# Australian Federal Election - 2019



## Wysiwyg (27 March 2019)

The BS has started to flow freely.

1) Tax sugary and alcoholic drinks to raise $3 billion to tackle obesity and health issues.

My thought - don't tell people what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

2) Labor - Tackle online accommodation duopoly Booking..com and Expedia..com by having people choose direct booking. Claim was the online booking agents charge up to 30% more.

My thought - I fact checked a random Gold Coast resort (Sheraton Grand Mirage) with same dates and room and adults and found Booking..com was exactly the same price as booking direct throught Sheraton. The Labor preacher lied. 

3) Labor - Apprentice numbers have fallen away since the Coalition held Government.

My thought - Did Bill 'I promise a budget deficit' Shorten ever consider manufacturing automation has taken many trade jobs and will continue to do so.

What is noticable is the pollies and lobbiest assume people are stupid and while some are, the rest should not have to bear consequence. As I said, the BS is starting to flow freely.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 March 2019)

Wysiwyg said:


> My thought - don't tell people what they can or cannot do with their bodies.




My thought, don't tax me to treat heart disease, diabetes and strokes when they can be prevented.


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> My thought, don't tax me to treat heart disease, diabetes and strokes when they can be prevented.



Yeah Health will be big as usual. Charging the tax payers more while the Health Industry adjust charges upward. Don't people realise dentists and doctors charge the maximum they can get away with. They incorporate Private Health Insurance into their charges.

Like any Government contracts or rebates or support, the system gets squeezed hard.


----------



## Miss Hale (27 March 2019)

I don't drink sugary drinks and not much alcohol so if they jacked up the price of both of them it would not really affect me. I agree with @Wysiwyg though to a degree, I mean if these things are sooo bad, why not just ban them? Same goes for cigarettes. Obvious reason, govt want to cash in tax wise. 

Re the booking companies, I think it the accommodation places that really suffer as some have told me that they lose a lot of money using the booking agencies. For big hotel chains I suppose it's not a big deal but for small operations it can make a big difference. Same goes for Uber Eats. The restaurants hate it but they can't not do it because it's so widely used.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 March 2019)

Miss Hale said:


> Re the booking companies, I think it the accommodation places that really suffer as some have told me that they lose a lot of money using the booking agencies.



It's a pretty decent % cut that the booking agencies take. I can't remember the figures but we're talking 10's of % not just some token fee.

Presumably that's then built-in to the rates charged by hotels meaning everyone's paying for this privately collected "booking tax" regardless of how they actually book.


----------



## Logique (28 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> My thought, don't tax me to treat heart disease, diabetes and strokes when they can be prevented.



Who's next on your hit list of those  undeserving of public medicine? ...smokers, drinkers, sun melanomas, the industrially deaf and headphone deaf...contact sport participants?


----------



## sptrawler (28 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a pretty decent % cut that the booking agencies take. I can't remember the figures but we're talking 10's of % not just some token fee.
> 
> Presumably that's then built-in to the rates charged by hotels meaning everyone's paying for this privately collected "booking tax" regardless of how they actually book.



I use booking.com quite a lot, from my experience the price you pay on their site, in most cases is cheaper than dealing direct with the provider.
I don't know why or how they do it, but most times I have checked, that has been the case.
One example that comes to mind was while we were doing the Mundi Biddi bike ride,I booked accommodation in Manjimup, it was a lot cheaper on line than direct. Maybe the rack rate is working on the premise that you will take it, rather than shop around.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 March 2019)

Logique said:


> Who's next on your hit list of those  undeserving of public medicine? ...smokers, drinkers, sun melanomas, the industrially deaf and headphone deaf...contact sport participants?




Prevention is better than cure, that's all.


----------



## PZ99 (28 March 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Prevention is better than cure, that's all.



Education is the key IMV.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Education is the key IMV.




You can try, but it's expensive and people forget. eg the "Be in it" campaign.


----------



## basilio (1 April 2019)

Well the first big bribes oops policy initiatives are being rolled out.

ScoMo is offering pensioners  $75 a single /$125 a pair for their votes *oops* power bill gift.

Cheap as Chops is the old boy.  *What really gets up my nose is that the absolute poorest and most desperate of welfare recipients , the unemployed , won't get a zac. Zilch. Nuthing .  Clearly don't need it and not worth it.*

The man is a creep. Can't even bribe straight. I hope this latest dribble gets treated with the contempt it deserves by the electorate.
______________________________________
Again on policies. Finally Labour comes out with something resembling a thoughtful way to move us to a clean, electric future powered by renewable energy.  Then some dimwit Energy Minister tries to say the Tradies will be unable to use their wheels. Industry has turned on him and told him to wake up  and smell the roses.  Electric vehicles are coming because they are better and make sense.
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/po...l-leave-tradies-stranded-20190401-p519q2.html


----------



## SirRumpole (1 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Electric vehicles are coming because they are better and make sense.




Not convinced yet. They are certainly a good way for power companies to increase their profits.

We should be looking at hybrids before going all electric.


----------



## sptrawler (1 April 2019)

There is way too much dreaming, fairy dust and blue sky rhetoric, going on in the electric car space. IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Finally Labour comes out with something resembling a thoughtful way to move us to a clean, electric future powered by renewable energy.  Then some dimwit Energy Minister tries to say the Tradies will be unable to use their wheels. Industry has turned on him and told him to wake up  and smell the roses.




Something I've noticed about debates concerning electric vehicles is that they tend to be derailed by those who insist on perfection. An argument that says if we can't have 100% EV's then we shouldn't have any. Like what the government is saying about Labor's policy.

Just because someone charging their EV in the middle of nowhere will be using power from a diesel generator isn't actually a problem. Nor is it a problem to have a mix of vehicles on the road, it's not as though EV's need separate roads or something like that.

Where government does have a role is getting around the "chicken or the egg" problem of publicly available charging infrastructure. In short, we need to ensure that if someone wishes to travel from Darwin to Hobart via Perth WA then they can do so and find adequate opportunities for recharging along the way.

Fast chargers are one thing. Encouraging motels, car parks and so on to install chargers is another (motels being particularly relevant for those traveling long distances - they'll be staying _somewhere_ overnight). And so on. We need infrastructure for EV's.

Now someone will probably argue that some of these remote area EV chargers won't be profitable. Indeed they won't be, just like the road it sits beside is also unprofitable due to the low volume of traffic on it but I don't hear too many calls to rip up rural roads.


----------



## bellenuit (1 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Electric vehicles are coming because they are better and make sense.




What is taking off, particularly in Europe and China, is micro-mobility: electric bicycles and the like. I have read figures that suggest that there are 10 of these category of vehicle sold for every electric car.


----------



## PZ99 (2 April 2019)

This is the unbelievable offer... what can go wrong? Everybody should have one!

Renault ZOE > https://myelectriccar.com.au/renault-main/renault-zoe/
*Specs:*

*Range – 300 kms (NEDC range 400kms)
Acceleration – 0 to 100kph approx 13.5 secs*
Top Speed – 135 kph
Rear Cargo Space – 338 litre
Seats – 5 Seater
NCAP – 5 Star Rating

*Pure Electric*
Battery Pack – 41kWh
Charge Time – 7KW single phase 32A – 7hours 30mins
Charge Time – 22KW three phase 32A -2hours 40mins
*Rapid Charge 50kW – 0-80% in 60 mins*
65kW electric motor
Drivetrain – front wheel drive
Free Wall Mounted Charger

*Price: AUD $51,000 drive away*

Bill Shorten / NRMA want people to throw $50K down this toilet ?

Great for a place like King Island - a bloody joke on the mainland.


----------



## basilio (2 April 2019)

Or perhaps a Hybrid Corolla?
*2019 Toyota Corolla ZR hybrid review*
* Kez Casey *
Road Tester
06 October 2018

 

 90 

 Review 
 Gallery 
 Price & Specs 






$24,610  – $29,260  Dealer


Fuel Economy
4.2L
Engine Power

72kW

CO2 Emissions
97g

ANCAP Rating
5Stars
 More *Toyota Corolla* 
News & Reviews 
 Visit our *Toyota* Showroom 
Tech like a Prius, but at a much sharper price and in a much sharper suit. A hybrid might not be the first thing you think of when looking for a small car, but the Corolla hybrid makes a compelling case for itself.
https://www.caradvice.com.au/688928/2018-toyota-corolla-zr-hybrid-review/


----------



## Junior (2 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> This is the unbelievable offer... what can go wrong? Everybody should have one!
> 
> Renault ZOE > https://myelectriccar.com.au/renault-main/renault-zoe/
> *Specs:*
> ...




I could respond by posting the specs for an overpriced, petrol powered vehicle.  But what's the point?


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2019)

The problem the hybrid has, it isn't as vote catching as full electric, despite its obvious advantages at this point in time.
Whatever you do, don't get between a politician and the truth, when there are votes involved.


----------



## PZ99 (2 April 2019)

Junior said:


> I could respond by posting the specs for an overpriced, petrol powered vehicle.  But what's the point?



The point is you could equally post the details for a petrol "Nanna" vehicle with far better specs and practicability for less than half the price of the Zoe electric.

But if NRMA had their way, you wouldn't be able to buy one in a few years which then extends to less available parts and more expensive servicing. Exactly what they want.

It sums up NRMA pretty well - they charge ridiculous prices for their services so it's no surprise why they believe that any old nanna can just lift out $50k from nowhere and be forced into a vehicle with inferior performance.


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2019)

This is a typical example of political interference and dumb ar$e statements, for political mileage.

https://www.drive.com.au/news/labor...ign=tile-3&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=smh

At this point in time the logistics of even being able to supply large volumes of electric vehicles isn't known, let alone any future problems that do arise with the large scale uptake, but hey we are going to have 50% by 2030.
Politicians are dicks. IMO


----------



## Logique (2 April 2019)

bellenuit said:


> What is taking off, particularly in Europe and China, is micro-mobility: electric bicycles and the like. I have read figures that suggest that there are 10 of these category of vehicle sold for every electric car.



Excellent observation, well made Bellenuit. I'm seeing more and more e-bikes around the place. They're fantastic for local commuting, and there are more and more bicycle tracks being built by local government.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Bill Shorten / NRMA want people to throw $50K down this toilet ?
> 
> Great for a place like King Island - a bloody joke on the mainland.



Ultimately it's very simple.

28% of fossil fuel use is in transport, 40% is in electricity. I've posted a lot of details and statistics about this in the energy thread.

If we're going to cut emissions substantially and have 45% or 50% renewable energy as per the political promises then quite simply electricity can't do the whole lot of the task, especially in the context of rising fuel use in the transport sector as has been the trend. That leaves really only three options:

1. Population reduction

2. Transport cannot continue with almost total reliance on petroleum fuels using present technology

3. Simply scale back the use of transport 

Simple as that really and the rest is detail although I'll note that option 2 is the only one likely to be even remotely palatable politically so there's not a lot of choice.

That leaves the choice for government as whether to favour hydrogen or electric vehicles, or to take a neutral stance and see where the manufacturers go.

Another approach, and one I see a lot of merit in, is to simply legislate an emissions cap on the basis of a manufacturer's total sales. That doesn't preclude someone still selling a V12 just so long as they sell a lot of EV's to keep the average within the cap. That approach has been used successfully in the US, albeit with lesser targets, but as a concept it seems workable and is technology neutral in terms of how to achieve it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> This is a typical example of political interference and dumb ar$e statements, for political mileage.



There are certainly some serious technical issues involved, the most notable one being that even if 20% of homes charge a single EV during the early evening then that's a concern in terms of the power grid.

There are workarounds to that, controlling the rate of charging to match supply capability isn't rocket science as a concept in a world where the internet is just about everywhere, but that sort of thing needs to be worked out before we've got lots of them on the roads and are then chasing our tail trying to implement a solution for the existing vehicles.

It would be preferable to not have politicians and the general public become aware of this need by means of a system collapse.


----------



## PZ99 (2 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Ultimately it's very simple.
> 
> 28% of fossil fuel use is in transport, 40% is in electricity. I've posted a lot of details and statistics about this in the energy thread.
> 
> ...



Some good ideas there but...

I think it simply comes down to improving the technology before forcing people to rely on it.

Battery efficiency just isn't good enough yet. It needs to be able to power a family car for a long enough distance for people to not rely on available charging stations every 3 hours.

I'm sure we'll get there but until we do we don't need politicians forcing their pet projects down our throats which is effectively what Labor are doing here.


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2019)

Logique said:


> Excellent observation, well made Bellenuit. I'm seeing more and more e-bikes around the place. They're fantastic for local commuting, and there are more and more bicycle tracks being built by local government.



We have a couple of electric bikes, they are brilliant for local commuting, also they do give people an excercise option.


----------



## sptrawler (2 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Some good ideas there but...
> 
> I think it simply comes down to improving the technology before forcing people to rely on it.
> 
> ...



As with everything labor does, it will be half ar$ed, poorly implemented and pursued no matter what the cost to the taxpayer.
The sooner they get labor in the better, it's time everyone got a reality check.IMO


----------



## basilio (2 April 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> There are certainly some serious technical issues involved, the most notable one being that even if 20% of homes charge a single EV during the early evening then that's a concern in terms of the power grid.
> 
> There are workarounds to that, controlling the rate of charging to match supply capability isn't rocket science as a concept in a world where the internet is just about everywhere, but that sort of thing needs to be worked out before we've got lots of them on the roads and are then chasing our tail trying to implement a solution for the existing vehicles.
> 
> It would be preferable to not have politicians and the general public become aware of this need by means of a system collapse.




You identified the problem and then the solution Smurf.
Yep go home with your electric car or plug in hybrid and hook it up at 6 pm. 
But then have a smart power system that doesn't charge the car at 6pm* in fact it can pull power from the car *to a certain point. This would be the source of the extra power that would be used in these peak times.

When peak times are over,  10-11 pm, the car is recharged on off peak rates .

If I was power company and I wanted to have access to potentially megawatts of clean stable battery power in evening peak times this would be a very attractive option.
___________________________________
In the conversations about the costs and benefits of electric cars vs IC cars it isn't all black and white.
Hybrids or better still plug in hybrids make a lot of sense in terms of reducing CO2 emissions and reducing costs for people. And at this stage hybrids are at  roughly the same price points as IC cars .

The  improvement in efficiency and cost competitiveness of electric cars is absolutely startling. This particularly the case with battery technology in terms of range and speed of recharge.  Certainly with a few years (way before 2025..) they will  eat up IC cars. Let's remember that an electric car is inherently simpler than an IC car.  No radiators,  a far simpler electric motor
http://theindiansociety.org/electric-cars-2/


----------



## Tink (5 April 2019)

In Melbourne...

_Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has described the people vandalising his campaign posters with Hitler references in his Melbourne seat of Kooyong as "cowards".

Key Points:

    Hitler moustaches have been drawn on images of Josh Frydenberg on his campaign posters
    Mr Frydenberg, who is Jewish, has condemned the vandals
    The Treasurer's Jewish mother was born in Hungary and fled to Australia to escape the Holocaust

Several posters displaying photographs of Mr Frydenberg, who is Jewish, have been vandalised in the suburb of Hawthorn in Melbourne's inner east.

On one poster a Hitler moustache and what appear to be devil horns appear to have been drawn with a black marker.

Another has the words "Right Wing Facist [sic]" written across his forehead, with glasses and a toothbrush moustache.

In a statement confirming the graffiti in the suburb of Hawthorn, Mr Frydenberg condemned those responsible.

"Regardless of one's political persuasion, vandalism is unacceptable," Mr Frydenberg said.
A Hitler moustache and devil horns drawn on Josh Frydenberg's face on his campaign poster

"It's one thing for these cowards to graffiti a sign, but it's another thing altogether to invoke the horrors of the Holocaust and the evils of Hitler and the Nazis.

"These people should be ashamed of themselves."_

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...paign-posters-anti-semitic-vandalism/10972658


----------



## Logique (5 April 2019)

No way the Coalition wins.  Labor by how much.
They may even call the date this weekend.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 April 2019)

I saw Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun yesterday writing that he thinks it's important to kick out the moderates from the Liberal party so they can renew so it would be good for Labor to get in for a term but now is worried that Labor will cause more damage than expected.

