no theft.



  9. #23599
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    23,975

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    Are you trying to say that the entire middle class in Australia are poor battlers? By quite a few measures they are much better off than in earlier eras. Those who have a significant interest in their home, at least, benefit from vastly superior health care, from owning technology they could never have owned, from being able to fly like earlier generations could only dream of, even having lots of still useful consumer goods.

    Compared to the wealthy the middle class are not doing well, and IMHO that is a bad thing. But that inequality is one of the things Labor was trying to address.

    Oh, and Labor's vote went down by 0.3% more than the Coalition's. How is that a "mauling"? The big change this election seems to be the rise of the Greens in the Senate.
    The rise of the Greens in the Senate? Seriously? They had six senators who were facing the electorate, they look likely to get six. Where's the rise?

    As I have said, time and again, this election would clean out a lot of the crossbench in the Senate. It is exactly what has happened. The big winners in the Senate are the Coalition.

    Meanwhile, Labor's mauling was losing three seats when the ABC were predicting, after the close of the polls that Labor would get 80 or more seats. They've revised that to, ahem, 68 likely

  10. #23600
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,828

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Up 2.6%, probably going to have the balance of power, and no longer sharing the cross benches with a bunch of right wingers.

    If a swing to the Libs of about .5% is considered a victory then a swing of 2.6% has to be considered a larger one.

  11. #23601
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    20,181

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    It's a very disappointing and significant loss but certainly not a mauling anywhere except Queensland. Nationally, there's apparently a 2% difference between Coal and Labor after preferences and both lost primary votes. The irony is that Qld is dependent on four dying industries - coal, cattle, sugar and a bleached reef and seems hell bent on making sure that the most sustainable three die faster. The deep north - all over again!

    Rick

  12. #23602
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    23,975

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    Up 2.6%, probably going to have the balance of power, and no longer sharing the cross benches with a bunch of right wingers.

    If a swing to the Libs of about .5% is considered a victory then a swing of 2.6% has to be considered a larger one.
    With 54% of Senate votes counted. I think you might want to wait a bit before deciding just what the swings are there.

    Here's how the ABC are calling it at the moment... which certainly doesn't support your assertion

    Liberal / National Coalition 33 total seats

    Labor Party 26 total seats

    The Greens 9 total seats

    Centre Alliance 2 total seats

    One Nation 1 total seats

    Australian Conservatives 1 total seats

    Justice Party 0 total seats

    Liberal Democratic Party 0 total seats

    United Australia Party 0 total seats

    Conservative National Party 0 total seats

    Other parties 1 total seats

  13. #23603
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,963

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    [QUOTE]

    So just to say it again, your own source says that your claims are untrue. There was mis-labelling, in the midst of a war when the country needed cash. But there was no theft.


    [/QUOTE]

    My source says exactly what I asserted, except for the rather breathtaking assertion that the entire thing was a scam. So Chifley lied, everybody believed him, the rest of the pollies went along with it, the taxpayers meekly paid up thinking that they were funding their retirement, and then the fund grew huge and Menzies grabbed it.

    I asked my father last week about it, and he immediately answered, “7 per cent.” He’s 77. So, as I said, all of them are liars. I get that nobody should have believed the bastards to begin with, but it’s a FACT that they did.

    I said, in the early nineties, that super sounds great but when it’s big enough the government will grab it. Here we are today, a quarter of a century later, and I am arguing with people who think that’s a good thing.

    Sorry, but I think you’re sucked in by people that no adult should ever believe.
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  14. #23604
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,963

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Here’s something just as interesting that more of us will likely appreciate.

    https://harpers.org/archive/2019/06/...agon-syndrome/
    http://fairmaid.blogspot.com.au/

    "It's dawning on me that I should have worked out the tumbler details more in advance, rather than rely on bluster and over confidence. But that's just silly." Jim Ledger.

