Page 698 of 762 FirstFirst ... 198598648688697698699708748 ... LastLast
Results 24,396 to 24,430 of 26670

Thread: Oz Politics.

  1. #24396
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    30,240

    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.
    Trump, a man who can't hold a coherent thought till the end of the sentence.

  2. #24397
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Melb, Vic, Aus
    Posts
    670

    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....

  3. #24398
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    58,673

    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.

    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  4. #24399
    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 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.

  5. #24400
    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.

  6. #24401
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    4,031

    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.

  7. #24402
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    58,673

    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.
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  8. #24403
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Livin' in the Golden Triangle
    Posts
    58,673

    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.
    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.
    "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome and charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" Mark Twain... so... Carpe the living sh!t out of the Diem

  9. #24404
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    19,295

    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

  10. #24405
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    19,295

    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.
    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

  11. #24406
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    30,240

    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?
    Trump, a man who can't hold a coherent thought till the end of the sentence.

  12. #24407
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    19,295

    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.
    And I forgot to ask - will you replace the boat with that raft?

    Rick

  13. #24408
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    30,240

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Trump, a man who can't hold a coherent thought till the end of the sentence.

  14. #24409
    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.

  15. #24410
    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.

  16. #24411
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    56,851

    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.

  17. #24412
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    3,035

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Oh one other thing. Have you ever read the pollies declarations of investments. Lots of both sides with multiple multiple properties, so no wonder they wanted to grandfather that little lurk. I hate grandfathering. I believe if you want to change something and it’s too hard to do in one hit it should be done in small increments over a long period to give everyone a chance to adjust, but should apply to all, except maybe if you’re over eighty. It would work for things as varied as negative gearing and irrigation water rights.

  18. #24413
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    3,035

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Hi Jeff, you too I hope.
    i need to get off this thing. I thought I had broken the addiction completely, but already i’m Feeling the Urge to Conquer all the Problems of the Universe from the vantage point of The Bilge.

  19. #24414
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    4,031

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    ..... it would have to be a Conservative government that brings it in,.....
    Conservatives will never do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing.
    They'll only do it when its absolutely clear they'll loose power if they don't - like marriage equality.
    Until then they'll wreck and wreck and wreck. Like the ETS, they'll roll it back when they have the chance.

    It's depressing. Canavan on the radio this morning banging on about coal coal coal. Jeesh! no attempt to bring his electorate through the inevitable change ahead. No attempt to talk about the mining opportunities in rare minerals required for solar panels or batteries, no sense of the entire industry that could be rolled out in Queensland, which is particularly well placed - just coal coal coal.
    It's all fun and games until Darth Vader comes.

  20. #24415
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    3,035

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Let me try to cheer you up. From “Australia’s National Greenhouse Accounts 2016”
    From 2005 to 2016, there is some progress.
    NSW -18.7%
    QLD -14%
    VIC -10.8%
    WA. + 20.4%
    SA -22.1%
    NT + 27.6%
    TAS -100%. Yay we’re sequestering. Send your Cheques care of me.
    ACT + 24.6%

  21. #24416
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat - Australia
    Posts
    4,031

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Go Tassie!!
    It's all fun and games until Darth Vader comes.

  22. #24417
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    19,295

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by shamus View Post
    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.
    Ah, it's so refreshing to see you here Shamus! I think you know I agree with all that.

    The raft you are going to sit on and while away the days. Okay, it was a few years ago but you should still do it! But take the whiling away veeery slowly please.

    Rick

  23. #24418
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    South Australia and Tasmania
    Posts
    19,008

    Default

    Hi Shamus. I agree too. Just sensible. Aren't pollies now, at least the new ones, just on compulsory super like the rest of us? Although I think the public service, or some public employers, still offer very generous co contribution arrangements.

    Sent from my CPH1851 using Tapatalk

  24. #24419
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,945

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    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.
    Have I so much as hinted at opposing these things, Gary?
    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.

