Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact admin@puntroadend.com // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check your junk/spam emails.
  • 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

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
6,328
742
Mr P. There isn’t one thing there that any purchaser can’t do or shouldn’t do. You don’t have to be a P/E firm to restructure debt or use tax losses or get rid of the international side
what I mean by an airline buyer is running it like a true subsidiary, not having a 20% share
Anyway thanks for the post. It’s a great analysis. I just don’t trust P/E firms
Understand its not only P/E firms that can do that and I do understand your thoughts on P/E they aren't know as vultures for no reason, but there is another side of them, as with anything the bad ones will always taint the names of the good ones.

I don't trust the airlines to do the right thing by the Aussie public etc. As with Virgin at the moment, the only companies making money out of them are Virgin, Etihad and Singapore that use the domestic lanes to get people to their hubs and then use the co-sharing agreements to make the profits in their own names and lease expensive equipment to Virgin.

I guess going back to the original point responded to, the QLD (or federal) governments should not get involved in any restructure. The focus for them will be on protecting jobs and not driving a strong business which in the long term is ultimately the best scenario for all involved.
 

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
11,990
1,064
Camberwell
I guess going back to the original point responded to, the QLD (or federal) governments should not get involved in any restructure. The focus for them will be on protecting jobs and not driving a strong business which in the long term is ultimately the best scenario for all involved.
I am not a fan of that either although it appears it was blown out of proportion a bit with the only thing made available by the QLD Govt being $200 million in some form ( the treasurer mentioned a loan) if the buyer keeps the HQ in Queensland.
 

spook

Tiger Legend
Jun 18, 2007
11,485
1,834
Melbourne
Great read from another worthy independent media outlet:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
11,927
3,278
Why so much criticism of the State Premiers by Federal Gov Ministers in recent weeks? This isn't by accident. What's the bigger agenda here?.
I'd say because Scottyfrommarketting knows The National Cabinet is orders of magnitude more talented than The Federal Govt Cabinet

(Jesus, the former sports rorts minister McKenzie hasn't even got any talent for subject shifting, rhetoric and blame shifting. if she was a carpenter, she wouldnt be capable of retaining a grip on a hammer, and she's pretty typical of the front bench talent I reckon)

and hell really dont hath no fury like a sociopath spurned and faced with their own deficiencies.

****a Credlin is waging war on Palaschuk (and Trad) at the moment. Which makes me like them all of a sudden.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
2,078
1,442
Melbourne
Great read from another worthy independent media outlet:
Excellent article and a lot to take from it.

I have read Mazzucato and pointed out a few of the examples given, it is reality that government has subsidised or just developed on its own just about every piece of technology which enables me to post on this forum - that's reality, not hypothesis, theory, best case scenario or whatever, it is what has happened.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
11,990
1,064
Camberwell
I’m tipping one outcome of this virus - an increase in the GST rate.
You may be right MDJ. There is also a chance that state governments may look at a land tax rather than stamp duty on sales of properties to lessen the reliance on sales and move it to ownership.
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
4,338
911
You may be right MDJ. There is also a chance that state governments may look at a land tax rather than stamp duty on sales of properties to lessen the reliance on sales and move it to ownership.
Which would not be a bad thing. Ultimately those that can afford it should be charged with the heavy lifting. Some of the suggestions in the article posted by spook make sense.
 

Ridley

Tiger Legend
Jul 21, 2003
10,713
1,281
Which would not be a bad thing. Ultimately those that can afford it should be charged with the heavy lifting. Some of the suggestions in the article posted by spook make sense.
How is it proposed that the land tax would work for those who have already purchased homes? Can't see the equity in slugging another tax on people that have already paid tens of thousands of dollars in stamp duty. Someone that has bought a house in Victoria for $1,000,000 (not at all uncommon these days) has already paid $55,000 in stamp duty.

I believe Victorian stamp duty is the highest of anywhere in the world. I would welcome reform in this area but some would want to see some detail on how it would affect existing home owners that have already been slugged.
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
4,338
911
How is it proposed that the land tax would work for those who have already purchased homes? Can't see the equity in slugging another tax on people that have already paid tens of thousands of dollars in stamp duty. Someone that has bought a house in Victoria for $1,000,000 (not at all uncommon these days) has already paid $55,000 in stamp duty.

I believe Victorian stamp duty is the highest of anywhere in the world. I would welcome reform in this area but some would want to see some detail on how it would affect existing home owners that have already been slugged.
Not sure Sing was suggesting land tax be applied to your principal place of residence.