  15. #23605
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Above flood level, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    18,355

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    So, tax is paid [...] on company earnings, and the shareholders have therefore paid their tax on that money.
    Dividends and profit are not the same thing, nor are they taxed similarly, and earnings are the aggregated amount from which both are drawn, which may, or may not be taxed depending on the profit of the company, and its financial structure. Earnings are often offset by companies against supposed losses, sometimes via complex international "loans" from other parts of the same corporation based in tax havens, so they appear not to make a profit at all and don't pay dividends either. I actually think there should be a flat Tobin tax of 50% on all money transfers to a tax haven.

    Besides, any accountant actually worth their salt will tell you not to make an important decision for your income based on a tax concession. What happens to all those self-funded retirees who might lose the lot if their shares go belly up and the supposedly reliable dividends fail to materialise? No franking credit refund! Whoops! Appears to be a stupid strategy unless you're rich and are able to afford a spread of shares... And then you get the franking credit 'refund' on tax you didn't actually pay. Getting money for nothing sounds like a rort to me.

    I think Labor's scheme does need to address those on the lower end of retirement income - notionally $50k or less - and grandfather the franking credits, but no more new ones.

    The rest can sit and swivel on the spot that the middle and upper class welfare stool once occupied.
    Jarndyce and Jarndyce

    The Mighty Pippin
    Mirror 30141
    Looe
    Dragon KA93

  16. #23606
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    3,035

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Rick
    Above you say the issue on imputation is a return of tax when you pay no tax, which is the dishonest way in which Chris Bowen framed this debate. I wish to give you an example, my good wife.
    On her tax return under income she writes two figures. These are the dividends she has received, 24,000 and the tax paid on her behalf, or imputed to her, about 10285. These are added together, and against total income we write 34285. Bloody interesting that at this point the government regards this as your income, but as we will see in a minute, part of it is about to turn into a gift from the government.
    How much tax should be paid on 34285? About 3500. But Chris Bowen says we’ll take your 3500 as tax, oh and by the way the other part of the 10285 isn’t income anymore, that was only on the first page in case you had any other income and we could hit you up for a bit more.
    i can’t tell you how often she has nearly bricked the television in the last few weeks when accused of not paying tax, being called a cane toad etc etc.
    interestingly, the fact that when she was still working she had to pay a top up to her marginal rate is never brought up.

    Now for me. I have a small amount in an SMSF. From this I get tax free income stream of less than my wife by quite a bit. Under Bowen’s plan I would lose some cash refund of imputation too because I am an evil SMSF person who pays no tax. But it turns out that this is absolutely no problem. All I have to do is shift it into an industry fund and my imputation credit magically reappears in my pocket. So it’s not how much super you have, but where you have it that counts.

    Here’s where it gets interesting in the Labor narrative. Asked why non taxpayers (retirees) in the industry fund get the benefit and the SMSF member does not, the terminally moronic Bowen answers “because the industry fund pays tax”. So when I shift my money to the industry fund the reason The fund can give me my cash refund back is because My imputation credits reduce the amount of tax that the industry fund pays by exactly the same amount. Tell me where is that 6 billion extra tax coming from again? It’s a ZERO SUM zero sum game baby. Could the government not just do this in there head and save us all the problem of having to bugger around shifting the money? Imagine losing an election over faulty arithmetic. The only money they were ever going to raise from this was from people like my wife with some shares stuck outside super and no other income.

    Of course Bowen is not moronic. He knew exactly that this was the case, but knew he could spin it to the masses as a divisive class warfare tale. He did a lot of lying about it. Poor old peanut head just repeated what he was told by Bowen and now he’s getting all the blame. Meanwhile Bowen thinks he might be a good leader. Sorry to see that he sucked you in too.

    Duncan is absolutely right about the risks involved in owning only shares. This is why the average SMSF has approximately 30% in shares, some bonds, some hybrids, and 20% cash and fixed deposit earning just about nothing, but there to top up the shares after a big fall. This is also why a couple with 1,000,000 in SMSF and therefore no pension are not very well off. Of course they can spend the million down a bit, but not early in retirement. And of course if they spend it down they become eligible for part pension, which is not what the government ought to want.
    Last edited by shamus; 05-20-2019 at 05:00 PM.