Well it's on your head Bolt. You pushed for it, you got what you wanted, Bishop, Pyne, Turnbull anyone with any popularity has left the party and your preferred people are in control. I also note today more information has come forward showing Newscorp through a Murdoch son having a meeting with Liberal politicians saying MT must go.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I saw Andrew Bolt in the Herald Sun yesterday writing that he thinks it's important to kick out the moderates from the Liberal party so they can renew so it would be good for Labor to get in for a term but now is worried that Labor will cause more damage than expected.
> 
> Well it's on your head Bolt. You pushed for it, you got what you wanted, Bishop, Pyne, Turnbull anyone with any popularity has left the party and your preferred people are in control. I also note today more information has come forward showing Newscorp through a Murdoch son having a meeting with Liberal politicians saying MT must go.




What chance of Abbott retaining his seat ?

Not much I suspect.


----------



## rederob (5 April 2019)

Great Scott, Shorten shortens odds.
[Labour in a canter, winx winx]


----------



## rederob (5 April 2019)

The call:
Lights flashing and they're racing.
Science First calculated the delay and jumped well ahead of the field. 
And as they settle down it's followed by Lambie, Daworkers, Progressive, and almost off the track, Anning.
You guessed it, midfield sees Centre Alliance running well, then followed by Billabor and Sir ScoFry, with Madkatter sniffing out Anning's right wing ride.
Running into a lot of turf being thrown from the frontrunners is Pantsdown and Big Clive.
Tailing off the field sees Greeny running ahead of Rejoyce's Child which replaced Mikesnats after a late scratching, while Nile's riding Blind Freddy into a distant last.
At the turn we see the field begin to spread out as the mainstayers begin to assert themselves.
Science First has dropped right back, being passed by Centre Alliance which is travelling well, and also Sir ScoFry, with a length further back to Billabor.
Rejoyce's Child now being ridden hard to keep up with Greeny which got a dream run left field and is hot on the heels of Lambie and Daworkers.
Looks like the weight of Big Clive's jockey is now telling as Panstdown slips well ahead although remains 2  lengths behind Progressive and Madkatter.
Blind Freddy just ran off the track and will take no further part.
Settling into the straight with 7 weeks to go the favourites are now well ahead although ReJoyce's Child has just pipped Greeny into fourth, behind Billabor, Sir ScoFry and Centre Alliance which had a huge plunge on it in the bookmaker's ring.
Not long to go and out front is Sir ScoFry.  
Wait ladies and gentlemen.  
Barnaby appears to have deliberately ridden Sir ScoFry into the rails as we near the post and Billabor looks like getting a dream run to the finishing line.
Billabor has now pulled well away to take this race, five lengths back to Sir Scofry, a further 5 lengths back to Greeny running nicely into third.
As they pass the post Centre Alliance takes 4th by a short head from Rejoyce's Child.
A long way back to rest of the field where Madkatter ran on from Lambie, well ahead of a very disappointing Pantsdown.  Big Clive succumbed to top weight and broke down at the turn, and it looks like he's going to be put down.
Ladies and gentlemen, the rest of the field were at ridiculous odds and ran true to form.  Anning's jockey will be censured by the stewards for running completely off track and endangering spectators.


----------



## wayneL (5 April 2019)

No way on God's green Earth does the Liberal Party deserve to hold government.

The absolutely major problem I is that the Labor Party likewise does not deserve to gain government, even though it looks like being a cakewalk for them.

Best outcome for is maximum chaos in the Senate via centrist, slightly right independents.

( and no we have no far right wing candidates, and centrist means Centre not some ways to the god damn left)


----------



## SirRumpole (5 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Best outcome for is maximum chaos in the Senate via centrist, slightly right independents.




Another 3 years of obstruction , delay and party politicking ?

I think I'd prefer a Labor majority in both houses, at least something would be done that we could judge the merits of at the next election.

I'm sick of the Senate freaks, Hanson Lleyonhejlme etc. Some will go but we are stuck with Hanson for another 3 years.

I'd just like a glimpse of what responsible government looks like for once.


----------



## IFocus (5 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Another 3 years of obstruction , delay and party politicking ?
> 
> I think I'd prefer a Labor majority in both houses, at least something would be done that we could judge the merits of at the next election.
> 
> ...




Couldn't agree more "Senate freaks" is very apt not an brain cell amongst the lot of them just bottom feeders feeding off punters worst fears.

This is pretty good summery of the present lot apologies if the swearing offends


----------



## wayneL (5 April 2019)

While in principle I agree with a government being able to get on with it, obstruction of this Labor Party's agenda can only be good. 

Bring on the Senate freaks.


----------



## wayneL (5 April 2019)

Actually, it would be Poetic Justice


----------



## sptrawler (5 April 2019)

Bill sounds BS heavy, it will be interesting to see how the next four weeks pans out, shame I won't be here to watch it.
It could very well be losing the unloseable election.IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 April 2019)

Logique said:


> They may even call the date this weekend.



If one thing's abundantly clear it's that at this point in time "it's over".

It's like a group of guys standing around on the dance floor of club whatever at 5am on Sunday morning just waiting to be kicked out so the staff can lock the place up and go home.

It's pointless. Anything that was going to happen has happened already and nothing good's going to happen now.

Sooner they call an end to it, the better.


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2019)

If there is ever a party that says- actually we're going pretty good,  we're not going to do much new at all except wind back the pork barelling and stupid **** that's been done to pander to minor activists, they'd get my vote.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> If there is ever a party that says- actually we're going pretty good,  we're not going to do much new at all except wind back the pork barelling and stupid **** that's been done to pander to minor activists, they'd get my vote.



I think I have a name for such a party.
Conservative.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I think I have a name for such a party.
> Conservative.




The Conservatives are winding back pork barrelling ?


----------



## Knobby22 (6 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The Conservatives are winding back pork barrelling ?




 I'm talking about an imaginary construct.
A political party that, as the name suggest, acts conservatively.
That means they prefer to leave existing policies in place and only make changes slowly after careful thought. Entirely theoretical of course though I believe Britain may have had something like that in the 19th century.


----------



## moXJO (6 April 2019)

Libs were so bad on so many levels that they deserve to be thrown out hard. However I like labor even less. 

In saying that I think labors "cancer payments" will be a vote winner.

I hope there is a bit more scrutiny on the medical side. I know a lot of patients going to Thailand for successful treatment after being told they were going to die by Australian doctors and there is nothing else they can do.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Libs were so bad on so many levels that they deserve to be thrown out hard. However I like labor even less.
> 
> In saying that I think labors "cancer payments" will be a vote winner.
> 
> I hope there is a bit more scrutiny on the medical side. I know a lot of patients going to Thailand for successful treatment after being told they were going to die by Australian doctors and there is nothing else they can do.




You have to give Labor credit for making a policy out of something that people don't want to talk about but urgently needs addressing.

That takes political guts imo and shows that they are focussed on the real needs of the community rather than trying to window dress the economy which has little to do with the government anyway.

I don't think the Coalition has any real selling points any more. Their opposition the banking RC, their failed energy policies, and their internal divisions will kill them in the electorate.

The election campaign should be as short as possible, there is no point dragging it out.


----------



## moXJO (6 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> You have to give Labor credit for making a policy out of something that people don't want to talk about but urgently needs addressing.
> 
> That takes political guts imo and shows that they are focussed on the real needs of the community rather than trying to window dress the economy which has little to do with the government anyway.
> 
> ...



I thought it was a brilliant strategy.

Liberals have brought in some of the most draconian breeches of privacy that I won't vote for them just off that issue. 
I am happy with certain aspects of the economy.

I still couldn't bring myself to vote labor. Too many policies they can walk away from. Or that I disagree with.


----------



## basilio (6 April 2019)

This analysis on what we need from a new government after the election is useful. 

* Parliament has been enslaved by its fetishes – and it's time to end the downward spiral *
We cannot have another pointless, rudderless, parliament like the one that has just limped to an end

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ishes-and-its-time-to-end-the-downward-spiral


----------



## basilio (6 April 2019)

And when you think it can't get any worse for the Liberals. .... it does. Coming up on 4 Corners

*Tony Abbott attended re-election fundraiser at fugitive Chinese tycoon's golf club*
Key points

Tony Abbott attended two events at the Twin Creeks golf club, which is run by Chinese moguls with ties to the Communist Party
One event was a fundraiser for Mr Abbott's re-election campaign
In 2015 ASIO warned Mr Abbott that businessmen with ties to the CCP were seeking to influence Australian politics
 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...sted-by-communist-party-linked-mogul/10962224


----------



## Knobby22 (6 April 2019)

Tony Abbott has many faults however no one believes he is a stooge for the Chinese.


----------



## rederob (6 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Tony Abbott has many faults however no one believes he is a stooge for the Chinese.



You can think that, but this is a person who was willing to trash his party to get back to a leadership role.


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You can think that, but this is a person who was willing to trash his party to get back to a leadership role.



Like, Rudd, and Shorten did?


----------



## basilio (6 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Tony Abbott has many faults however no one believes he is a stooge for the Chinese.




The point is that the Liberal Party $40k from this fund raiser. What are the optics of accepting  a $40k political donation from a fugitive Chines casino owner with very close ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

Check the story.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 April 2019)

I see they held one for Kevin Rudd also. Raised $260,000. 
They both attended because of the Chinese community. I am sure they both were acting in the best of faith. Looks like a beat up.


----------



## moXJO (6 April 2019)

There is a targeted campaign to get rid of Abbott.
Any old beat up will do...


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I see they held one for Kevin Rudd also. Raised $260,000.
> They both attended because of the Chinese community. I am sure they both were acting in the best of faith. Looks like a beat up.



If ever I had a wish, it would be for the end of beat ups and muck raking, from all sides. 

The US just wasted nearly three years on one such misadventure (among others),  meanwhile, it detracted from more useful debate, destroyed mdia reputations and ratings, and escalated division in the community. 

By all means let's nail genuine corruption, but its high time this crap just... STOPPED.


----------



## SirRumpole (6 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> If ever I had a wish, it would be for the end of beat ups and muck raking, from all sides.
> 
> The US just wasted nearly three years on one such misadventure (among others),  meanwhile, it detracted from more useful debate, destroyed mdia reputations and ratings, and escalated division in the community.
> 
> By all means let's nail genuine corruption, but its high time this crap just... STOPPED.




The best way to do that is to reform the donation laws.

Donations from registered voters only, capped at $3,000 a year should do it.

The rest of their expenses taxpayer funded to a reasonable limit.


----------



## basilio (6 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The best way to do that is to reform the donation laws.
> 
> Donations from registered voters only, capped at $3,000 a year should do it.
> 
> The rest of their expenses taxpayer funded to a reasonable limit.




Which is why both parties agreed to new legislation outlawing foreign donations. The story on the ABC website makes it clear the Chinese Communist party set out to influence both Labour and Liberal  Parties through donations.


----------



## rederob (6 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> The US just wasted nearly three years on one such misadventure (among others),  meanwhile, it detracted from more useful debate, destroyed mdia reputations and ratings, and escalated division in the community.



Mueller was appointed in May of 2017, and indicted, convicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies, including top advisers to President Trump, Russian spies and hackers with ties to the Kremlin. 
Not one of Trump's principal advisors is any longer in place.
Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to investigators - such is the quality of people that Trump chooses.
You call that a "misadventure".  The diving judges are wondering if Trump's summersaults deserve a perfect 10.
Finally, Mueller's Report is not yet available, so it's a bit previous to think the dust has settled.


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2019)

I'm expecting a zzzz-fest Red.

I also wonder how similar inquisitions would fair in previous administrations recently.


----------



## Tink (7 April 2019)

In Victoria, basilio, Daniel Andrews has signed China's Belt and Road.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/explainer/what-chinas-belt-and-road-initiative


----------



## explod (7 April 2019)

Everybody's Home
April 2 at 8:33 PM · 
116,000 people will be homeless tonight in Australia - what good is a surplus to them?

Despite record numbers of homelessness, and despite the fact that 800,000 people are living in rental stress in Australia, Treasurer Frydenberg's Budget has ignored the desperate need for social and affordable housing - instead continuing to favour investors.

What Australians need is investment in social and affordable housing - so that everyone can have a home.


----------



## qldfrog (7 April 2019)

If we have a surplus we could reduce our debt, our interest alone is one billion aud a month.
Under howard it was 0
Are you not surprised that things were better then, a billion extra to spend on hispital school or public housing EVERY month


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> If we have a surplus we could reduce our debt, our interest alone is one billion aud a month.
> Under howard it was 0
> Are you not surprised that things were better then, a billion extra to spend on hispital school or public housing EVERY month



There was a GFC between then and now, and Labor kept the economy ticking over while the rest of the world was largely in financial tumult.
The Coalition's record over recent years in growing debt - make that doubling it - has been good, despite the PM's claims about how good they are at managing the economy.
An the Treasurer's mooted fiscal surplus is contingent on strong commodity prices, not good management.  We can thank China for keeping rooves over the heads of most, but as plod points out, not nearly all.


----------



## explod (7 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> If we have a surplus we could reduce our debt, our interest alone is one billion aud a month.
> Under howard it was 0
> Are you not surprised that things were better then, a billion extra to spend on hispital school or public housing EVERY month



Rubbish, Gina Rinehart's wealth alone would house the poor, then there is poker machine and casino profits.


----------



## sptrawler (7 April 2019)

rederob said:


> There was a GFC between then and now, and Labor kept the economy ticking over while the rest of the world was largely in financial tumult.
> The Coalition's record over recent years in growing debt - make that doubling it - has been good, despite the PM's claims about how good they are at managing the economy.
> An the Treasurer's mooted fiscal surplus is contingent on strong commodity prices, not good management.  We can thank China for keeping rooves over the heads of most, but as plod points out, not nearly all.



Our response to the GFC was deplorable, the mining construction boom was on the massive upswing, we were importing workers weekly.
Then Kev saw an opportunity to splash cash, big note himself, the rest is history.IMO


----------



## sptrawler (7 April 2019)

explod said:


> Rubbish, Gina Rinehart's wealth alone would house the poor, then there is poker machine and casino profits.



You could never house the poor, it has been tried endlessly, the maintenance costs always breaks it's back.
The States have been trying to offload their welfare housing for decades.lol
Even silly Billy isn't going there, he is going to not only allow the rich to negative gear rentals, he is going to give them an $8000 bonus.
Rather than the Government build social housing.


----------



## explod (7 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> You could never house the poor, it has been tried endlessly, the maintenance costs always breaks it's back.
> The States have been trying to offload their welfare housing for decades.lol
> Even silly Billy isn't going there, he is going to not only allow the rich to negative gear rentals, he is going to give them an $8000 bonus.
> Rather than the Government build social housing.



What about the single women in 50's and 60's who cannot get work nor afford the rents.  And as a member of the Australian Unemployed Workers Union can tell you there are many.  Public housing list alone here in Victoria has a 15 year waiting list.

Most of you here are on another planet.  But the real messages are getting out and it is going to slaughter the Libs


----------



## sptrawler (7 April 2019)

explod said:


> What about the single women in 50's and 60's who cannot get work nor afford the rents.  And as a member of the Australian Unemployed Workers Union can tell you there are many.  *Public housing list alone here in Victoria has a 15 year waiting list.*
> 
> Most of you here are on another planet.  But the real messages are getting out and it is going to slaughter the Libs



Exactly what I said.
Why doesn't Labor say, we are going to spend $2.3 b on social housing, that the Government is going to own and operate. 
That would be novel.
No we will let the rich build houses and negative gear them, then pay them rent assistance and hope we don't get ripped off as we normally do.

The Libs will get slaughtered, and as usual with Labor, everyone buys the dream, then dumps the reality.
It's just a cycle we go through.Lol


----------



## qldfrog (7 April 2019)

explod said:


> Rubbish, Gina Rinehart's wealth alone would house the poor, then there is poker machine and casino profits.



rubbish ?so one billion a month is rubbish, well it is not mate or your income is not anywhere like mine..
just need a wake up call, with one billion every month of interest payment, you can dream as much as you want but the situation is going to get worse and Australia will become a failed state, a la Venezuela or Argentina based on voters choice.get ready as it is going to get worse, and much worse very quickly if your party takes over


----------



## sptrawler (7 April 2019)

Plod, all that is going to come out of this election, is the loss of options, for the working class to get ahead.
Which probably needs to happen, because they have got way ahead of themselves. Lol
.


----------



## rederob (7 April 2019)

Odds for coalition voters are really good: could only get $4.50 last week, and today it's $5.50.
Will Bill get shorter odds than Winx?
Let's see what happens over the days leading to the PM declaring a date.