  25. #24420
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,945

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    Surely you know that Labor was going to give it a go?

    https://www.afr.com/news/politics/na...0190505-p51k9n
    Good on them. But forgive my cynicism, I'll believe it when it happens. My prediction is that it won't, it will all get too hard and technical and all that, and the problem will remain unsolved. Because, you know, the rich know how to game these things.

    A more sensible policy would be a flat tax rate, across the board, no deductions, like it or lump it (and of course a threshold of $20k or maybe even $30k). That way at least the rich would pay, there would be no technicalities to exploit. Likewise on foreign companies. Tax them on turnover, if you have to. The key is simplicity. Without that, you will lose.


    Quote Originally Posted by Chris249 View Post
    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.
    Sure, but your source doesn't say that "removing franking credits would hurt the rich and not the poor." It says that the poor won't be hit as hard, in dollar terms or percentage terms. Great, so if you only receive a few thousand a year in dividends, to supplement your pathetically low super income, and you're not on the pension, you lose, but that's OK because the higher-income people are losing more. There's "virtually no impact" on these people, because their pathetically low income will "only" go down by a small amount. Heartless, really.

    The problem remains that we're not talking about somebody dodging tax, or hiding income, or whatever. We're talking about old people who were given a set of rules by which to plan their retirement, and they followed them, and now we're looking at the successful ones and saying, hey, you don't need that much income, we'll change the deal and take some of it. Because, you know, justice isn't a principle, it's a rhetorical nicety we roll out when we're selling something.

    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.

  26. #24421
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,945

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by shamus View Post
    personally i’m A great supporter of a universal income of 18000.
    Me too. I have been proposing that since around 1986. I have been surprised and gratified to see it being trialled around the world in recent years.

    Quote Originally Posted by shamus View Post
    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.
    Excellent suggestion. But your super changes have to be from now on, not affecting the deal already agreed with the current retirees when they were working. Anything else is unjust.

    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.

  27. #24422
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia, Australia
    Posts
    1,945

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by shamus View Post
    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.

    Thanks Shamus, I think you eloquently made the points I have been trying to make! Gratitude! (And I'm happy for you that Bowan's plan won't be happening.)

    Cheers,
    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.

  28. #24423
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    19,295

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Y View Post
    Hi Shamus. I agree too. Just sensible. Aren't pollies now, at least the new ones, just on compulsory super like the rest of us? Although I think the public service, or some public employers, still offer very generous co contribution arrangements.

    Sent from my CPH1851 using Tapatalk
    They are. I don't know of any generous super schemes for public servants now except that some very senior public servants are on negotiated packages, as in private enterprise, so it's likely there are some.

    Rick

  29. #24424
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    3,035

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    That’s correct although I believe at 15%. So what I want is the sort of randomness that suddenly says 5 years after they retire- “sorry, we buggered up, that was too much”.

  30. #24425
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    30,240

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Have I so much as hinted at opposing these things, Gary?
    Just checking a lot lot of pro lifers are only concerned about the unborn.
    Trump, a man who can't hold a coherent thought till the end of the sentence.

  31. #24426
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    30,240

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Haven't checked the source but apparently scomo has already dropped one of his tax cut promises.
    Trump, a man who can't hold a coherent thought till the end of the sentence.

  32. #24427
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Tassie
    Posts
    3,035

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Chris, I don’t know what that anu study was looking at, sometimes I think academics are....
    Anyway, I can assure you that the figures I quoted for my wife are about right- that is she reports a total income of 34250 on her tax return, on which the tax should be about 3000 or 3500 I think ( I haven’t bothered looking that up).
    Mr Bowen was planning to let her keep 24000. That’s a loss of around 7000 after paying the right amount of tax.

  33. #24428
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    19,295

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Shamus, this from RMIT (ABC Factcheck) . I couldn't remember earlier where it was:

    Opposition Leader Bill Shorten also promised self-managed superannuation funds with at least one pensioner or allowance recipient before March 28, 2018 would be exempt.