  17. #23607
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Melb, Vic, Aus
    Posts
    669

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Not sure where to post this so will stick it here as it gives some insight into the state of the building industry.
    I just ordered a mobile skip bin from a company I have used for years. He only has 2 jobs on today. Same every day. One year ago he said, they had 12-14 a day. Things are slowing down. Big time!!

  18. #23608
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    20,181

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Hi Shamus, nice to hear from you and I hope all's well? As I said above, I think there should be a concessional arrangement for company tax paid but the taxation system is full of anomalies that some government must address at some point. I'm neither an apologist for or supporter of Labor but I didn't see any Labor person anywhere demonizing any retirees. I saw a bucketload of lies from the PM and others about Labor and the Greens.

    Rick

  19. #23609
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    20,181

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    It should also be understood that Industry Super is, like share dividends, based on profits derived from investments and super income is an after-tax payment like share dividends. Why then don't recipients of Industry Super also then receive a tax return based on tax paid by the relevant investments? That would be fair ...
    but also unaffordable.

    In my view, everyone should pay tax on all income, no exceptions. In that way we'd all pay less tax but that's just too idealistic to even hope for. Like hoping to see the population wake up to what's really being done to this once beautiful world.

    Rick

  20. #23610
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    30,899

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    We're not going to agree on that, Phil. It's pretty messy, it's very self-centred, and it does the women no good either. And it's certainly not mainly men who are most against it. Indeed, I think the number of abortions procured because a selfish bloke pressured his previous conquest into it would be pretty high. It's hard to see too many noble motives in play in the abortion industry, on the part of clients or providers, contrary to lying protestations.

    If the other side was only legislating it for incest and rape, I don't think too many people would campaign against it - even though they'd still think it wrong. It just wouldn't get the oxygen.

    But it's not an honest discussion: they say "what about incest and rape???!!!" when they know full well that 99% of abortions are just late-contraception, a very self-centred notion to say the least.

    I should add, I don't campaign against it anyway, and never have. I don't believe in that kind of politics.

    Regards,
    John.
    Then you would have to be in favour of funded post birth health and welfare support services. If a life is valued in the womb it has to have equal value outside of it.
    The social contract that bestows authority ó both moral and legal ó on our political leaders is struck on the trust that they know what they are doing and will always act in our best interests:

  21. #23611
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Melb, Vic, Aus
    Posts
    669

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    I have no proof of what I'm about to say... but il say it anyway
    what if Labour was "told" how to run there confusing campaign and, knowing the electorate the nlp wher "told" how to run theirs in the usual fear mode thus ensuring a win?
    If the "Russians" where meddling in the U.S. elections you can be sure as high water there are outside influences dictating the outcomes of these so called elections to further their outcomes.
    Just a thought....

  22. #23612
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    23,975

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Now that Rupert has done his job, I might start posting some C&Ps from leftie rags. Here's a good one from The Age:

    On Sunday morning, many Australians found themselves staring into their morning coffee wondering at what point the Labor Party lost the unlosable election. Betting agencies had paid in favour of a Labor win days in advance; even the Liberal leader called the election win a miracle.

    I am a young, female, Victorian, inner city dweller, but I made the decision to give my vote to the Liberal Party, as I have since the 2013 election, the first time I voted. However, the elation I experienced on Sunday morning over the Liberal win was short-lived.



    AC Griffiths voted for the Liberal Party and has no regrets.

    According to social media, I: am scared, uneducated, a bigot, should be ashamed, have condemned this planet to burn, pathetic, not a feminist, probably hate gays, hate minorities, and probably want to stop women having access to abortions.

    Wandering around the streets of Melbourne on this unseasonably warm Sunday, I felt many negative emotions but no regret about the ballot I cast. Instead, I was sad that many people saw Liberal voters as a negative influence on this country.


    I would like our nation to take a collective deep breath and hear me out, please. I would like to remind Australians of policies and laws that the "right" have enacted. In hope it might quell the fear experienced in the present.

    The political triumphs listed below are not in order of importance or year, but rather a reflection of how progressive the Australian conservative political party has been and can be.

    The United Australia Party under Herbert Payne made voting compulsory; Australia is among only a handful of nations where voting is mandatory.
    Under the Menzies administration in 1962, voting rights were extended to Indigenous Australians. Granted this was horribly late, but that was an indictment on the nation not the conservative party.