----------



## IFocus (7 April 2019)

http://www.theshovel.com.au/2019/04...-of-coal-to-help-offset-threat-of-renewables/


----------



## IFocus (7 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> rubbish ?so one billion a month is rubbish, well it is not mate or your income is not anywhere like mine..
> just need a wake up call, with one billion every month of interest payment, you can dream as much as you want but the situation is going to get worse and Australia will become a failed state, a la Venezuela or Argentina based on voters choice.get ready as it is going to get worse, and much worse very quickly if your party takes over






"As at July 1 2018, the budget estimate of *net debt* in Australia was about A$341.0 billion, up from A$174.5 billion in September 2013, when the Coalition took office. That's an increase of A$166.5 billion, or roughly 95%, over almost five years."


----------



## IFocus (7 April 2019)




----------



## sptrawler (7 April 2019)

All we have to do is get everyone on welfare, then we know there is no middle class welfare happening, great logic.


----------



## explod (7 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> All we have to do is get everyone on welfare, then we know there is no middle class welfare happening, great logic.



Not altogether and your take is too simplistic in my view.  However:-




‎Mario Napolitano‎ _to_ Austra


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 April 2019)

I expect the ALP to win the the Lower House, and the Senate to be controlled by the minor parties, nutters, and unmentionables. 

gg


----------



## qldfrog (7 April 2019)

I still maintain that with 1 billion per month in interest only, it is hard to see any hope ahead, i do not really care who did it, i know it was not Costello, labour started the mess and then good luck to balance a budget when your debt interests eat all margins, and your voters are just me me me..now now now
And these 12 billions a year bring nothing to australia, are mostly paid overseas, will get worse when rates rise or aussie dollar goes down so when clowns suggest that running a deficit and increasing consumption will sort things out, they are 50y behind in economics 
applying methods which do not work anymore in a country where we do not produce any good consumption goods, import most of stuff even food and oil..
Good luck but i am sure GDP will increase in line with debt, bring 500,000 migrants a year and Bowen will be able to get some awards from the socialist clique
Venezuelia and cuba gave a lot of public housing
 lucky them
If you can bankrupt a country which has the biggest oil reserve in less than 10 years with socialism, it will be quicker here..but sure give money away, dance today, tomorrow we will die unprepared to global warming so who cares


----------



## qldfrog (7 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> "As at July 1 2018, the budget estimate of *net debt* in Australia was about A$341.0 billion, up from A$174.5 billion in September 2013, when the Coalition took office. That's an increase of A$166.5 billion, or roughly 95%, over almost five years."



166 billion over 5 years
Interest during last 5 years 60 billions
So coalition increased deficit except interests vs labour by 100 billions
Nothing to be proud of
but 
Labour went from basically 0 to 175 billions in 5 years so roughly double the amount that coalition did 
Coalition who did a pathetic job in my opinion yet twice as good as labour..not really good but half debt increase in its budget
Sorry to deflate your hopes but compare apples with apples
I hope you understand the figures


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I still maintain that with 1 billion per month in interest only, it is hard to see any hope ahead, i do not really care who did it, i know it was not Costello, labour started the mess and then good luck to balance a budget when your debt interests eat all margins, and your voters are just me me me..now now now



Part of the reason I'm an advocate for government ownership of sensible things of value, for example roads and utilities, is that they represent financial wealth that's hard for politicians to touch.

Running up $ billions in debt when you've got roads, railways, dams, power stations, gas pipes, telecommunications an so on all generating revenue is one thing.

Running up $ billions in debt backed by basically nothing is an order of magnitude bigger problem.

It was always my fear during the privatisation mania that politicians would put the country back in debt in due course and this time there wouldn't be the solid asset backing that there was previously. Seems I was right......


----------



## qldfrog (8 April 2019)

And do not take my post as support for the current coalition, fact that labour did roughly twice the damage that coalition in term of budget debt increase does not glorify coalition pityful results
There are priorities in day to day, proper house management and visions for the country
While Turnbull had some, he never had power or the balls to impose himself, the others be it scomo, worse TA and Labour are at best pathetic, at worst, treason to this country
I can not vote for either


----------



## chiff (8 April 2019)

My overwhelming priority is an immediate Royal Commission in the Murray Darling Basin.


----------



## IFocus (8 April 2019)

chiff said:


> My overwhelming priority is an immediate Royal Commission in the Murray Darling Basin.




Interesting that the Nats abandon its own base for big money interests 

On another note great balanced coverage over on the Australian............


----------



## chiff (8 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Interesting that the Nats abandon its own base for big money interests
> 
> On another note great balanced coverage over on the Australian............



I have lived ,at times,in three states in the Murray Darling basin and have followed the goings on closely.How a reprobate like Joyce can have anything to do with public policy is a travesty.I can still visualise him accepting a 40k award from Reinhart.


----------



## Junior (8 April 2019)

chiff said:


> I have lived ,at times,in three states in the Murray Darling basin and have followed the goings on closely.How a reprobate like Joyce can have anything to do with public policy is a travesty.I can still visualise him accepting a 40k award from Reinhart.




Joyce is an embarrassment, and should permanently remove himself from the public eye.  Likewise with that skidmark, Andrew Broad.


----------



## Tink (11 April 2019)

Federal election 2019 live: Scott Morrison calls May 18 as date voters will go to the polls

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...-morrison-calls-may-18-election-date/10968588


----------



## PZ99 (11 April 2019)

So in about 5 weeks we'll know whether we get more of the same or, more of the same.


----------



## rederob (11 April 2019)

Mr Dutton might like the odds of betting against himself.
Mr Abbott is definitely in trouble.
The various leaders look safe for now.
Labor is sitting at short odds, but easing.


----------



## wayneL (11 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> So in about 5 weeks we'll know whether we get more of the same or, more of the same.



Well, we are going to get to choose who we get to blame for the imminent recession at the next election.

On the upside, I guess we can expect another $900 cheque sometime in the next three years. 

In the spirit it is given,  I'm gonna put the lot on red and let it ride.


----------



## PZ99 (11 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Well, we are going to get to choose who we get to blame for the imminent recession at the next election.
> 
> On the upside, I guess we can expect another $900 cheque sometime in the next three years.
> 
> In the spirit it is given,  I'm gonna put the lot on red and let it ride.



I'll have to remember to lower my income for that year if it happens 

Last time I got zilch for earning over $100k. BOOOO !


----------



## sptrawler (11 April 2019)

I will be back from the holiday, hooray.


----------



## qldfrog (11 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I'll have to remember to lower my income for that year if it happens
> 
> Last time I got zilch for earning over $100k. BOOOO !



You filthy rich.this is un australian.
You should be on a disability pension and your parter a ndis carer.what's next? you want to be a self funded retiree


----------



## qldfrog (11 April 2019)

On a more serious note, too early, i am not ready yet to move os and the better half still have 2.5 months of work ahead
And for those who know me a bit, the liberal on my seat is Peter Dutton aka Judas
So will write a little essai on tge bulletin, and the labour winner mp will gloat about their swing vote victory...


----------



## sptrawler (11 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I'll have to remember to lower my income for that year if it happens
> 
> Last time I got zilch for earning over $100k. BOOOO !



The line of people walking out of JB's and Hardly Normals, with plasma t.v's was hilarious.


----------



## wayneL (11 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> On a more serious note, too early, i am not ready yet to move os and the better half still have 2.5 months of work ahead
> And for those who know me a bit, the liberal on my seat is Peter Dutton aka Judas
> So will write a little essai on tge bulletin, and the labour winner mp will gloat about their swing vote victory...



I work a fair bit in Judas' electorate.

If you see a really handsome guy dressed in khakis (that smells like burnted hoof) buying a pie at the Samford Patisserie, be sure to say g'day


----------



## SirRumpole (11 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The line of people walking out of JB's and Hardly Normals, with plasma t.v's was hilarious.




That was the idea.


----------



## PZ99 (11 April 2019)

qldfrog said:


> You filthy rich.this is un australian.
> You should be on a disability pension and your parter a ndis carer.what's next? you want to be a self funded retiree



LOL > Actually I was quite happy not to get the money, I didn't need it.
I was a bit less happy about being asked to pay it back with interest though 

Funnily enough, I did get around 16 times that amount from Mr Abbott's EDI credits.
Wonder if I'll have to pay that back too ?


----------



## sptrawler (11 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Funnily enough, I did get around 16 times that amount from Mr Abbott's EDI credits.
> Wonder if I'll have to pay that back too ?




No don't worry about it, I'll cover it with my franking credits.


----------



## jbocker (11 April 2019)

Ohhh bewdy another election. It has been sooo long.
Time to get out the very old trusty dartboard (like parliament it too has had huge number of pr!cks in it)
Any last minute changes in Leadership? Where can I find the odds with online betting on a change of leader within  6 months or 12 months of being elected. Only way I gonna make anything from an election.


----------



## PZ99 (12 April 2019)

The ALP ABC have put up a swing calculator for those of us waiting for the water to boil.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...ntony-green-house-of-reps-calculator/10872122

Move to slider to your desired outcome 







That's my prediction - for the record - I'm subtracting two seats off Labor because I don't think they'll win Lindsay or Banks. So for me it's 79 seats for ALP, 65 for LNP and 7 for the rest.


----------



## dutchie (12 April 2019)

Governments waste so much of taxpayers money.
Raising taxes only compounds the extravagance and insults the electorate.


----------



## basilio (12 April 2019)

dutchie said:


> Governments waste so much of taxpayers money.
> Raising taxes only compounds the extravagance and insults the electorate.




Absolutely!! Lets go back to the times of really small government.

No public education, no wasteful public hospitals, absolutely no/or minimal pensions (unless you had a really important job with the Government of course ).

Stuff the roads and dams and sewerage systems. Toll roads are fine and if you have money you can organise your own water and sewerage can't you ?

Yep the Dark Ages were so enlightened Dutchie.

And of course if we took a really stringent approach to Government spending we can ensure that those people who really deserve to be rewarded for their contributions to society can become even more wealthy. Just makes so much sense doesn't it ?


----------



## Junior (12 April 2019)

Some parts of the system actually work really well IMO, and some need attention.  Taxing the **** out of anyone earning a decent income, and then throwing piles of cash into the welfare system is not a viable solution.  

Shorten will last one term, I think.  Once we see the outcome of trying to massively hike taxes and push more people onto welfare, and a larger %% of the population as net recipients of government benefits....property prices, unemployment rates, and the budget figures will all be impacted by these policies.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 April 2019)

Junior said:


> Some parts of the system actually work really well IMO, and some need attention.  Taxing the **** out of anyone earning a decent income, and then throwing piles of cash into the welfare system is not a viable solution.
> 
> Shorten will last one term, I think.  Once we see the outcome of trying to massively hike taxes and push more people onto welfare, and a larger %% of the population as net recipients of government benefits....property prices, unemployment rates, and the budget figures will all be impacted by these policies.




Health care is welfare now ?

Labor is offering more tax cuts for people on lower incomes. Is that a problem ? They have also refused to raise Newstart. I can't see that is encouraging people to go onto welfare.

Giving people negative gearing on existing properties is a waste of taxpayers money, it does nothing to increase housing stock. I think Labor's proposal on this is well thought out and the money saved can be put into other areas.


----------



## basilio (12 April 2019)

Junior said:


> Some parts of the system actually work really well IMO, and some need attention.  Taxing the **** out of anyone earning a decent income, and then throwing piles of cash into the welfare system is not a viable solution.
> 
> Shorten will last one term, I think.  Once we see the outcome of trying to massively hike taxes and push more people onto welfare, and a larger %% of the population as net recipients of government benefits....property prices, unemployment rates, and the budget figures will all be impacted by these policies.




Yes we need a more thoughtful approach to how we tax and what we spend that money on. 
I don't agree that the Labour government proposals are about a "massive tax hike" . In the first instance they are just going to *not *proceed with tax cuts that were targeted for the well off and which would have required massive cuts in government services to finance.
There are proposed tax increases. They are directed at the wealthiest sections of the community. The funds realised will be used to

1) Pay for increased health costs particularly by people with cancer. That is rich and poor alike
2) Paying down the National debt.

As far as welfare goes. If there there were hundreds of thousands of paying jobs going begging most of this would disappear. 

This is simply untrue.  The economy is not generating sufficient jobs to keep people in employment. Unfortunately the rapid development of AI is almost certainly going to make this problem even bigger. There's the real challenge for any government - creating meaningful work for people to enable them to have a dignified useful life


----------



## basilio (12 April 2019)

Other ways of seeing the budget.
Bill Shorten on Tax
_
"What we choose to do is spend scarce and important taxpayer money on educating the kids, on decreasing the out-of-pocket costs of, you know, cancer treatment, rather than spend it on tax loopholes like deductions to accountants for $1m, or property subsidies. 

The other one which is a big, you know, I go to now – just to help explain why we mean I don’t accept their figures at all – is that at the moment in Australia we give nearly $6bn in tax credits to people who don’t pay tax. 

This is called a gift. And it’s a nearly $6bn gift. And it’s going to increase every year. 

So when we say we’re not gonna give the gift any more, that is not a tax increase. It’s just a decision to improve the bottom line of the budget; it’s a decision to fund our healthcare.

You know, one in two Australians will get a diagnosis of cancer by the time they’re 85, the average life expectancy. One in two of us. And it’s expensive. And I just want to make sure that when you’re in the fight of your life, we’re alongside you.”
_


----------



## basilio (12 April 2019)

And Peter Dutton turns mongrel on woman who is opposing him in the election.
With any luck he has nailed himself into his political coffin.
*Peter Dutton claims Labor candidate using disability as ‘an excuse’ as battle turns bitter*
Nothing is out of bounds for Peter Dutton who made an extraordinary claim about a Labor candidate who lost her leg in 2011.
https://www.news.com.au/national/fe...r/news-story/7962c25bcc8f254e5526f70952ef4234


----------



## SirRumpole (12 April 2019)

basilio said:


> And Peter Dutton turns mongrel on woman who is opposing him in the election.
> With any luck he has nailed himself into his political coffin.
> *Peter Dutton claims Labor candidate using disability as ‘an excuse’ as battle turns bitter*
> Nothing is out of bounds for Peter Dutton who made an extraordinary claim about a Labor candidate who lost her leg in 2011.
> https://www.news.com.au/national/fe...r/news-story/7962c25bcc8f254e5526f70952ef4234




Dutton and Eddie MacGuire would make a great team.


----------



## basilio (12 April 2019)

It's getting hotter in the race to the bottom with Peter Dutton.

Apparently Peter Dutton said it was "members of his electorate" who were protesting that the ALP candidate hadn't moved into the electorate because she couldn't find a house that was suitable for her disability ( she has lost a leg in a car accident a few years ago and has an artificial limb).

Anyway one of the  responses was :

_"Peter Dutton is the sort of xxnt who would kick out an amputees wooden leg and then point and say they are an example of people who can't stand on their own two feet."_


----------



## basilio (12 April 2019)

*Both sides expect the election to be dirty but few thought Peter Dutton would stoop so low so quickly *
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/st...utton-would-stoop-so-low-so-quickly/?cs=14231


----------



## basilio (12 April 2019)

How elections change perceptions ...
 04:30 
*Scott Morrison* has condemned *Israel Folau’s* comments that “hell awaits people like homosexuals, drunks and fornicators” as insensitive several times today:

Morrison (to the ABC) :
_I thought they were terribly insensitive comments. Obviously they’re a matter for the ARU and they’ve taken that decision as a result of the insensitivities of those comments.

Well, you know it’s important that people act with love and care and compassion to their fellow citizens and to speak sensitively to their fellow Australians. That’s what I believe.”_

And in his own press conference:

_Israel’s comments were insensitive and it is important that when you’re in public life you just be mindful of being sensitive to other Australians and that you speak with that empathy and so the ARU have made their decision in relation to that matter.”_

That’s a change from just under a year ago, when Folau made similar comments on his social media, when Morrison told *Miranda Devine*:

_It clearly means a lot to Izzy and good for him for standing up for his faith,” Morrison said. 

“He wouldn’t have wanted to intend to have offended or hurt anyone because that’s very much against the faith that he feels so passionately about.

“But I think he’s shown a lot of strength of character in just standing up for what he believes in and I think that’s what this country is all about.”
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...or-tax-economy-morrison-shorten-politics-live
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...olaus-strong-character-after-anti-gay-remarks_


----------



## sptrawler (12 April 2019)

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...date-over-israel-remarks-20190412-p51dqz.html

Labor has its own Dutton moment.lol


----------



## dutchie (13 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...date-over-israel-remarks-20190412-p51dqz.html
> 
> Labor has its own Dutton moment.lol



oh but that doesn't count if your a Labor supporter.


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2019)

dutchie said:


> oh but that doesn't count if your a Labor supporter.




Inshallah? She actually said that?
There is a worrying thread of pro Islamification and anti Semitism among the Labo(u)r and leftist parties.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 April 2019)

So you can't criticise Israel without being anti Semitic and you can't criticise Islam without being Islamaphobic ?

What a mess PC has got us into.


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Inshallah? She actually said that?
> There is a worrying thread of pro Islamification and anti Semitism among the Labo(u)r and leftist parties.



Yet when it comes to offering evidence to support your claims, you come up short.
Maybe the constant UN resolutions and reports decrying Israel's treatment of Palestinians means nothing to you, but they paint a sorry picture for the state of humanity and what nations like the USA and Australia condone.


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2019)

So you support the Islamification of the West Rob?


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> So you support the Islamification of the West Rob?



I have no idea what you are talking about.
I only know you are unable to offer support for the many things you add to threads at ASF.


----------



## moXJO (13 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about.
> I only know you are unable to offer support for the many things you add to threads at ASF.



Could you add some support for this comment.


----------



## moXJO (13 April 2019)

I heard bill shorty wants to drop accountant fees over $3k as tax deductions. Anyone have any info?


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Could you add some support for this comment.



I made 2 comments.
If you are querying the second, then look for the posts where I have asked for substantiation, and see what you can find.
That's not too hard for you is it?

In relation to tax deductions for tax returns, I have heard the $3000 limit twice mentioned - by Bowen and by Shorten.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> I heard bill shorty wants to drop accountant fees over $3k as tax deductions. Anyone have any info?




Sounds reasonable to me.


----------



## Knobby22 (13 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> The ALP ABC have put up a swing calculator for those of us waiting for the water to boil.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...ntony-green-house-of-reps-calculator/10872122
> 
> ...



I think the election will be close.
Big tax changes from opposition as John Hewson found is hard.

Abbott will hold his seat, Turnbulls old seat will go back to Liberal (Turnbull actually liked the Lib guy and has been seen having lunch with him). Some of those Victorian seats are going to be hard for Labor to win. 
If Morrison looks like getting close he will get more money from the Uber wealthy who are scared about the family trust taxing proposals.

It will be close and we may still get a boat or some other incident occurring in a couple of weeks.(not arranged of course).

The big weakness of the Libs is Tony. They have to somehow stop him spouting his usual.


----------



## sptrawler (13 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I think the election will be close.
> Big tax changes from opposition as John Hewson found is hard.
> 
> Abbott will hold his seat, Turnbulls old seat will go back to Liberal (Turnbull actually liked the Lib guy and has been seen having lunch with him). Some of those Victorian seats are going to be hard for Labor to win.
> ...



How are Shorten and Morrison coming across on a personal level Knobby? I haven't seen either of them since the election was called, and IMO the way they project themselves, will have a major bearing in the outcome.
Morrison is carrying a lot of leadership baggage, but Shorten has never been high in the opinion polls, so it should be interesting to see who holds their nerve as it tightens up.


----------



## Knobby22 (13 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> How are Shorten and Morrison coming across on a personal level Knobby? I haven't seen either of them since the election was called, and IMO the way they project themselves, will have a major bearing in the outcome.
> Morrison is carrying a lot of leadership baggage, but Shorten has never been high in the opinion polls, so it should be interesting to see who holds their nerve as it tightens up.




They both come cross as party machine men with little charisma, slightly more charisma with Morrison but he also comes across a little as a vacuum cleaner salesmen. They were both wearing yellow vests yesterday walking through factories so similar I couldn't tell the difference.
I am going to do what explod is and try to avoid this election. You are luck you are on holiday SP.


----------



## sptrawler (13 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> They both come cross as party machine men with little charisma, slightly more charisma with Morrison but he also comes across a little as a vacuum cleaner salesmen. They were both wearing yellow vests yesterday walking through factories so similar I couldn't tell the difference.
> I am going to do what explod is and try to avoid this election. You are luck you are on holiday SP.



Yes, I get back on 15th May, so I will miss all of it. Yippee


----------



## Logique (13 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> I heard bill shorty wants to drop accountant fees over $3k as tax deductions. Anyone have any info?



This may assist







> *Labor is coming for your tax refund*
> Catallaxy Files: April 12, 2019 by Sinclair Davidson:
> http://catallaxyfiles.com/2019/04/12/labor-is-coming-for-your-tax-refund/
> ...Bill Shorten has attacked the ability of wealthy people to claim a tax deduction for their accountancy fees.
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (13 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> more charisma with Morrison but he also comes across a little as a vacuum cleaner salesmen.




For those old enough to remember, Morrison is the Happy Joe Happy of Australian politicians.


----------



## basilio (13 April 2019)

Logique said:


> This may assist




Interesting that the source you quoted never mentioned that the proposed changes to tax deductability for accountants  fees *were for amounts over $3000.*

If one was just reading it you would believe that all accountants fees would no be tax deductible.

He is  either incompetent or deceitful.  Little credibility.


----------



## kahuna1 (13 April 2019)

I didn't know we were electing our first president as well.

Saw this Ad, think its interesting and important.


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about.
> I only know you are unable to offer support for the many things you add to threads at ASF.



Instructive.

Clearly you regard yourself as intellectual. From your posts here I would say you are smarter than average, somewhere in the first standard deviation, but certainly no more. That you are unable to discern my point (admittedly {and intentionally} obtuse) is ample evidence thereof; that is unless you are feigning stupidity as some sort of puerile debating tactic to play to the Komrades.

I'm not sure which to be honest.

My advice is to review our interchange here; my response is intentionally fallacious, but was to make a point...

...which you may have missed.


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Instructive.
> Clearly you regard yourself as intellectual. From your posts here I would say you are smarter than average, somewhere in the first standard deviation, but certainly no more. That you are unable to discern my point (admittedly {and intentionally} obtuse) is ample evidence thereof; that is unless you are feigning stupidity as some sort of puerile debating tactic to play to the Komrades.
> I'm not sure which to be honest.
> My advice is to review our interchange here; my response is intentionally fallacious, but was to make a point...
> ...which you may have missed.



I have no interest in your opinions.
You made a statement and I have no idea what you are talking about.
It was as simple as that.
But it's not relevant to this thread that I am aware, so I will leave it at that.


----------



## moXJO (13 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I made 2 comments.
> If you are querying the second, then look for the posts where I have asked for substantiation, and see what you can find.
> That's not too hard for you is it?



Could you link each and every post. Its too hard for me

In regards to the tax,  I wonder if that will cover sole traders as well?


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I have no interest in your opinions.
> You made a statement and I have no idea what you are talking about.
> It was as simple as that.
> But it's not relevant to this thread that I am aware, so I will leave it at that.



That's all cool.

Just wondering why you feel compelled to comment on my posts then?

Seems contradictory to me


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Just wondering why you feel compelled to comment on my posts then?
> Seems contradictory to me



This was your claim:


wayneL said:


> There is a worrying thread of pro Islamification and anti Semitism among the Labo(u)r and leftist parties.



Where is your evidence?


----------



## wayneL (13 April 2019)

rederob said:


> This was your claim:
> Where is your evidence?



LMAO

*Inshallah?

*The comparative reactions to Islam amd LBGTABCXYZ and (supposedly) right wing terrorism?

Look at the juxtaposition between Islam in the West and 3rd/4th wave feminism and LGBTABCXYZ.

I have long since realized that you disregard evidence that doesn't fit the narrative supplanted within you, so hope to awaken some critical thought...

...so far in vain.


----------



## rederob (13 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> LMAO
> *Inshallah?
> *The comparative reactions to Islam amd LBGTABCXYZ and (supposedly) right wing terrorism?
> Look at the juxtaposition between Islam in the West and 3rd/4th wave feminism and LGBTABCXYZ.
> ...



So you are like the many posters here who do not actually provide evidence, but think repeating a statement is adequate.
Try someone else.


----------



## jbocker (14 April 2019)

Commenting on day 2 of the campaign. (sorry I have had sparse internet access), The debacle of 3 people having to resign because of section 44 ineligibility to run for parliament. it must be making some people think what is this liberal mob doing. You call an election and cant organise your own troops to be of correct eligibility status. A minor administrative task I would have thought.
It worries me how the job of running the country is being done behind the scenes.


----------



## Junior (15 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Yes we need a more thoughtful approach to how we tax and what we spend that money on.
> I don't agree that the Labour government proposals are about a "massive tax hike" . In the first instance they are just going to *not *proceed with tax cuts that were targeted for the well off and which would have required massive cuts in government services to finance.
> There are proposed tax increases. They are directed at the wealthiest sections of the community. The funds realised will be used to
> 
> ...




ALP seem to have abandoned any prospect of addressing bracket creep for anyone above lower/middle income levels, are re-introducing Budget Repair Levy, abolishing neg gearing and refundable franking credits.  They are proposing to introduce a minimum tax rate of 30% for distributions from Family Trusts.  These measures will impact small businesses and retirees, not just high-income earners.

The issue I have is that anyone who earns a decent income or runs a business, or funds their own retirement, are being demonised by Shorten (despite the fact that Bill himself, is very much a member of the "top end of town"), and made to feel like they aren't contributing enough to society.  The people being demonised already pay the vast majority of tax, and provide the vast majority of jobs in this country.  As I've previously stated, I think the impact on unemployment could be significant, and the projections of how much revenue will be raised from these measures is vastly overstated.

In terms of paying down Government debt, I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## kahuna1 (15 April 2019)

Its only 2 days in .... and I am so so so so zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Apparently if you mention someone is Swedish ...  your anti swedetic. 

I vote all politicians are fitted with the following Hand organ ... might make their speeches even amusing

It even translates TRUMP SPEECH ...


----------



## PZ99 (16 April 2019)

Here is the exchange on superannuation *Bill Shorten* had today:

*Journalist:* Can you rule out no new or increased taxes on superannuation?

*BS: *We have no plans to increase taxes on superannuation.

*J:* That’s different from ruling it out though.

*BS:* We have no plans to introduce any new taxes on superannuation.

*J: *So will you rule it out?

*BS:* Sure.

-----------------

I'm calling BS on that 

Their official policy is (or was and therefore will be) to tax contributions and earnings.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04...s-for-high-income-wealthy-australians/6410800


----------



## kahuna1 (16 April 2019)

I preferred Abbot story  ...

He reported said he is ready to stand in as Prime Minister ... in the SMH and a few other outlets reported the same.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 April 2019)

Junior said:


> the projections of how much revenue will be raised from these measures is vastly overstated.



The one certainty is that any change which uses static accounting in forecasting the results is certain to not produce the expected outcome.

Always amazes me how often politicians of all colours, and rather a few business leaders, make this basic mistake.

Change one input = other things change too.


----------



## Tink (17 April 2019)




----------



## PZ99 (17 April 2019)

"Tonight they deleted their entire superannuation policy. What is Labor trying to hide?"

They must have read this thread


----------



## PZ99 (17 April 2019)

Interesting survey about what people consider to be important issues.

Unlike last time, climate is the impetus of change it seems 

Healthcare and education are not - and no one cares about security.







https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-17/vote-compass-election-most-important-issues/11003192


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2019)

Social Justice = 0?

Bas will be bereft. 

Looks like a good result for the Greens.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 April 2019)

Environment now no. 1 issue.
Surprised. If Turnbull had of been allowed to proceed with the energy policy I am sure it wouldn't be so prominent.


----------



## Tink (17 April 2019)

The environment and the economy.

We would never vote the Greens.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2019)

I did the Vote Compass this morning.

57% LNP, 56% ALP, 38% Greens.

Now that's got me thinking. 

https://votecompass.abc.net.au/


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Interesting survey about what people consider to be important issues.
> 
> Unlike last time, climate is the impetus of change it seems
> 
> ...



I would be interestedin the results from a wider audience outside Ozpravda


----------



## rederob (17 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> I would be interestedin the results from a wider audience outside Ozpravda



You might be, but your grounds for interest would be based on what, exactly?
Perhaps you could inform yourself better about polling.


----------



## moXJO (17 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You might be, but your grounds for interest would be based on what, exactly?
> Perhaps you could inform yourself better about polling.





> Our sample is comprised of members of the Australian population who choose to participate in Vote Compass. We make no bones about our sample being self-selected, but where critics of the validity of Vote Compass data belie their understanding of sampling methodology is in their tacit assertion that the respondents to conventional polls are random.




There would be a slant to a particular group mindset. Namely abc flogs.
There is no way environment would be number one in the broader community. Cost of living would be the major concern.


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You might be, but your grounds for interest would be based on what, exactly?
> Perhaps you could inform yourself better about polling.



Yes self selected from the universe of ABC readers, mostly. I would be interested in the political leanings of such.

Perhaps better information on such matters may be illuminating.

For instance (admitedly from a very small sample), none of my colleagues and friends rely on Aunty as a reliable news source, ergo unlikely to find that survey to participate in. Indeed, I only found the link via the discussion here.

I think there could be a bias in the sample, happy to be proven wrong with robust data.


----------



## PZ99 (17 April 2019)

Climate / environment will always rate better when it's hot. It wasn't hot last time 

Last time I posted a vote compass poll on here it was during the SSM debate. They sampled 600,000 people and sampled each electorate under the same prerequisites as this poll.

End result turned out to be very similar which means if the participants were biased - so too was the whole country.

Can't see this being much different. I know plenty of Liberal / Conservative / Right that frequent the ABC - there wouldn't be complaints of bias if they didn't


----------



## rederob (17 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> I think there could be a bias in the sample, happy to be proven wrong with robust data.



Sampling and self selection are different.
The data to date is around 100 times the order of a typical poll and over 30 times larger than the biggest polls in Australia. 
As PZ99 noted above, the last compass self selection poll was of a massive scale, and delivered outcomes consistent with the ballot.
So the issue you cannot resolve is what constitutes "robust data," and without offering any evidence you have an idea of *bias*.


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Sampling and self selection are different.
> The data to date is around 100 times the order of a typical poll and over 30 times larger than the biggest polls in Australia.
> As PZ99 noted above, the last compass self selection poll was of a massive scale, and delivered outcomes consistent with the ballot.
> 
> So the issue you cannot resolve is what constitutes "robust data," and without offering any evidence you have an idea of *bias*.



I posit you cannot resolve what is robust data or bias either. Hence my use of language.

I will concede the point regarding recent temperatures in Oz, which indroduces (possibly) another bias.


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2019)

I also posit that you are biased about bias


----------



## rederob (17 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> I also posit that you are biased about bias



Nope - I merely note the regularity of posts from you which make baseless claims.
The last two are cases in point.


----------



## wayneL (17 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Nope - I merely note the regularity of posts from you which make baseless claims.
> The last two are cases in point.



This is because of your bias blindspot, perhaps the most egregious bias of them all.


----------



## moXJO (17 April 2019)

If I had a large enough voting block could I swing vote compass? 
Obviously the politicians are basing policies around voter sentiment.


----------



## rederob (17 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> This is because of your bias blindspot, perhaps the most egregious bias of them all.



Make that 3 consecutive posts that are baseless.
I admire people for their consistency.

You could have instead focussed on the issues which impacted robustness of poll outcomes seeing this was your concern.


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Here is the exchange on superannuation *Bill Shorten* had today:
> 
> *Journalist:* Can you rule out no new or increased taxes on superannuation?
> 
> ...




His "birthday cake" moment ?

The cracks were always going to show when subjected to scrutiny. It's only been division within the government that to this point has prevented that.


----------



## moXJO (17 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> If I had a large enough voting block could I swing vote compass?
> Obviously the politicians are basing policies around voter sentiment.



Just looking at it further it seems easy to sway. Is there a system in place to stop people forcing an outcome? 

A dedicated team could skew results fairly easy on a page that accepts a postcode (I didn't go right through to the end admittedly). Vpn to hide ip address,  couple of activists  and away you go without a failsafe. 
I feel social media has brought large numbers of people together that can actively skew certain things.


----------



## IFocus (17 April 2019)

Agree about the divisions but don't think its quite at the same level as Hewson's  cake also to early in the election.

Plenty of time for major blunders by both sides but I do get a sense no one is listening to either side.

BTW nice to see you are still breathing Dr.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 April 2019)

drsmith said:


> His "birthday cake" moment ?
> 
> The cracks were always going to show when subjected to scrutiny. It's only been division within the government that to this point has prevented that.




I doubt if it will have much effect anyway. The changes will hit mostly Liberal voters so it's a calculated risk.


----------



## moXJO (17 April 2019)

drsmith said:


> His "birthday cake" moment ?
> 
> The cracks were always going to show when subjected to scrutiny. It's only been division within the government that to this point has prevented that.