Land tax revenue is going to fall if/when property values fall significantly.
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
36,289
3,480
Best way to raise revenue is to get rid of middle class welfare. That includes CGT discounts and franking credits, child allowances for people who don't need it.

Then the big elephant in the room, negative gearing. While I understand the concept, it's being abused in the residential home market. Lock negative gearing into a single asset. Don't allow loss making on one property offset profits from another.

But doing the above is a certain recipe for a lost election, unless some unholy alliance between the 2 major parties occur, but that's getting less and less likely every day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

Ridley

Tiger Legend
Jul 21, 2003
10,713
1,281
Not sure Sing was suggesting land tax be applied to your principal place of residence.

Land tax revenue is going to fall if/when property values fall significantly.
Yeah was commenting on the issue in general. I believe serious consideration is being given to applying land tax on all property including principal place of residence. I also believe it would be in lieu of upfront stamp duty.

I think reform in this area is necessary as Victorian stamp duty on property is possibly one of the greatest tax rip offs ever known. That said, you wouldn't want to be in a situation where you'd paid $50K in stamp duty a few years ago and then had to pony up again on an annual basis.

It's a complicated issue to reform but certainly worth investigation.
 

Ridley

Tiger Legend
Jul 21, 2003
10,713
1,281
Best way to raise revenue is to get rid of middle class welfare. That includes CGT discounts and franking credits, child allowances for people who don't need it.

Then the big elephant in the room, negative gearing. While I understand the concept, it's being abused in the residential home market. Lock negative gearing into a single asset. Don't allow loss making on one property offset profits from another.

But doing the above is a certain recipe for a lost election, unless some unholy alliance between the 2 major parties occur, but that's getting less and less likely every day.
Agree on negative gearing and allowances for children. Not sure about the others. I see the merit in the arguments but there is already substantial taxation paid by everyday Australians; income tax is amongst the highest in the world. You pay tax on every dollar you earn and then you use that after tax dollar to save and invest and then when you earn a return you get taxed again. A lot of double, triple, quadruple dipping going on. I also believe in incentivising people to fund their own retirement. The less people that rely on the pension the better. All the stuffing around and changes to superannuation is not helping.

But yes there needs to be a serious discussion on tax reform and everything should be on the table in that discussion. Unfortunately it's a very complicated issue to resolve. The first thing we need to do is ensure big companies and mega gazillionaires are paying there fair share of tax and remove the loopholes that allow them to avoid it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
36,289
3,480
Agree on negative gearing and allowances for children. Not sure about the others. I see the merit in the arguments but there is already substantial taxation paid by everyday Australians; income tax is amongst the highest in the world. You pay tax on every dollar you earn and then you use that after tax dollar to save and invest and then when you earn a return you get taxed again. A lot of double, triple, quadruple dipping going on. I also believe in incentivising people to fund their own retirement. The less people that rely on the pension the better. All the stuffing around and changes to superannuation is not helping.

But yes there needs to be a serious discussion on tax reform and everything should be on the table in that discussion. Unfortunately it's a very complicated issue to resolve. The first thing we need to do is ensure big companies and mega gazillionaires are paying there fair share of tax and remove the loopholes that allow them to avoid it.
Agree with that. There would need to be wholesale reform to make the taxation system more equitable with less loopholes.

Que: a post about how tax is theft by force
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

Sintiger

Tiger Legend
Aug 11, 2010
11,990
1,064
Camberwell
Yeah was commenting on the issue in general. I believe serious consideration is being given to applying land tax on all property including principal place of residence. I also believe it would be in lieu of upfront stamp duty.

I think reform in this area is necessary as Victorian stamp duty on property is possibly one of the greatest tax rip offs ever known. That said, you wouldn't want to be in a situation where you'd paid $50K in stamp duty a few years ago and then had to pony up again on an annual basis.

It's a complicated issue to reform but certainly worth investigation.
I wasn't really commenting on the merits of it or not or the details but just that if the States want to be find an alternative to sales based property stamp duty I believe they are looking at land tax.
As you rightly point out the losers would be those who have already paid it, especially on their principal residence. The others issues with land tax is that it can lead to rent increases (although the market may well drive what happens there) , how to handle apartments and flats equitably, are businesses exempt etc etc.
I'm not against land tax as an alternative to stamp duty but the transition to it would be very important for all those reasons
Stamp duty is very high in Victoria for sure but I think one of the reasons why it's high in Australia generally compared with the rest of the world is because most other places have a land tax