    Harold Holt deserves a notable mention; in 1967 he held a referendum on the right for Indigenous Australians to be counted in the census. The Liberal Party was also the first political party to have an Indigenous person in Parliament. Neville Bonner joined the Senate and served in the Liberal Party for 12 years.

    Malcolm Fraser established SBS, accepted Vietnamese refugees after the war and strongly apposed apartheid.



    Aboriginal activist Faith Bandler at Town Hall during the 1967 referendum, held by Harold Holt's government.CREDIT:GEORGE LIPMAN

    This may be a little known fact but John Gorton introduced a parliamentary motion from the Opposition supporting the legalisation of same-gender sexual relations. John Howard enacted reform on guns.

    Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Liberal Party passed laws legalising gay marriage. Many will say there was an issue with the process but, as it stands, the "right" side of government passed the bill on same-sex marriage not the "left".

    The Australian "right" has passed nation-changing laws that were not part of its mandate as a conservative party. It did so because the Liberal and Nationals coalition understands what is right for Australia. On countless occasions the "right" of Australia has followed a moral compass and passed legislation more progressive then the "left" in many other countries.



    Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser welcomed Vietnamese refugees into Australia. CREDIT:THE AGE

    To every Greens or Labor or other minor party supporter who feels saddened or disenfranchised by the Saturday election, these facts are for you. We who voted for the Coalition did not vote out of fear, nor naivety, bigotry or anger. Rather, we voted with our hearts for a party that will do the right thing on social issues, but which can also lead a country through a challenging time economically.

    Labor supporters, I am sorry you were left blindsided and heartbroken. In time you will heal and I am sure rally around your new leader. But, for now, gain heart from these facts because the members of the Coalition are not monsters, rather they are Australia's preference for a third term.

    AC Griffiths is a Melbourne voter.


  23. #23613
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    3,035

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Rick, the industry funds and their retired members absolutely do receive the full benefit of imputation. It is just that they have many members in accumulation phase on whose contributions 15% tax is paid. The fund pays tax as a whole entity. So rather than getting the benefit as a cash back, they get it as less contribution tax paid. The imputation benefit reduces this amount and each memberís account is better off by the amount of imputation applicable. That is why the answer for me would be to move to an industry fund where I could still cash in my imputation. Bowen couldnít come up with a plan which would affect industry fund members or he would be crucified, so his plan was directed specifically at SMSFs who are only allowed 4 members. Theoretically, I could also bring in a couple of my kids to the SMSF which would have the same effect, but the objects of investment for young people is different from retirees and I wouldnít want the responsibility.

  24. #23614
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    3,035

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Oh, and Rick everything is fine thank you. I’m spending my days vegetable gardening, making tons of compost, watching eagles, and trying to give my boat away to an appropriate owner.

  25. #23615
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    4,362

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    The poor, they're usually called.
    Oh come on Aquinian, do you really believe that?
    The poor are not known for their investment portfolios. Retired investors are.
    It's all fun and games until Darth Vader comes.

  26. #23616
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    23,975

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by gypsie View Post
    Oh come on Aquinian, do you really believe that?
    The poor are not known for their investment portfolios. Retired investors are.
    Let's not forget how many retired blue collar workers received AMP shares and IAG (NRMA) shares.

    The bigger issue, that you lefties are ignoring, is that Bowen was creating two classes of taxpayer. You didn't need to be a shareholder to be scared of that. Labor came out and confirmed people's fears... yes, we will raise new taxes, yes we are going to be spending a LOT of money. Rip - vote gone.

  27. #23617
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    23,975

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by shamus View Post
    Oh, and Rick everything is fine thank you. Iím spending my days vegetable gardening, making tons of compost, watching eagles, and trying to give my boat away to an appropriate owner.
    I gave my boat to an appropriate new owner... ex navy guy. He's apparently done good work, but part of the deal was that the genset was to come out and go to a couple with a profoundly disabled infant. That hasn't happened... so the portholes and teak are going to that couple instead. They will raise enough via ebay to buy a new genset.