Jornos might start the pressure. BS is a scripted parrot. If he deviates slightly he is up the creek.

 I probably say this every year, but Jesus its like a choice between dumb and dumber.


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2019)

I Enjoyed this from John Cadigan re the electric car policy. Actually, he goes the knuckle on both leaders, pretty funny and some interesting points. 



As an aside I have rederob on ignore (the first time I have done that on this forum). Tedious.


----------



## PZ99 (18 April 2019)

The scary thing @moXJO is they are such elementary errors.

When someone talks about putting a tax on my super I don't forget in a hurry. It took me about one minute to find the ALP policy that busted Bill's believability.


----------



## rederob (18 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> As an aside I have rederob on ignore (the first time I have done that on this forum). Tedious.



People who post baseless nonsense and get called out often go to ground.
Maybe nobody took you on before, for what you do so regularly in this forum.
The real irony is that this is about "evidence".  You seldom offer it, and the evidence is available to all.

On topic, if the vote compass points as it does now, then the chestnut of "it's the economy, stupid" will experience *electoral climate change*.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> The scary thing @moXJO is they are such elementary errors.
> 
> When someone talks about putting a tax on my super I don't forget in a hurry. It took me about one minute to find the ALP policy that busted Bill's believability.




Hadn't Labor already announced these changes a long time ago ?

Couldn't Shorten have meant no changes beyond those already announced ?


----------



## PZ99 (18 April 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Hadn't Labor already announced these changes a long time ago ?
> 
> Couldn't Shorten have meant no changes beyond those already announced ?



He could have done. He could have said it that way too. But he didn't.

He said "We have no plans to increase taxes on superannuation"


----------



## SirRumpole (18 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> He could have done. He could have said it that way too. But he didn't.
> 
> He said "We have no plans to increase taxes on superannuation"




Well he's clarified that now.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/04/16/election-2019-shorten-super-taxes/


----------



## chiff (18 April 2019)

I will add a little balance to this.When Scomo  was asked whether Dutton should apologise for  his comments  about his opponent's disabilities ,rather than find out the facts ,his visceral dishonest response was to say that Dutton was quoted out of context.
In my electorate we have an independent who should easily get back in again ,so this partisan argument has not got the same effect on me.I have and will support the independent.
Any party that will support a national ICAC should be looked on very favourably.Are the major parties frightened of this?


----------



## bigdog (18 April 2019)

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/o...n/news-story/7060b76a8dab992aa34a474b7b1941fb

*Andrew Bolt: Bill Shorten’s climate stance is all pain without gain*
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
April 17, 2019 7:00pm

Bill Shorten is conning you: he is selling you a massive global warming policy without saying what it would cost and what it would do.

Huh? Would you consider buying even a toaster without knowing either the price or whether it works?

So why risk buying the Labor leader’s scheme to radically change how we power our businesses and homes?

Shorten’s con was exposed again this week, when Channel 10 journalist Jonathan Lea asked him five times to tell Australians the cost of his plan to slash the emissions Labor claims are heating the world dangerously.

Labor says it will cut those emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 — and not just from power stations but from the whole economy.

The costs will obviously be massive. Just the emissions cuts we’ve had so far have helped shut power stations and made your electricity expensive.

So how much more will Labor’s cuts cost?

Five times Shorten was asked on Tuesday and five times he refused to say. He was also asked several times on Wednesday and again wouldn’t answer.

He instead offered two red herrings.

The first is that “inaction on climate change is going to cost Australians in the future”.

False. As the Chief Scientists admits, nothing Australia does — even scrapping every car and factory — could make any measurable difference to the temperature. We’re too small.

So Labor’s plan won’t work.

Indeed, I’ve asked him what difference his policy would make to the temperature and he refuses to say that, either. He does not want you to know it’s all pain for no gain.

Shorten’s second fake answer on Wednesday was that the economy is “still going to grow” under Labor’s scheme.

Sure, the economy may still grow, but it will definitely grow slower.

Economist Brian Fisher of BAEconomics calculates in a peer-reviewed paper that Labor’s plan will cost the economy a cumulative $1000 billion by 2030, even with Labor allowing gassy Australian businesses to pay foreigners to cut their own emissions instead.

Power prices would jump another 75 per cent. Your wages would rise even slower.

That is a huge cost and all to make zero difference.

Doubt me? Then why won’t Shorten tell you either the cost of Labor’s global warming policy or the difference it would make to the temperature?

If you don’t know either the cost or the benefit, can you risk voting Labor?


----------



## Junior (18 April 2019)

Andrew Bolt......can we all agree not to quote him in this thread?  The man has little to no credibility in my view.


----------



## chiff (18 April 2019)

Andrew Bolt...part of a campaign by News Corp and the pro-coal lobby ,I see.


----------



## moXJO (18 April 2019)

Can we pick apart his argument?


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2019)

Junior said:


> Andrew Bolt......can we all agree not to quote him in this thread?  The man has little to no credibility in my view.



Okay, so long as we agree not to quote any other journalist.


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Can we pick apart his argument?



He's not extreme left wing, so couldn't possibly have any credibility on anything


----------



## rederob (18 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Can we pick apart his argument?



Yes.
Shall I do it in this thread?


----------



## SirRumpole (18 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes.
> Shall I do it in this thread?




Please continue.


----------



## moXJO (18 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes.
> Shall I do it in this thread?



I think its important and relevant to the election.


----------



## rederob (18 April 2019)

bigdog said:


> Bill Shorten is conning you: he is selling you a massive global warming policy without saying what it would cost and what it would do.



No, that's just uneducated wording.
Labor consulted with industry to see what they believed was needed in order to participate in a global economy with repercussions for inaction.
The policy itself is of *mitigation*, not warming - so Bolt is typically bereft of brains.


bigdog said:


> Would you consider buying even a toaster without knowing either the price or whether it works?



Silly question! Do you want to sell goods and services overseas, yes or no?
If you do, then choose an option which is credible, sustainable and allows you to prosper into the future.


bigdog said:


> So why risk buying the Labor leader’s scheme to radically change how we power our businesses and homes?



This shows how ignorant Bolt is.  Labor is proposing the NEG as a backstop on power.  The NEG was *coal*ition policy before coal lit a fuse that shunned Turnbull's ideas.
I can add more, but that's enough imho, to show how the Bolt's fail in a blue.


----------



## Junior (18 April 2019)

wayneL said:


> Okay, so long as we agree not to quote any other *journalist*.




Questionable description.


----------



## wayneL (18 April 2019)

Junior said:


> Questionable description.



Oh you mean he might be an activist like all those at theABC, The Guardian, Vox, Buzzfeed et al?


----------



## IFocus (18 April 2019)

Bolt where do you start.............lets try money, get everyone angry then sign them up for the advertisers sound familiar? 

Journalist? he may have been once long ago but really he is more  entertainer than journalist  like Jones etc.

Bolt is so predictable it is pointless to read his articles, absolutely bereft of intellect just read the comments they are hilarious.

Still he sucks money writing absolute crap got to be making a mill a year surely.


----------



## Joules MM1 (21 April 2019)

https://www.michaelwest.com.au/barnaby-joyce-angus-taylor-australia-and-the-caribbean/

*Barnaby Joyce, Angus Taylor, Australia and the Caribbean*
Apr 21, 2019 | Featured, Finance, Government


----------



## kahuna1 (21 April 2019)

LIAR LIAR pants on fire ....

Bad day for the libs/ GOP !! they lied about costings. What tossers !! t*aking a leaf from their USA leaders the GOP .*

_"We were not asked to cost another party's policies and would not do so," the Treasury boss said in a response to a letter from Mr Bowen._

THE LIE

_Mr Frydenberg said the costings showed Labor's tax plan would cost an extra $387 billion over the next decade, almost double previously estimated - a total Mr Gaetjens said his department had not provided._

AND ON AND ON THEY WENT,,, all of it  a lie ... 

_Mr Bowen said Mr Gaetjens letter showed Mr Morrison and his treasurer had again been caught out lying about Labor._

https://au.news.yahoo.com/labors-387b-10-tax-grab-treasurer-140519353--spt.html

_"This is a humiliating rebuke and confirms that Scott Morrison cannot be trusted on the economy," Mr Bowen said in a statement."_

Ahhh  derr ....


Here is how dear leader and future president of Australia does it !!




I do love the line ... I would never lie to you, almost like the Whitney/Dolly song, "I will always love you" !!


----------



## basilio (22 April 2019)

Just so we don't forget how the Liberal party destroyed  Malcolm Turnbull and itself over energy policy.


*How Malcolm Turnbull's Easter tweets help Bill Shorten's cause and Labor's campaign*

*Turnbull resurrects the NEG*
The weekend standout, however, was the intervention of Malcolm Turnbull, who launched a series of pointed tweets about the National Energy Guarantee (NEG).
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...ter-tweets-helped-the-labor-campaign/11034950


----------



## SirRumpole (22 April 2019)

basilio said:


> Just so we don't forget how the Liberal party destroyed  Malcolm Turnbull and itself over energy policy.
> 
> 
> *How Malcolm Turnbull's Easter tweets help Bill Shorten's cause and Labor's campaign*
> ...




Can you blame him ?


----------



## Logique (22 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Bolt where do you start.............lets try money, get everyone angry then sign them up for the advertisers sound familiar?
> 
> Journalist? he may have been once long ago but really he is more  entertainer than journalist  like Jones etc.
> 
> ...



"_No doubt you will post the evidence to back that claim_."  From another thread


----------



## rederob (22 April 2019)

Logique said:


> "_No doubt you will post the evidence to back that claim_."  From another thread



You might like to hear what a former PM said.
Or see how he skates on thin ice wrt to the law and ACMA.
I use him as a benchmark for quality in journalism, specifically where little exists.


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2019)

rederob said:


> You might like to hear what a former PM said.
> Or see how he skates on thin ice wrt to the law and ACMA.
> I use him as a benchmark for quality in journalism, specifically where little exists.



Wasn't the court case against a guy that was a corrupt ahole?


----------



## rederob (22 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Wasn't the court case against a guy that was a corrupt ahole?



I suppose some people might characterise Bolt like that.
" _I have not been satisfied that the conduct [of Mr Bolt] is exempted from unlawfulness by s 18D. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained *erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language* and that as a result, the conduct of Mr Bolt and HWT is *not justified* in the manner required by s 18D of the RDA._"


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2019)

rederob said:


> I suppose some people might characterise Bolt like that.
> " _I have not been satisfied that the conduct [of Mr Bolt] is exempted from unlawfulness by s 18D. The reasons for that conclusion have to do with the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained *erroneous facts, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language* and that as a result, the conduct of Mr Bolt and HWT is *not justified* in the manner required by s 18D of the RDA._"



He is an opinion writer. Facts don't matter to the majority of them. Only cherry-picked data.
And thats left and right. That doesn't mean all of them are wrong 100% of the time. 
But people credit them with more power than they actually have.
Bolts no threat....


----------



## rederob (22 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> He is an opinion writer. Facts don't matter to the majority of them. Only cherry-picked data.
> And that's left and right. *That doesn't mean all of them are wrong 100% of the time.*



Opinions have the currency that their audience confers.  However, opinions themselves *cannot be* judged in terms of right or wrong.


----------



## wayneL (22 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> He is an opinion writer. Facts don't matter to the majority of them. Only cherry-picked data.
> And thats left and right. That doesn't mean all of them are wrong 100% of the time.
> But people credit them with more power than they actually have.
> Bolts no threat....



Yep, the left loves to bag out Bolt for opinion, but the MSM in most cases is also opinion

Politics is subjective, mostly.


----------



## moXJO (22 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Opinions have the currency that their audience confers.  However, opinions themselves *cannot be* judged in terms of right or wrong.




Its click bait. Nothing more. Opinions and emotions get the clicks.


----------



## IFocus (22 April 2019)

Logique said:


> "_No doubt you will post the evidence to back that claim_."  From another thread





Oh that must have hit a nerve


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 April 2019)

Interesting tactic by Coalition for Michaela Cash to vehemently protest Labor EV strategy. She wants to see Johnny and all Apprentices driving their ICE ute forever.


----------



## basilio (22 April 2019)

What a rivetting, rousing load of ........total bollocks.
I can just see her defending the blacksmiths and wheelturners against the rise of the motor car.

And this is/was a government that *promoted* electric cars until a few weeks ago.
With this brainless politicking they deserve to be totally trounced.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 April 2019)

basilio said:


> What a rivetting, rousing load of ........total bollocks.
> I can just see her defending the blacksmiths and wheelturners against the rise of the motor car.
> 
> And this is/was a government that *promoted* electric cars until a few weeks ago.
> With this brainless politicking they deserve to be totally trounced.



Those type of 'unnecessary' comments can lose thousands of votes. The bogans and their noisy vehicles will be a thing of the past. The world is turning to more reusable energy sources so can someone tap her on the shoulder please.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 April 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Environment now no. 1 issue.
> Surprised. If Turnbull had of been allowed to proceed with the energy policy I am sure it wouldn't be so prominent.



One issue in that is that expect most people would have at least some level of concern about most things on the list. That they're picking one means they'll pick one but I doubt that most would see the rest as actually being unimportant as such unless due to sheer ignorance.

Eg It's unlikely that most would think security or industrial relations to not be important as such but likewise it's not the number 1 priority either.

Regardless of who wins the election, my thinking is that a few proverbial cans won't be able to be kicked down the road any further and that sort of thing will end up being the dominant focus, not whatever they say in the campaign.

Economy is one that comes to mind. What really are the odds that we go another 3 years without a recession? Luck's going to run out at some point and there do seem to be a lot of alarm bells going off at the moment.

Growth in the big two cities and related infrastructure, energy / environment / resources, wages, debt, house prices. There's quite a few things where there's not much room left to move.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 April 2019)

IFocus said:


> Still he sucks money writing absolute crap got to be making a mill a year surely.



That we have such people, regardless of their actual bias, making serious money through the expression of ignorance is a serious problem in my view. All sides do it in various ways.

The worry is that they're being paid big $ to do it ultimately means someone's listening, or at least advertisers think they are.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 April 2019)

Wysiwyg said:


> The bogans and their noisy vehicles will be a thing of the past.



They've already got a fix for that.

Speakers mounted under the bonnet and no that's not a joke.


----------



## qldfrog (23 April 2019)

Some ICE sport cars do it already with tunable setups
Allow to pass EU emissions norm standards while still having V8 rumbling noise


----------



## PZ99 (23 April 2019)

It's a crackup how Ms Cash goes on about saving the utes when it was her party that destroyed the Aussie utes, the entire Aussie auto industry and the ancillary jobs in the first place.


----------



## PZ99 (23 April 2019)

According to this https://www.news.com.au/national/fe...s/news-story/6f27f112914987511574f5c549d69532

My views align with Labor at 45%, Coalition at 45%, One Nation at 45%, Green 0%


----------



## wayneL (23 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> According to this https://www.news.com.au/national/fe...s/news-story/6f27f112914987511574f5c549d69532
> 
> My views align with Labor at 45%, Coalition at 45%, One Nation at 45%, Green 0%



ON 76%
Coalition 63%
Labor 38%
Greens 15%

FWIW


----------



## Logique (23 April 2019)

Certainly came as a surprise to me!  Although I'm assuming certainty at 49% isn't a strong reading:  https://www.news.com.au/national/fe...s/news-story/6f27f112914987511574f5c549d69532


----------



## kahuna1 (23 April 2019)

It is I think like the tide .... the climate debate, trying to stop the sheer stupidity of some views.

When science is ignored and we have today .... the Liberal National Party ...

_Mr Rennick last month accused the weather bureau of "rewriting weather records to fit in with the global warming agenda!" 
"Our public servants are out of control," he said on Facebook.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...erard-rennick-bom-climate-conspiracy/11036404
_
What relevance the BOM has to say NASA satellites that measure the global temperatures is absurd ... let lone the Europeans with two shiny NEW satellite that measure a whole host of things ... the BOM is well irrelevant ..

Even Better ... _

Identical idiotic dogma ... and NOT a joke or PUN or QUIP ...

Pauline Hanson quoted a top 10 of idiotic conspiracy theory myths on the climate .... and believes them ALL ..._
*Pauline Hanson says humans are not behind the causes of climate change ...

the same shifts in climate that caused the extinction of dinosaurs are behind changes the world is experiencing today. *
_
I thought a meteor the size of Mount Everest traveling at 20 times the speed of a bullet started the last extinction event ... and the BLOODY big hole and vaporized fossil remains .... caused the start of that event, but stuff me ... _
*"If climate change is happening it is not because man is causing it to happen."*_
_
Lizard people ? Or did a bloody big rock hit we all missed ? _

*volcanic eruptions and oceans caused more carbon emissions than man-made pollution*.
_
Sadly, the Facebook myth ... on volcanoes is still alive and well ... and since Oceans ABSORB 60-70% f the CO2 and produce over 50% of the oxygen ... what a bloody idiot she is !! 

She did go on and on ... talking about Queensland and ignored the sad fact the great barrier reef is 25% of the size it was in 1985 due to BLEACHING of coral which is ... temperature related and now seen in 100% of the 3000 Reefs. She seems to have missed that ...
_
https://www.news.com.au/national/br...e/news-story/c6e1e36be5fd9b3f7d324b52bfaa79aa
_
A spokesperson thought Pauline was under attack and ... well the Utube of his comments referring to a TV show ... and how Orange haired people are attacked and NOT evil is ... perplexing.

Such is the state of the climate change issue. 
Here is her spokesperson gibbering on about south park ... Well worth a watch ... _


_
I sadly found the Utube more amusing than reality.

this one on the Myths she touched upon along with the Liberal Party make me feel, concerned ... 

here is the U tube ... 

_
_
To hit every single MYTH ... and believe some weird conspiracy theory, is hard ... but heck its Pauline and surprising the Liberals to come out and do the same rather than the covert way they usually do.
_

Take care


_


----------



## basilio (23 April 2019)

Print  Email  Facebook  Twitter  More
*LNP Senate candidate accuses weather bureau of fudging data to suit 'global warming agenda'*

It is interesting to see that Gerald Rennick is a potential LNP senator and running in the third position on their Senate ticket.

Handsome young guy with a sweet wife and  brings a string of CC conspiracy theories that have been totally pinched off ASF threads. (yes we lead others merely follow..)

Of course  it's possible the more discerning LNP voters may skip the third candidate and go for number 4.

That would be present Senator Ian McDonald who isn't as young or handsome or has a sweet wife BUT yes shares Gerald's CC conspiracy views.

Just too much.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...erard-rennick-bom-climate-conspiracy/11036404


----------



## IFocus (23 April 2019)

I am batting for the good guys welcome aboard Logique


----------



## Tink (26 April 2019)

Your views most align with Coalition!

Certainty: - 59%
-
Labor - 1.25
Coalition - 3.85

_https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/australian-federal-politics_


----------



## PZ99 (28 April 2019)

Julia Banks preferences Labor in Flinders, infuriating former Liberal colleagues

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...with-rightwing-minor-parties-will-cause-chaos

Gotta say I wasn't expecting that one.


----------



## PZ99 (29 April 2019)

Polling has narrowed to ALP 51 / 49 Coalition.

One Nation 4%, Greens 9%, Clive Palmer 5%.

Clive Palmer at 5% says everything about how advertising really works - even if it is BS.
He must be as excited as Big Kev was


----------



## qldfrog (29 April 2019)

View align with coalition 66pc certainly..hum.i was thinking more 1 nation considering the option offered


----------



## kahuna1 (29 April 2019)

↑
*Congratulations Humanity
The Great Barrier Reef has lost 75% of what it was in 1985. 
Chances of 10% being left in 2050 are less than 1%.
The First Canary in the Coal Mine is DEAD ....*

↑
how many are DEAD on the current survey.

RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019
St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Mackay Reef as mentioned 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Hasting Reef RIP .... 2019 ZERO ... 32% in 2016 if that's any relevance as its DEAD in 2019
Opal 2 reef ... RIP .... 22% cover to ZERO ....
Green Island ... RIP ... 0% ...


So far 31 Reefs under survey 2019 ... 5 of them are NEW ...
Of the 26.

IN 2019 ... THIS YEAR .... I count 6 with* ZERO cover, main reef being dead* ... and scant Outer reef cover ....

Fitzroy Island ... CLOSE a mere 2% verses 32% ... Not good
Click to expand...
*DEAD on the current survey.

RIB REEF rip ... 43% ave 41% ave 1990',s 37% 2016 cover to zero in 2019
St Crispin as mentioned DEAD in 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Mackay Reef as mentioned 2019 ZERO COVER ...
Hasting Reef RIP .... 2019 ZERO ... 32% in 2016 if that's any relevance as its DEAD in 2019
Opal 2 reef ... RIP .... 22% cover to ZERO ....
Green Island ... RIP ... 0% ...*

↑
*Congratulations Mr Trump, Climate deniers, idiots and non scientific people !!

This first Canary is dead, likely massive impact on Marine species diversity i the region. One that took hundreds of millions of year to evolve .... Well done silly HUMANS !*
SAD BUT very very correct

I am sure the Turtles which use Green Island as their main hatching ground will LOVE no Coral

Even the dumbest of the dumb can work out some things.

Its wonderful .... Resident Dump ... whoops President Trump. Dumb Donald is 0% still alive ? You had a hunch !! World leader ... what an idiot along with Pauline and the *Liberal party policies*.

Sorry but the above ... denial of any issue via LNP ... given Green Island NOW in 2019 ... just surveyed *HAD NO HARD CORALS LEFT* ....  I am not sure WHAT will wake these climate idiots UP. Green Island has been under survey because its one of the ONLY turtle Hatcheries for one species of  Turtles ...

It’s easy to see why Green Island Cairns has been on the tourist map for over 100 years – first as a basic lodge (grass huts) for passing fishermen and then as an opportunity for day-trippers to experience the reef first-hand.

In fact Green Island has a long list of firsts:


1st tourist destination on the Great Barrier Reef – 1880s
1st protected coral cay – 1937
1st glass bottom boat experience – 1948
1st underwater observatory – 1954
1st island movie theatre (featuring underwater footage) – 1961
1st crocodile exhibit on a sand cay – 1964

http://www.adventuremumma.com/green-island-cairns-turtle-heaven/
*NEW FIRST ... NO CORAL* ... welcome to climate change ... I note now in the link directly above ... turtle heaven ... is that WITH or WITHOUT Coral ? ... is it heaven or is it hell in 2019 ?


----------



## PZ99 (30 April 2019)




----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2019)

Hi from Helsinki how are the polls going


----------



## PZ99 (30 April 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Hi from Helsinki how are the polls going



G'day mate.  ALP 51 - 49 LNP.  Almost a dead heat


----------



## kahuna1 (30 April 2019)

*John Howard defends Liberal Party's preference deal with Clive Palmer *



An Abbot ... Palmer govt ?


----------



## rederob (30 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> G'day mate.  ALP 51 - 49 LNP.  Almost a dead heat



Is that a climate change joke?


----------



## kahuna1 (30 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Is that a climate change joke?




Sadly, nope. I don't think anyone cares about that topic other  than a very few like you and me.

The climate change joke was that Pauline pee'd when she went for a swim on the Reef and 6 Reefs now dead. Likely more over time. Until something happens to you, often, its really an aside. I am wondering and left wondering at times.

*Watch 25 Years of Arctic Sea Ice Disappear in 1 Minute*


what lies frozen for a million years beneath the ice, post 2050 will  ... change your kids lives totally.

Elections are about the only time we get to vote, and its pretty clear the divide.


----------



## moXJO (30 April 2019)

Whats the story with aljazeera and one nation? 

The nra scandal fair enough,  but now a second leak to do maximum damage before the election. 
Seems like a great way of destroying a political opponent. And from a foreign mob.
I wonder what happened behind the scenes and who else was involved?


----------



## kahuna1 (30 April 2019)

moXJO said:


> Whats the story with aljazeera and one nation?




Pauline's spokesperson made yet another ... confusing video .... he was meant to be speaking about the video of the candidate inside the strip club from One Nation ... but is well ... upset and talks about another video !!




It is better than the One Nation candidate at the strip club .... and him quitting after it.


----------



## PZ99 (30 April 2019)

rederob said:


> Is that a climate change joke?



If you swap the last two words around you end up with the second law of thermodynamics


----------



## moXJO (30 April 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Pauline's spokesperson made yet another ... confusing video .... he was meant to be speaking about the video of the candidate inside the strip club from One Nation ... but is well ... upset and talks about another video !!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Pauline was all over the shop. Her righthand man just fell on his sword (and possibly into a stripper). He is stuck on the ballot as well and technically could still win the seat.

Not the first time one nation has had a political hit job done on them. Not a fan but we have some very shady dealings going on in oz politics and media.

Lucky for Rudd as well ehh.


----------



## rederob (30 April 2019)

PZ99 said:


> If you swap the last two words around you end up with the second law of thermodynamics



Entropy has ruled Australian politics for too long.
Voter enthalpy might restore the balance.
But as the Senate couldn't spell "physics" to save itself we will be left with a Parliament riddled with constant Plancking.


----------



## sptrawler (30 April 2019)

Hi from Helsinki, how is the polling going?
There isn't a murmer about the Australian elections, on BBC, CNN or European news and here is me thinking we are changing the World in Australia.lol


----------



## Ann (1 May 2019)

An opine from _T_he West....

*Paul Murray: When it came to actually debating Scott Morrison won out against Bill Shorten*







_And the winner is...Picture: Illustration: Don Lindsay_

_
Bill Shorten’s best tactic going into last night’s leaders’ debate was to remain a small target while looking as prime ministerial as possible.

Unfortunately for him, Scott Morrison didn’t play by those rules. He broke away from the restrictive format and assumed the role of disrupter-in-chief from the very first question.

And Shorten didn’t like it. He tried to keep to his script, but when Morrison kept interrupting and picking him up on points, he was reduced to “yeah, yeah” as a response.

It’s fair to say that neither leader offered Australians much to inspire them about our future.

But in simple debating terms, Morrison did him over. The Prime Minister wanted to turn it into a scrap and to the extent that he did, he came out the best.

These debates rarely, if ever in Australia, settle important matters. The expectation is always higher than the delivery.

But they do play a role in engaging voters in the campaign issues and that was an important function on the first day of early polling, with the election still three weeks away. More..._


----------



## basilio (1 May 2019)

How to lose a  seat  in an election before you start.
*Federal election 2019: Liberal candidate for Isaacs Jeremy Hearn to be dumped after anti-Islamic comments*
Updated 21 minutes ago




* Photo:* Jeremy Hearn's comments included suggestions Muslim Australians wanted to introduce Sharia law. (Supplied: Liberal Victoria) 
*Related Story:* Calls for Morrison to sack Liberal candidate over anti-Muslim, conspiracy-laden rant
The Victorian Liberal Party will dump Jeremy Hearn as its candidate for the seat of Isaacs, after a conspiracy-laden anti-Muslim rant he posted online last year.

*Key points:*

Jeremy Hearn had previously suggested Muslim Australians were hiding their true intentions
He has since apologised, describing his comments as "not right"
The Victorian branch of the Liberal Party is moving to disendorse Mr Hearn this morning

In a statement, a spokesman for the party said the administrative committee was moving to cancel Mr Hearn's endorsement this morning.

The Liberal hopeful's comments included several suggestions Muslim Australians were hiding their true intentions, which he said were to overthrow the Australian Government and introduce Sharia law.

Victorian Liberals are privately furious with the organisational wing for failing to vet Mr Hearn properly and say he is emblematic of the factional war that has deeply divided the party.

Mr Hearn is associated with figures on the religious right, who have been accused of stacking Liberal branches with Mormons and conservative 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...ndidate-dumped-anti-islamic-comments/11061480


----------



## basilio (1 May 2019)

The internet never forgets. No doubt there will be other candidates (from all parties) who  look dumb/nasty/dodgy/whatever.


----------



## explod (1 May 2019)

Di Natale on the Press Club now.

Brilliant and clearly blowing the crooks away


----------



## SirRumpole (1 May 2019)

explod said:


> Di Natale on the Press Club now.
> 
> Brilliant and clearly blowing the crooks away




Not a bad effort.

I think they are getting a bit too radical Lefty for my liking these days but they are better than the LNP or PHON or (FFS) Clive Palmer.


----------



## PZ99 (1 May 2019)




----------



## wayneL (1 May 2019)

explod said:


> Di Natale on the Press Club now.
> 
> Brilliant and clearly blowing the crooks away



He must have taken his meds today. He oscillates from seeming to be (almost) reasonable, to certifiable. But then there are the rest of them who should be in straightjackets and heavily sedated...


----------



## chiff (1 May 2019)

explod said:


> Di Natale on the Press Club now.
> 
> Brilliant and clearly blowing the crooks away



The first to make  a serious attack on what has happened to the Murray Darling.Di Natale answers questions better than the major parties.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 May 2019)

Plod,

How are the Greens going to pay for free uni, tafe and dental care ?


----------



## wayneL (1 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Plod,
> 
> How are the Greens going to pay for free uni, tafe and dental care ?



I guess it will be the usual soft touches, those least able to financially defend themselves , middle income wage earners and self funded retirees.


----------



## explod (1 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Plod,
> 
> How are the Greens going to pay for free uni, tafe and dental care ?



Get fair with taxation.  Only tonight on the national news they pointed out how Facebook is only paying a fraction of the tax it should.  People like Gina Rinehart again getting away with murder on tax and employ cheap labour from overseas where they can.   Local workers paid more put it all back into the community, overseas workers, a lot of it goes overseas.


----------



## basilio (1 May 2019)

NEWS Ltd is keeping a track of the various politicians falling off the political perch. 

federal election
*Candidates drop like flies in day of scandal*
So many political scandals have erupted in the past 24 hours, it’s hard to keep up. These are the candidates who have bitten the dust. 

Another day, another political scandal —* or in this case, at least five.*

Candidate controversies have come thick and fast today, from homophobic attacks, to anti-Muslim and sexist posts.

If you’re having trouble keeping track of today’s candidate shenanigans and scandals, we’ve provided you a summary.

https://www.news.com.au/national/fe...l/news-story/69cffa220dd8df9a9d3560fc9956fd2a


----------



## Junior (3 May 2019)

basilio said:


> NEWS Ltd is keeping a track of the various politicians falling off the political perch.
> 
> federal election
> *Candidates drop like flies in day of scandal*
> ...




1. Search all social media history to dig up an "inappropriate" comment.
2. Provide to journalist who runs a story.
3. MP is forced to "apologise" (clearly not sorry most of the time)
4. Public outrage grows (on social media...although majority of the public don't care)
5. MP is instructed to resign.

Surely there's a better system then subjecting everyone to forced apologies and then quitting their jobs, only to re-emerge elsewhere in the system a few months later.  How about we just don't vote for these f*ckwits?


----------



## HelloU (3 May 2019)

Junior said:


> 1. Search all social media history to dig up an "inappropriate" comment.
> 2. Provide to journalist who runs a story.
> 3. MP is forced to "apologise" (clearly not sorry most of the time)
> 4. Public outrage grows (on social media...although majority of the public don't care)
> ...



love it junior

If making this list, I would ask that you be more specific on who are the f*ckwits we are not voting for ........ that f*ckwit column is completely full on my list.


----------



## Junior (3 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> love it junior
> 
> If making this list, I would ask that you be more specific on who are the f*ckwits we are not voting for ........ that f*ckwit column is completely full on my list.




Probably easier to try and compile a list of non-f*ckwits!  Not easier, but a lot shorter.


----------



## Tink (3 May 2019)

Labor 1.25
Coalition 3.75

https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/australian-federal-politics


----------



## PZ99 (3 May 2019)

Junior said:


> Probably easier to try and compile a list of non-f*ckwits!  Not easier, but a lot shorter.



I suggest a new strategy. Let the Wookie win


----------



## basilio (3 May 2019)

Another one bites the dust.
Perhaps she should move to One Nation or Annings Party and be done with it.
*Jessica Whelan quits as Liberal federal election candidate over anti-Muslim social media posts*
By political reporters Dan Conifer and Brett Worthington
Updated 42 minutes ago





* Photo:* Jessica Whelan, Liberal candidate for Lyons, is under pressure for alleged social media posts. (ABC News: Marco Catalano) 
*Related Story:* Liberal election candidate facing more questions over anti-Muslim posts
*Related Story:* Liberal candidate claims anti-Muslim posts were 'digitally manipulated'
*Related Story:* Another one bites the dust: Election campaign week three claims candidates left, right and centre
The Liberal Party has accepted the resignation of Tasmanian candidate Jessica Whelan following more allegations about her social media activity.

*Key points:*

Jessica Whelan quits as a Liberal candidate in the Tasmanian seat Lyons
She's been linked to Facebook posts spouting anti-Muslim and anti-Immigrant views
Liberal Party says the post were inappropriate and it was unaware of them
Overnight screenshots emerged that appear to show comments made on Facebook spouting anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant views.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...helan-disendorsed-social-media-posts/11075926


----------



## basilio (3 May 2019)

But it ain't over until the fat lady sings...
Jessica Whelen is rising from the dead.

*Dumped Liberal candidate to run as an independent*
*Jessica Whelan *(who remains on the ballot) will now run as an independent, after resigning as the Liberal candidate, ahead of her dis-endorsement.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...087d3be87824df#block-5ccb9b2b8f087d3be87824df


----------



## basilio (3 May 2019)

And another reminder of the way Clive Palmer does business.

* Clive Palmer's $100m Aboriginal foundation only has $109 in it, records show *
Western Australian government set to investigate the charity and says the businessman has behaved in a ‘disgraceful’ way

Lorena Allam Indigenous affairs editor

Fri 3 May 2019 10.00 AEST   Last modified on Fri 3 May 2019 10.01 AEST

51




Financial records show Clive Palmer’s $100m Palmer Care foundation to benefit Aboriginal people only has $109 in it. Photograph: Kelly Barnes/AAP
Clive Palmer’s $100m foundation to benefit Aboriginal people launched 10 years ago only has $109 in it, *despite never having disbursed a grant or allocation, *according to financial records published by the Australian charity commission.

The Western Australian government said it intends to investigate the situation.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...al-foundation-only-has-109-in-it-records-show


----------



## HelloU (3 May 2019)

basilio said:


> But it ain't over until the fat lady sings...
> Jessica Whelen is rising from the dead.
> 
> *Dumped Liberal candidate to run as an independent*
> ...



does anyone know if that seat has a Reason Party candidate?

(gee some things fascinate me ....lol)


----------



## wayneL (3 May 2019)

I'm running a book on how many candidates succumb to social media trawling. Had a big bet come in at over 100.

At the current rate, I may have to pay out on that one


----------



## SirRumpole (3 May 2019)

basilio said:


> And another reminder of the way Clive Palmer does business.
> 
> * Clive Palmer's $100m Aboriginal foundation only has $109 in it, records show *
> Western Australian government set to investigate the charity and says the businessman has behaved in a ‘disgraceful’ way
> ...




He spent it all on nuisance phone calls.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> I'm running a book on how many candidates succumb to social media trawling. Had a big bet come in at over 100.
> 
> At the current rate, I may have to pay out on that one




Obviously the parties aren't doing their due diligence on their candidates.


----------



## Joules MM1 (3 May 2019)

which thread does this go in ..... ?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 May 2019)

Maybe someone can enlighten me regarding the dis-endorsed candidates.

It's too late to take their names off the ballot paper, so if people want to vote for their Party and put 1 alongside the name of a candidate who is no longer endorsed, what happens ?

If he/she gets the most votes are they entitled to take the seat as an Independent or does the party get the seat and put someone else in ?


----------



## Knobby22 (3 May 2019)

They're in. I think that's how Pauline Hanson got started.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 May 2019)

Thanks Knobby.


----------



## basilio (3 May 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> which thread does this go in ..... ?





Everywhere


----------



## DB008 (3 May 2019)

My postal vote arrived the other day. Voted, and am over all the BS to be honest. They all lie...


----------



## Ann (3 May 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> which thread does this go in ..... ?




The Bullsh!t Thread


----------



## basilio (3 May 2019)

Ann said:


> The Bullsh!t Thread



I tell you Ann The Juice media videos manage to fillet and expose the rubbish that passes for Government better than any other media in  Australia.

And just to give people a heads up. This company is run out of a families living room and  paid for by a handful of people who recognize what a great piece of work Juice media does in cutting through the xrap.

https://www.thejuicemedia.com/


----------



## rederob (5 May 2019)

Paul Keating sat down for a chat with Andrew Probyn after the Labor Launch today and this ABC interview was a political godsend.
Vintage Keating stole the show, after the event!
I don't know if it's on Iview or YouTube, but if is, it's worth a look.
Keating retains a sense of global politics that few, if any, in the present Parliament possess.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Paul Keating sat down for a chat with Andrew Probyn after the Labor Launch today and this ABC interview was a political godsend.
> Vintage Keating stole the show, after the event!
> I don't know if it's on Iview or YouTube, but if is, it's worth a look.
> Keating retains a sense of global politics that few, if any, in the present Parliament possess.




He made more sense than anyone that day. The best PM we ever had, but unappreciated by most.


----------



## qldfrog (5 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> He made more sense than anyone that day. The best PM we ever had, but unappreciated by most.



Not perfect, but i liked his vision
Ahh the time when politicians had vision
Put him as PM and Peter Costello in charge of budget and we would have a country worth its while


----------



## PZ99 (6 May 2019)

People with long memories are still wearing the battle scars of the Keating era. A lot of the greed we see from the business community today stems back to that near death experience of the recession we had to have. The Howard Govt then re-opened those wounds by feeding on that greed at the expense of the underdog. Reminds me of seagulls fighting over that last bit of morsel...

Paul Keating did everything he could to make me a lifelong Coalition voter.
Peter Costello did everything he could to make me a lifelong Labor voter.

They both failed 

Oh yeah >_ Wealthy electorates are the least keen on Sunday penalty rates_ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/federal-election-vote-compass-industrial-relations/11062258


----------



## wayneL (6 May 2019)

The curious thing about both the Keating / Costello era, and indeed as it is now, is that the main policies, the economic ones that matter most to an economy, seem to be in international unison.

So was it Keating's vision?

I know it sounds a little bit tinfoil hatish, but it makes me wonder.


----------



## chiff (6 May 2019)

Indeed...why are we making an enemy of China.If we want to ban Huawei why not Boeing?


----------



## rederob (6 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> The curious thing about both the Keating / Costello era, and indeed as it is now, is that the main policies, the economic ones that matter most to an economy, seem to be in international unison.
> So was it Keating's vision?
> I know it sounds a little bit tinfoil hatish, but it makes me wonder.



It sounds like gobbledygook.
Economic policies are the main policies that affect an *economy*.
So international economies with economic policies will have these as their main policies, economically speaking, of course .
I am sure Keating - a Treasurer - had economic policies.
But maybe that's a a little bit tinfoil hatish.


----------



## qldfrog (6 May 2019)

A bit off subject but interesting in the context of the elections
From the mouth of the left propaganda itself
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...igrants-but-negative-towards-islam-poll-finds
Obviously the left can not be happy with an open but realistic view of a majority
Quite a survey to be proud of overall in my opinion


----------



## Knobby22 (6 May 2019)

Oh well, you can't believe it if you say it's propaganda.


----------



## rederob (6 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> From the mouth of the left propaganda itself
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...igrants-but-negative-towards-islam-poll-finds
> Obviously the left can not be happy with an open but realistic view of a majority
> Quite a survey to be proud of overall in my opinion



First, they report survey findings, and they do not change on the basis of who reports them.
We got a predictable result.
Our government has been dogwhistling for years, and this is heard by an electorate which thinks our borders are being swamped by Muslim terrorists.
The disendorsement of many candidates already for posts on their social media accounts which are anti Muslim shows the extent that our population is misled by bigots.
Little wonder Jacinda Adern is more popular than any Australian politician.


----------



## moXJO (6 May 2019)

rederob said:


> First, they report survey findings, and they do not change on the basis of who reports them.
> We got a predictable result.
> Our government has been dogwhistling for years, and this is heard by an electorate which thinks our borders are being swamped by Muslim terrorists.
> The disendorsement of many candidates already for posts on their social media accounts which are anti Muslim shows the extent that our population is misled by bigots.
> Little wonder Jacinda Adern is more popular than any Australian politician.



Jacinda Ardern is an empty vessel.
Reminds me of the dill in Canada. Hollow gestures for media attention.


----------



## wayneL (6 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Jacinda Ardern is an empty vessel.
> Reminds me of the dill in Canada. Hollow gestures for media attention.



Both appeal to virtue signallers.


----------



## rederob (6 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Both appeal to virtue signallers.



Ah yes... this is what those people who cannot mount a case will say.
No evidence to back themselves of course.
But say it often enough and they will even believe it themselves.
Catch phrases might be ok for electioneering, or social media, but they don't hold up to scrutiny.


----------



## moXJO (6 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Both appeal to virtue signallers.



My tribe is currently dealing with her and her ministers. And this statement is correct. Plenty of virtue signaling but no different from the last lot.
Politicians are all the same. The parties just set up their own interests.

Everyone thinks labor is for the workers. They actually are for big business. I was told years ago by a high ranking member that they prefer big business as they can more easily unionize,  fight for wages and control the company through strikes. Those businesses that are union/labor friendly  get contracts. And thats how they pump up their fees.

They hate small business as they can't spread that thin to monitor.


----------



## PZ99 (6 May 2019)

Yeah - but look what's happening in small business and non-unionized workplaces today.

Wages and superannuation are being stolen by employers on a mass scale. Unions can't control small business and that's fine. But when the law can't control them you have a major problem.


----------



## moXJO (6 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Ah yes... this is what those people who cannot mount a case will say.
> No evidence to back themselves of course.
> .



Trudeau was a virtue signaller there is plenty of evidence. All his bs is coming to light.

 Ardern is a politician that works the media. She may have meant well on the way in, but its how long that goodwill is going to last before she begins to compromise her values. 

To those dealing with her she is another politician.

It ain't about sides, its about reality.


----------



## moXJO (6 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Yeah - but look what's happening in small business and non-unionized workplaces today.
> 
> Wages and superannuation are being stolen by employers on a mass scale. Unions can't control small business and that's fine. But when the law can't control them you have a major problem.



Thats the line they run. A lot of the time its some obscure rate that was meant to be paid then ran as a scare campaign. There isn't always clear wage direction. Don't get me wrong,  there are plenty of terrible bosses ripping people off. But there are just as many- if not vastly more sht workers ripping off bosses. Guaranteed the bosses will get caught and then raped by authorities. 
Years ago the construction industry just wanted a set wage no matter how high just so they didn't have to deal with the dozens of different wage tack ons. Not sure what happened in the industry since as I moved on to greener pastures.


Aussies are some of the worst workers in the world mixed with some of the best.


----------



## IFocus (6 May 2019)

Keating........

"Morrison 'a fossil with a baseball cap"


----------



## PZ99 (7 May 2019)

Poor ScoMo - you know you've got a problem when even Meghan went into labour


----------



## basilio (7 May 2019)

_*Lest We Forget*_
Short memories are problem aren't they ? This Honest Government ad is a refresher on 6 years of  Lib-Nat Government.
__


----------



## IFocus (7 May 2019)




----------



## PZ99 (7 May 2019)

Think outside the square: vote Liberal Democrat


----------



## wayneL (7 May 2019)

A question for Sarah Hanson-Young ( rhetorical obviously, in the context of this forum):

Seeing as you are such an enthusiastic supporter of the boy egging Senator Fraser Anning, do you support the attempted egging of the prime minister today? If so would you support the egging of the opposition leader, or indeed your Dear Leader, Richard Di Natale?


----------



## moXJO (7 May 2019)

Remember pim? 

Should be zero tolerance for any political violence no matter how small.


----------



## CNHTractor (8 May 2019)

Interesting article:

https://m.betootaadvocate.com/enter...other-accused-of-hogging-all-the-personality/


----------



## moXJO (8 May 2019)

CNHTractor said:


> Interesting article:
> 
> https://m.betootaadvocate.com/enter...other-accused-of-hogging-all-the-personality/



You mean there are two of them? 
God help us....


----------



## Joules MM1 (8 May 2019)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D54WaAlU8AE_phG.jpg:large


----------



## PZ99 (8 May 2019)

Haha - I wonder if they have a similar chart for Govt dept to GDP levels ?

Might end up with a mirror image


----------



## Junior (9 May 2019)

Joules MM1 said:


> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D54WaAlU8AE_phG.jpg:large




Howard presided over a once in 100 year mining boom, plus soaring property prices, and reasonable wages growth...so I'd say tax receipts naturally expanded through that period, regardless of policy.

Rudd & Gillard came in just as the global economy imploded, and did what all Governments had to do at that time, provide stimulus and hand out tax breaks.

Rather than tax/gdp being a symptom of which party is in power, much of the time it's more governed by the economy and global factors which Australia has little control over.

Having said that, Shorten-led Labor are now proposing some of the biggest tax hikes we've ever seen.   We haven't seen such a divergence in tax policy between the two major parties for a very long time.


----------



## CNHTractor (9 May 2019)

Yet another article on the inequity of Labor's proposal.

https://www.heffron.com.au/blog/article/banning-franking-credit-refunds-is-there-another-way

You can only think Labor is lying. Common ploy ala "MediScare" campaign last election


----------



## IFocus (9 May 2019)

CNHTractor said:


> Yet another article on the inequity of Labor's proposal.
> 
> https://www.heffron.com.au/blog/article/banning-franking-credit-refunds-is-there-another-way
> 
> You can only think Labor is lying. Common ploy ala "MediScare" campaign last election




I only got as far as this

"The logic for this policy is, broadly speaking, “rich people shouldn’t get tax refunds, they should effectively pay more tax”"

Its actually a tax refund when no tax has been paid in other words its a "hand out" (bough in by Howard god knows why) that being the case why don't we go full socialist instead of 1/2 socialist and give everyone a fee hand out?


----------



## jbocker (9 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> A question for Sarah Hanson-Young ( rhetorical obviously, in the context of this forum):
> 
> Seeing as you are such an enthusiastic supporter of the boy egging Senator Fraser Anning, do you support the attempted egging of the prime minister today? If so would you support the egging of the opposition leader, or indeed your Dear Leader, Richard Di Natale?




Very good point. It has been going through my thoughts that someone will out-do the egging assault with something more deadly.


----------



## chiff (9 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> I only got as far as this
> 
> "The logic for this policy is, broadly speaking, “rich people shouldn’t get tax refunds, they should effectively pay more tax”"
> 
> Its actually a tax refund when no tax has been paid in other words its a "hand out" (bough in by Howard god knows why) that being the case why don't we go full socialist instead of 1/2 socialist and give everyone a fee hand out?



I will preface this by saying that we get 6k in franking credit refunds-all of those shares are held outside of superannuation-have not got a smsf.My wife can still get to use those credits as she is still called in for some casual work.
As I see it ,as I have said before,these self-funded retirees never show their hands.I strongly suspect that most intend to live off the proceeds of their assets,and never touch their capital-even increase it.Not what superannuation or retirement income is designed for.
The capricious lowering of the income and assets tests qualifications  by Coalition affected retirees much more than what is proposed more.This passed without a peep.
I hear it said that it is hard for retirees to change from  shares?Shares are liquid and can be almost instantly sold.As I have said there are many other investment opportunities,but the franking credits lurk is too hard to pass up.Think on your feet!


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2019)

Junior said:


> Having said that, Shorten-led Labor are now proposing some of the biggest tax hikes we've ever seen. .




Only for some.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-p...s-for-the-lowest-paid-and-billions-for-health


----------



## Junior (9 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Only for some.
> 
> https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-p...s-for-the-lowest-paid-and-billions-for-health




If you have no aspiration to ever earn more than $100k a year, or if you are on welfare, or if you are retired (but not self-funded) you will be better off under Labor.  

I'm all for helping those less fortunate, but the percentage of net welfare-recipients in this country is going to grow substantially under this suite of policies, and the incentive to succeed will be eroded.  

Anyone who wants to start a business, or advance their career and incomes will be tarred with the label "top end of town" and be targeted for not paying enough tax (even though that's where the vast majority of tax revenue is generated).  These people create all the jobs and pay all of the tax in Australia, I just think that is not being appreciated by the Labor party right now.  If we continue too far down this path, watch the budget deficit blow out, and unemployment start to edge higher.


----------



## Junior (9 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Only for some.
> 
> https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-p...s-for-the-lowest-paid-and-billions-for-health




Also they claim to help working mums....but if you are in a household with 2x full time wages, their increased childcare subsidies won't help you.  Unless both mum and dad are low income earners...which generally is not the case in the city.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2019)

Junior said:


> If you have no aspiration to ever earn more than $100k a year, or if you are on welfare, or if you are retired (but not self-funded) you will be better off under Labor.
> 
> I'm all for helping those less fortunate, but the percentage of net welfare-recipients in this country is going to grow substantially under this suite of policies, and the incentive to succeed will be eroded.
> 
> Anyone who wants to start a business, or advance their career and incomes will be tarred with the label "top end of town" and be targeted for not paying enough tax (even though that's where the vast majority of tax revenue is generated).  These people create all the jobs and pay all of the tax in Australia, I just think that is not being appreciated by the Labor party right now.  If we continue too far down this path, watch the budget deficit blow out, and unemployment start to edge higher.