    The PBO estimated this iteration of the policy would improve the budget position by $10.7 billion over the four-year budget period — about $700 million less than its original announcement.

    Almost two-thirds of this revenue, or $6.9 billion, would come from superannuation funds, with the remainder ($3.8 billion) collected from individuals.
    https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-...olicy/10626204

    If we accept that a slightly less blunt tool is used, and some phasing in/out is introduced, isn't that closer to what you think would be fairer?

    Rick

  34. #24429
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Above flood level, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    18,329

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquinian View Post
    Good on them. But forgive my cynicism, I'll believe it when it happens. My prediction is that it won't, it will all get too hard and technical and all that, and the problem will remain unsolved. Because, you know, the rich know how to game these things.

    A more sensible policy would be a flat tax rate, across the board, no deductions, like it or lump it (and of course a threshold of $20k or maybe even $30k). That way at least the rich would pay, there would be no technicalities to exploit. Likewise on foreign companies. Tax them on turnover, if you have to. The key is simplicity. Without that, you will lose.
    A flat tax, even with a threshold, is highly regressive, ineffective and inefficient. It would also lead to a budget shortfall.



    Sure, but your source doesn't say that "removing franking credits would hurt the rich and not the poor." It says that the poor won't be hit as hard, in dollar terms or percentage terms. Great, so if you only receive a few thousand a year in dividends, to supplement your pathetically low super income, and you're not on the pension, you lose, but that's OK because the higher-income people are losing more. There's "virtually no impact" on these people, because their pathetically low income will "only" go down by a small amount. Heartless, really.

    The problem remains that we're not talking about somebody dodging tax, or hiding income, or whatever. We're talking about old people who were given a set of rules by which to plan their retirement, and they followed them, and now we're looking at the successful ones and saying, hey, you don't need that much income, we'll change the deal and take some of it. Because, you know, justice isn't a principle, it's a rhetorical nicety we roll out when we're selling something.
    I agree with this generally. Again, and with reference to the above issue on tax rates, not having an income threshold for the policy has the same lack of moral imperative as having a flat tax rate: As income's become smaller the impact on the cost of living of a flat tax becomes greater. So I do think existing SFRs below a certain income threshold should be grandfathered as part of the policy, and maybe there can be a bracket above them too. But I uphold that new entries to the existing tax system for franking credits should be stopped, so that anyone who thought that free taxpayer money might be a nice kicker off the back of a healthy share portfolio, can look elsewhere.

    I doubt I'll even retire. I think I'd explode if I couldn't design something!
    Jarndyce and Jarndyce

    The Mighty Pippin
    Mirror 30141
    Looe
    Dragon KA93

  35. #24430
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    19,295

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    I doubt it's possible to come up with a simple solution to tax or a simple tax system that actually works for everyone. There've been some pretty clever people working on it and all sorts of solutions have been proposed but, nothing really gets through because there's always someone affected. There are people affected now but it seems most voters don't think that's a problem. Howard showed the way, of course - introduce a change to taxation by promising you won't do it before the election and then implement it once you have won the election. And then make sure your party spends the rest of eternity accusing everyone else of dishonesty. Consumption tax is about the most regressive tax it's possible to have. It has the greatest impact on lower income PAYE employees who are already major contributors through income tax and are the group that is least able to minimise tax.

    A lot of low-income voters, PAYE voters, voted against Labor this time. They did not stand to lose pretty much anything under Labor's proposed changes. So, if Labor's campaign was so dishonest and the Coal parties' campaign wasn't, why did so many vote that way?

    Labor ran a pretty dishonest campaign last time and nearly toppled Turnbull, achieving a really massive swing. This time Labor ran a relatively honest and open campaign (relatively) while Coal ran a really dishonest campaign, but lost the election and more seats. The lesson seems to be there but I hope they don't learn it too well.

    Aaaaanyway, one day soon, a government is going to have to make changes to taxation related to franking credits as it's going to become a big item on the accounts. So, how will that happen, I wonder?

    Rick

Posting Permissions

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