  28. #23618
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    20,181

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by shamus View Post
    Rick, the industry funds and their retired members absolutely do receive the full benefit of imputation. It is just that they have many members in accumulation phase on whose contributions 15% tax is paid. The fund pays tax as a whole entity. So rather than getting the benefit as a cash back, they get it as less contribution tax paid. The imputation benefit reduces this amount and each member’s account is better off by the amount of imputation applicable. That is why the answer for me would be to move to an industry fund where I could still cash in my imputation. Bowen couldn’t come up with a plan which would affect industry fund members or he would be crucified, so his plan was directed specifically at SMSFs who are only allowed 4 members. Theoretically, I could also bring in a couple of my kids to the SMSF which would have the same effect, but the objects of investment for young people is different from retirees and I wouldn’t want the responsibility.
    Thanks Shamus, that's interesting. I'm a gonna need to do some exploration of that. A tax system must be fair - to all.

    Rick

  29. #23619
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    20,181

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by shamus View Post
    Oh, and Rick everything is fine thank you. Iím spending my days vegetable gardening, making tons of compost, watching eagles, and trying to give my boat away to an appropriate owner.
    If only I'd been more patient! All the best to you and yours and glad to hear you're doing alright over there.

    Rick

  30. #23620
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    30,899

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by shamus View Post
    Oh, and Rick everything is fine thank you. I’m spending my days vegetable gardening, making tons of compost, watching eagles, and trying to give my boat away to an appropriate owner.
    Hi Shamus a while back I suggested raising the tax free threshold to $30,000. Just wondering what you think of that idea?
    The social contract that bestows authority ó both moral and legal ó on our political leaders is struck on the trust that they know what they are doing and will always act in our best interests:

  31. #23621
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    20,181

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by shamus View Post
    Oh, and Rick everything is fine thank you. Iím spending my days vegetable gardening, making tons of compost, watching eagles, and trying to give my boat away to an appropriate owner.
    And I forgot to ask - will you replace the boat with that raft?

    Rick

  32. #23622
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    30,899

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    The social contract that bestows authority ó both moral and legal ó on our political leaders is struck on the trust that they know what they are doing and will always act in our best interests:

  33. #23623
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    3,035

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    I don’t know about 30000 for a tax free threshold. It would have meant that I wouldn’t have paid much tax ever as I rarely earned more than 38000. The only reason I have ended up with a few bob in my pocket now is i’m A tight bastard and have never done any travelling or holidaying and I was extremely lucky to get a roof over my head when I was very young. It was a dump then and still is now, but it saved me a lot of mortgage payments or rent.

    personally i’m A great supporter of a universal income of 18000. The rich will pay most of it back in tax and the poor can keep it and do whatever else they want to without reporting their every movement to Centrelink. Probably just about pay for it out of what you saved on Centrelink computers and call centres. I believe it would save many suicides among depressed young people who are the last in the world to be in the right frame of mind to deal with those pricks.

    i’m also In favour of higher taxes for large super accounts. At present amounts over 1.6 Mill are taxed at 15% even after retirement. I believe that should scale up and be 30% at 4 million, which would completely remove franking benefits at that level, which I believe is enough for even a doctor or lawyer to retire in the manner to which they are accustomed.

    i’m also in favour with somebody starting a political party with the sole aim of making random adjustments to pollies super arrangements, so the buggers know how it feels.

    that’s about all i’ve Got.
    Last edited by shamus; 05-20-2019 at 09:51 PM.

  34. #23624
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    3,035

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Rick, what raft was that? It rings a slight bell, but I can’t quite pin it down.

  35. #23625
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    58,787

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    "i’m also in favour with somebody starting a political party with the sole aim of making random adjustments to pollies super arrangements, so the buggers know how it feels."

    G'day Shamus, nice to hear you are well.

    I agree with the above but the pollies will never give up the power, and frankly I don't think that even with mathematical proof it would fly. If it was to it would have to be a Conservative government that brings it in, like many of these things. Otherwise it gets lost in partisan crap where the answer is always no because no means you don't have to make any decisions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •