-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Hugo said:
So the ALP (party of the workers) thinks 150k is a "high" income and the LNP (party of the employers) reckons 80k is? Topsy turvey world.
KnightersRevenge said:
What % of people need to be earning it (the income) for it to be 'high'?
Less than 20% of individuals earn more than $80,000.
What income cap do you think the levy should start at?
Btw I think the levy is lazy policy and would prefer other options.
bullus_hit said:
You do understand that in most cases you need to hold shares for 45 days in order to claim the franking credit?
And that capital losses can only be offset against capital gains?
And that buying shares just prior to dividend and selling them in the days (?) soon after involves the risk that the price falls significantly more than the amount of the dividend? And that you may end up paying tax on the dividend (because you cannot claim the imp credits) whilst making a cash loss on the whole transaction?
bullus_hit said:
Where did I suggest the gap is narrowing? How can it possibly narrow? Maybe there should be some sort of gap" or robin hood tax? Is that the sort of income redistribution you would like to see?
I would hope that companies who are illegally operating get the book thrown at them.
Would you want Gina's life that goes with the billions? No thanks.
mld said:
x2.
Im middle-class and mystery bonuses appear in my bank all the time with weird descriptors like 'school kids bonus', 'carbon tax offset bonus' and 'here, have two grand'
Obviously, im not going to post it back. They'de just put it towards a new water jump for New England Girl's Equestrian centre.
BUT I DONT NEED IT!
I try my best to redistribute it to people who need it. Give homeless people $5 notes, autodeducts to green/refugee groups, FTF, stuff like that. but despite my best intentions, I'd end up spending a fair bit at Dan Murphys.
Howard got us all hooked on MCW. That's a fact.
Hugo said:
http://www.afr.com/p/business/chanticleer/dividend_washing_costs_ato_big_money_PZuu5KCEv5WXbTgF5aZ9sL
Hugo said:
No, I'm not remotely interested in Gina Rinehart's life but I find it perverse that a woman worth 28 billion dollars is immune from giving something back to the Australian people. You may call it a Robin Hood tax, I call it a tax which benefits all Australians and not just a select few. Rinehart didn't put the minerals in the ground, they belong to us all. And it really gets on my goat that she is pushing for more cheap foreign labour, something which Abbott is aiding and abetting in order to score some more brownie points. Anyone who thinks Rinehart is motivated by the national interest is delusional, she couldn't even give a toss about her own family, and had it not been for a poorly drafted licensing arrangement gifted to Lang Hancock, she wouldn't even be in the position she is today.
I just don't understand the logic behind taxing the bejesus out of middle Australia when a mining tax would have done most of the heavy lifting. Are people really that dumb or are they so beholden to partisan politics that they are willing to shoot themselves in the foot to protect the interests of the ruling class?
bullus_hit said:
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I note it was an April 2013 article and it was flagged it would be looked at, has anything been done yet?
I also note that it appears there is still the risk of holding the shares for the initial 45 days (ie you need to buy them at least 45 days before the dividend) I wonder if any have been burnt in holding them for this period ie like prior to the GFC crash? It appears to me there is still the risk that in that 45 day period the value of the investment decreases by more than the dividend.
bullus_hit said:
So the middle class receives too much welfare but the minute they are taxed there is an outcry?
I understand there have to be cutoffs for all sorts of things, determining what they should be is obvioulsy very subjective.
Hugo said:
I doubt the risk outweighs the benefits. Here's an exert from the article -
"The actual dividend franking credits claimed in Australia can be broken down into individuals $10.9 billion, super funds $1.1 billion, self managed super funds $1.5 billion and trusts $7.8 billion.
Based on those numbers and the recent activity in Telstra and CBA, it is possible that in a full year dividend washing would be costing the federal budget multi-billion dollars worth of franking credits that should not have been used."
Hugo said:
Again, you are dodging and weaving around my point. Mining tax versus a general tax on the middle class. Which would you prefer?
it is probably telling that noone is shocked that after going to the election 'promising' no new taxes, Abbott is now introducing a new tax.
regardless of his policies, i cannot believe there are people out there who could actually support him as a politician. a vote for Abbott at the next election is a vote for pollies to talk whatever crap they can to get elected. the exact behaviour people continually complain about.
regardless of his policies, i cannot believe there are people out there who could actually support him as a politician. a vote for Abbott at the next election is a vote for pollies to talk whatever crap they can to get elected. the exact behaviour people continually complain about.
Hugo said:
No, I don't think you are being selfish at all, just being rational about your own financial situation and the people that rely upon your disposable income. Contrary to the belief that mining has been our sole white knight, it still only accounts for 10% of GDP, the wider economy also stands to lose from Abbott's razor gang approach. Personally, I don't mind contributing extra tax if I can see that it is being put to good use, building instead of dismantling, creating jobs instead of spending billions on non-means tested welfare. The culture of entitlement is still alive and well but it can also be found in many areas of the corporate world, this is where Abbott is backing himself into a corner. It's a 'do as I say, not as I do' approach and it will cost him dearly. But you never know, such poor management may ultimately pave the way for Malcolm Turnbull to cede power, that can only be good for Australia IMO.
Brodders17 said:
Gillard did the same mate. Unfortunately they are all the same. At least Abbott's intentions are noble trying to fix a tragic debt level that has been created by a previous dysfunctional government, gillard's only reason for being deceptive and introducing the disgraceful useless carbon tax that achieves zero objectives were so she could keep the greens happy and keep her government in parliament. Fair bit different in my opinion. One for the good of the country (ie Abbott), the other to try to keep the greens happy.
shawry said:
I can see you've swallowed the Coalition propaganda hook, line and sinker. The first furphy is that we are perilously in debt, Australia has one of the lowest debt levels in the western world. We have a AAA rated credit rating and we were one of the few developed nations that successfully navigated it's way through the global financial crisis unscathed. Wayne Swan was also nominated as treasurer of the year on the back of his decisive response to the crisis. But even if the scaremongering about debt were true, how can any rational person advocate the repealing of the mining tax but cheer on a 26 billion dollar maternity leave scheme? I find some of the hypocrisy to be breathtaking. But of course you will be picking up the tab in some form, so I guess your unrequited love for Tony Abbott will come at a price.
As for the carbon tax being useless, I take it you believe climate change is some green conspiracy so there's little point even discussing it. You may even be shocked to hear that India will soon be introducing their own carbon tax to go with New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, Norway, Canada, the US. South Korea, Taiwan, Costa Rica, and South Africa.
As for it's effectiveness, it drove emissions down by 7% in the electricity sector, where it didn't work was in areas exempt from the tax, the coal industry being one such culprit. This is the very reason why Direct Action Plans are a complete and utter waste of time. The fact that no economist advocates such a policy should speak volumes, but then again Abbott thinks climate change is crap, hence the reason he appointed sceptic *smile* Warburton as his chief policy maker.
But I won't waste anymore time on this discussion, if people don't get the message after record breaking summer after record breaking summer, then there's little that can be said or done to make the penny drop.
The carbon tax wasn't useless. It was symbollically extremely important, by being an initial step to stop the ability to pollute for free, (thats pollute for free), but surprisingly, it was effective in reducing carbon emissions much quicker than anyone thought, even its biggest supporters.
If you think the carbon tax was useless, you think air pollution is good or OK. Full stop. Own it.
Repealing the CT is the dumbest policy move I've ever seen, easy.
If you think the carbon tax was useless, you think air pollution is good or OK. Full stop. Own it.
Repealing the CT is the dumbest policy move I've ever seen, easy.
shawry said:
The country is still *smile* from Howard. He pissed the mining boom $$ up against the wall via handouts to people who didn't need handouts so they'd keep voting for him. Hooked the population on Government dough and fostered the national sense of entitlement. Stuffed us for 20-30 years at least. The Rudd/ Gillard Govts were structurally disfunctional for sure, but policy-wise they were trying to play catch-up, which when considering the Howard legacy, put them on a hiding to nothing
tigersnake said:
There are a lot of things that the Libs are doing that I don't agree with the first one is the over generous paid maternity scheme. The second one is the mining tax being removed. They should improve it and make it closer to what it was supposed to be before the ALP got weak at the knees or outsmarted whatever you want to call it.
However I will give credit if they are making us all share the pain in getting us out of debt. I like the fact the pain is going to happen in the first budget. The ALP were never going to make the hard calls to get us out of debt.
And Snake what did the ALP do with the recent mining boom?
I think the ALP did what you suggest the Libs did on a larger scale.
Don't disagree on the ALP jumping at shadows, that and the internal chaos brought them undone, but behind the scenes they were trying to patch up the 11 years of Howard nothing. Did nothing for 11 years, built nothing, did nothing. Gave money to people who didn't need it, introduced the GST, and melted down a few guns, thats it