The taxes proposed by Labor on 'the top end of town' are pretty mild in my view.

Negative gearing is not doing it's job of creating new houses as the majority of loans are for existing houses. In addition NG is grandfathered so those already claiming it still can.

As for the franking credits, well retirees on superannuation get their super pensions tax free anyway so they are already well ahead of most people in the workforce.

Bigger tax cuts for the low paid will be spent in the economy, on household items like fridges, washing machines, cafe meals etc which generates employment. You can't run a business if your customers can't afford to spend money.


----------



## Junior (9 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The taxes proposed by Labor on 'the top end of town' are pretty mild in my view.




The difference in Income Tax policy between the two parties, and Family Trust reform are the big ones, in my view.

As I've harped on about many times, failing to address bracket creep and re-instating the 'budget repair levy' mean that middle & high income earners will pay a LOT more tax under Labor.  Not so much in the short-term, but certainly medium/long term.

Family Trust changes are meant to target wealthy families, but there are many many small businesses that will suffer.


----------



## HelloU (9 May 2019)

*Rumps ..."As for the franking credits, well retirees on superannuation get their super pensions tax free anyway so they are already well ahead of most people in the workforce"*

maybe u meant earnings inside pension fund being tax -free ??......... but make the point that the pension drawdown is just the removal of capital from the account. Sorta like making a withdrawal from your own bank account, so not sure where tax would/should be involved.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> *Rumps ..."As for the franking credits, well retirees on superannuation get their super pensions tax free anyway so they are already well ahead of most people in the workforce"*
> 
> maybe u meant earnings inside pension fund being tax -free ??......... but make the point that the pension drawdown is just the removal of capital from the account. Sorta like making a withdrawal from your own bank account, so not sure where tax would/should be involved.




Well, I'm a retiree on a modest super pension and I don't even have to include my super pension in my tax return.


----------



## HelloU (9 May 2019)

yep .... for the reasons above. Included for govt pension access though. But it is now included for other "benefit" calculations like health card, etc ...... that changed a few years ago. Not telling u to suck eggs but many peeps have not kept up with tax/welfare changes of late (bit like despite public bank outrage many would not know that banks actually a greater tax % rate than other aussie companies - they have a special tax above the 30% company rate).

(note that special tax treatment for old peeps not on a govt pension is available for their earnings outside super - normal peeps get 18K threshold, old peeps get ?? 29K ?? or something as tax free threshold)


----------



## PZ99 (9 May 2019)

Whilst there's many Labor policies I'm not happy about one thing I'll find personally satisfying is watching the tax axe fall on this garbage media owned by a tax avoiding tycoon and self appointed head of state known as Rupert Murdoch.

I hope they totally stuff him up and flush him straight down the swanny 



Spoiler



Labor is bracing for an escalating assault from News Corp and fears further attacks in the final days of the election campaign after a furious Bill Shorten savaged Rupert Murdoch's company over its reporting of his mother's life and career.

Mr Shorten and his senior colleagues accused the media empire of being a "cheer squad" for Prime Minister Scott Morrison and cited its use of tax havens in the Cayman Islands as one reason it wanted to stop Labor taking power on May 18.

Bill Shorten became emotional speaking in response to a Daily Telegraph editorial about his mother's biography.

Labor deputy leader Tanya Plibersek said the company was trying to block funding increases for schools and hospitals while protecting "tax loopholes".

"I wonder if that's got anything to do with the fact that Rupert Murdoch and his companies pay little or no tax in Australia? It could be something to do with the fact that News [Corp] has paid very little tax in Australia in recent years," Ms Plibersek said.

The sharp criticism of Mr Murdoch's company and its tax affairs is seen as a warning shot in a deepening dispute after years of friction and negative stories about Labor throughout the campaign.

Mr Shorten attacked the newspaper for its "political hit" and "gotcha shit" and talked of his mother's attempt to get work as a barrister when she faced discrimination because of her age, leading him to promise to act on the problem if he became prime minister.

Labor assistant treasury spokesman Andrew Leigh said the "extraordinary attack" by _The Daily Telegraph_ was no coincidence when News Corp could be hurt by plans to toughen laws on tax havens.

Mr Leigh cited reports from four years ago that News Corp had dealings in the Cayman Islands and was in the "highest risk" category at the Australian Taxation Office.

"I don't think it's any coincidence that when a party is taking to the election the most comprehensive set of policies on multinational tax reform, that we find ourselves under fire from News," Mr Leigh said.

_The Australian Financial Review_ reported in May 2015 that the ATO had only one company in its highest risk category for tax avoidance and this was News Corp. A News Corp spokeswoman said there was no comment from the company.

Labor is promising to raise more tax revenue from a crackdown on tax havens and profit shifting by global companies, but the Coalition has also targeted these tax problems as well over the past six years, recouping billions of dollars.

Labor finance spokesman Jim Chalmers said the News Corp publications had made their position "very clear" but should not bring Mr Shorten's mother into their criticism of Labor.

"They go to any length to prop up the Liberals, to prop up a failing government, which has spent six years rotating through three prime ministers, which has doubled debt in this country, which has presided over slowing growth and stagnant wages," he said.

"This is what they do."

Former Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd backed Mr Shorten by comparing _The Daily Telegraph_ to a newspaper run by a totalitarian dictatorship.

"Surprise, surprise!" Mr Rudd tweeted. "The Murdoch media launch a front page full-blown character attack on Shorten ten days out from election day. Fully coordinated with their coalition partners the Liberal Party. Today's _People's Daily_ in Beijing is a more objective source of news."

_The Daily Telegraph's_ report came after Mr Shorten ended his appearance on the ABC's _Q&A_ program on Monday night by saying his mother had wanted to be a lawyer but needed to take a teacher's scholarship when young.

The front-page newspaper report, accompanied by two pages of coverage and an editorial, said Mr Shorten had omitted the fact that his mother had become a lawyer later in life.

Mr Shorten rejected the newspaper's coverage on Facebook before unleashing during a press conference in Nowra, where he was campaigning for the marginal seat of Gilmore.


"My mum is the smartest woman I've ever known," Mr Shorten said.

"Mum taught me it doesn't matter about your gender. It matters how hard you work. But everyone deserves the same chance."

Prime Minister Scott Morrison extended his "best wishes" to Mr Shorten when asked about the newspaper story, adding that he could understand the hurt it caused.

"This election is not about our families. It's not about Bill's mum. It's not about my mum," Mr Morrison said.

Disputing _The Daily Telegraph's_ coverage, Mr Shorten said his mother had only been able to become a lawyer in her fifties and had found it hard to get work as a barrister.

"I just wish some newspaper outlets would do some of their homework beyond that. She got about nine briefs in her time. It was actually a bit dispiriting," Mr Shorten said.



*https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...r-war-with-murdoch-media-20190508-p51lf6.html*


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Whilst there's many Labor policies I'm not happy about one thing I'll find personally satisfying is watching the tax axe fall on this garbage media owned by a tax avoiding tycoon and self appointed head of state known as Rupert Murdoch.
> 
> I hope they totally stuff him up and flush him straight down the swanny




Labor should take all the spectrum off Foxtel and give it to the ABC.


----------



## basilio (9 May 2019)

In the spirit of giving the Murdoch Press an absolute bollocking for the xhitxuckery that passes as news check out the following story.

* For 30 years I worked for News Corp papers. Now all I see is shameful bias *
Tony Koch
No editor I worked for would publish the rubbish they now produce

Thu 9 May 2019 05.05 BST   Last modified on Thu 9 May 2019 05.11 BST

_“They were quality newspapers that cared for their employees and cared more for the product – concerned with breaking real news stories that were as accurate and true as could possibly be established.” Photograph: Paul Miller/AAP 
_
About six weeks ago I cancelled my subscription for The Australian newspaper after getting it for more than 30 years. As soon as this election is over, I will do the same with the Courier-Mail.

I worked as a journalist for some 30 years for those papers and loved every minute of it. They were quality newspapers that cared for their employees and cared more for the product – concerned with breaking real news stories that were as accurate and true as could possibly be established.

The Australian in particular was a big impact paper which regularly set the news agenda for media throughout the country.

But no longer. No editor I worked for would have put up with the biased anti-Labor rubbish that, shamefully, the papers now produce on a daily basis.

If it is not anti-Labor it is anti-Green or, quite ridiculously, anti-ABC. Anything except a story negative to the Liberal or National parties.


Gone is the requirement for balance. One has only to look at the story selection and headlines on the front pages of the papers each day to see that an anti-Labor angle has been taken, however contorted had been the literary gymnastics required to finally arrive at that particular bit of stupidity.

*Tony Koch is an Australian journalist who has won five Walkley awards and an honorary doctorate from the Australian School of Journalism. He has also won 48 state journalism awards, the Sir Keith Murdoch News Limited Award and the Graham Perkin Award. He has been inducted into the Australian media hall of fame.*

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ws-corp-papers-now-all-i-see-is-shameful-bias


----------



## HelloU (9 May 2019)

If people wish to live in a state controlled world, then the opportunity to live that way is already available in countries such as china or north korea.


----------



## rederob (9 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> If people wish to live in a state controlled world, then the opportunity to live that way is already available in countries such as china or north korea.



Wow - that's good to know!


----------



## HelloU (9 May 2019)

total franking credits refunded this year ........$5B .... labor policy is to reduce this

welfare spend this year ...$175B ........ labor policy is to increase this


----------



## PZ99 (9 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> total franking credits refunded this year ........$5B .... labor policy is to reduce this
> 
> welfare spend this year ...$175B ........ labor policy is to increase this



Don't tell me... free penis extensions ?


----------



## wayneL (9 May 2019)

basilio said:


> In the spirit of giving the Murdoch Press an absolute bollocking for the xhitxuckery that passes as news check out the following story.
> 
> * For 30 years I worked for News Corp papers. Now all I see is shameful bias *
> Tony Koch
> ...



And yet,  you are totally happy with the left wing bias of the Grauniad? 

(but agree newscorp is unmitigated,  tabloid shyte)


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2019)

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...act-check-cost-of-coalition-tax-cuts/11092856


----------



## wayneL (9 May 2019)

Penny Wong,  classless act.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 May 2019)

How Labor proposes to stop corporate tax avoidance.

(Good luck with that).

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-09/how-labor-plans-to-tax-multinationals/11085522


----------



## IFocus (9 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Penny Wong,  classless act.




Objection

Wong has been wronged many times due to race a sexual orientation and has always handled it with grace and class......... always.

The test of this women's intelligence, integrity and class (low bar as it is) is the respect always shown by Mathias Cormann in the Senate a serious conservative. 

Also note the attack dogs from the coalition never take her on.


----------



## HelloU (9 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> How Labor proposes to stop corporate tax avoidance.
> 
> (Good luck with that).
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-09/how-labor-plans-to-tax-multinationals/11085522



yep, saw that and thought the same ...... makes good media though just b4 an election. (they are the ones that would not vote for recent "tax avoidance" legislation, and i spose are now trying to stand above that.

the wong post above was, i suspect, about the lack of a "handshake" at the question thing ...... she did look pretty unsporting when that happened.

no mention of the other .......... all in hand atm.


----------



## qldfrog (9 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Don't tell me... free penis extensions ?



You are from another area, nowadays it is penis suppression or clitoris augmentation, the rapists ,sorry heterosexual white males,will be eliminated


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> Objection
> 
> Wong has been wronged many times due to race a sexual orientation and has always handled it with grace and class......... always.
> 
> ...



If it was the other way round,  the luvvies would be howling, wouldnt they.


----------



## PZ99 (10 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> You are from another area, nowadays it is penis suppression or clitoris augmentation, the rapists ,sorry heterosexual white males,will be eliminated



Suppression seems relevant given there's a member who surreptitiously posts about penises in other threads despite declaring not having a fixation on them - but I do like his sense of humour.

If we end up with a well hung parliament I'm sure other body parts will rear their ugly heads as horse trading, selling arse, back door deals, front door deals, shirt fronting, space invading and ball tampering all climax culminate to an ineffective Govt, a hostile senate and demands for an early election. To win is to lose IMV...


----------



## SirRumpole (10 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Suppression seems relevant given there's a member who surreptitiously posts about penises in other threads despite declaring not having a fixation on them - but I do like his sense of humour.
> 
> If we end up with a well hung parliament I'm sure other body parts will rear their ugly heads as horse trading, selling arse, back door deals, front door deals, shirt fronting, space invading and ball tampering all climax culminate to an ineffective Govt, a hostile senate and demands for an early election. To win is to lose IMV...




Not to mention suspension of standing orders.


----------



## rederob (10 May 2019)

9 May - Link:
"A Liberal candidate, meanwhile, who linked same-sex marriage and paedophilia lives to fight another day.
Gurpal Singh was part of the 'No' campaign ahead of the 2017 same-sex marriage plebiscite.
"I think it is also an issue of paedophilia," Mr Singh told SBS Radio at the time.
The Victorian lawyer also said there would be "very serious" implications for children raised in same-sex households.
*Prime Minister Scott Morrison, when pressed about the comments, distanced himself from them.
But he confirmed Mr Singh's candidacy was secure.*
In just over a week, the Liberals have lost three candidates and Labor two candidates to social media posts.
They all remain listed as the party's candidates, having lost their endorsement after voting began."​
So, despite being aware of his comments, the PM continued to back Singh.
What we can tell from this PM's actions is that he is a hypocrite and opportunist, relying on public outrage to eventually dump Singh rather than his stated standards or judgement.


----------



## HelloU (10 May 2019)

just a job to pay the bills is all ........





everyone has to do something to make ends meet ....... unless they get some of that $175B annual welfare spend i spose.


----------



## Tink (10 May 2019)

This latest act of vandalism in Kooyong using Nazi symbols on a billboard of mine is an insult to every victim of the Holocaust and Australian servicemen and women who fought against Nazi tyranny.

To think that this cowardly and criminal act was committed just days after Holocaust Remembrance Day shows how ignorant the perpetrators are of the horrors of history.

This incident is not about me or my campaign, but about a broader and disturbing trend in society of antisemitism and intolerance.

Mutual respect is at the heart of a good society and let’s debate ideas and people’s words and records, but let’s not as a community accept for one minute this type of behaviour or attitude.

https://joshfrydenberg.com.au/latest-news/statement/


----------



## PZ99 (10 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> just a job to pay the bills is all ........
> 
> View attachment 94506
> 
> ...



I'll pay that one. Speaking of both subjects > https://theconversation.com/mine-ar...ses-are-the-coalitions-worst-nightmare-116833



Spoiler



On Friday morning the Coalition’s worst dream will come true.

All throughout the campaign, and all through the two terms in office and three prime ministers and three treasurers that preceded it, they’ve argued they are better than Labor at managing money. They had budget surpluses under Howard that Labor didn’t have under Rudd and Gillard.

In the last election, Labor allowed them to get away with it. Its costings document actually forecast a better budget position than the Coalition’s over ten years (because it rejected the Coalition’s expensive company tax cuts) but a worse position over the immediate four-year “forward estimates”, because of its more generous programs.

The Coalition focused on the four years, not the ten, and painted Labor as irresponsible.

*Bigger, sooner surpluses*
On Friday morning, it won’t make the mistake again. Yes, it’ll detail (and have year by year costs for) programs that are more generous than the Coalition’s, among them cheaper childcare, its Medicare cancer plan and its pensioner dental plan.

But it’ll be able to more than pay for them in every one of the next ten years because of a number of courageous decisions that’ll save money, the most financially important of which is the decision to stop sending company tax refund cheques to people who don’t pay tax. It’ll save it A$5 billion in the first year and more in future years because the cost of the refunds has been balooning.

The result will be a larger budget surplus in every one of the next ten years, including each year of the forward estimates and including the financial year about to start, which is when the budget is scheduled to return to surplus. 

So big will be these bigger surpluses that Labor has them on track to hit the Coalition’s target of 1% of gross domestic product four years earlier than the Coalition in 2022-23 rather than 2026-27.

That means that in Labor’s first budget, which it will deliver in August this year if elected as a means of resetting forecasts, its projections will show the long-awaited surplus of 1% of GDP (A$22 billion) within the forward estimates, rather than beyond them as the Coalition’s budget.

All it took was courage, and the ability to withstand complaints from people who own shares but don’t pay tax and are naturally upset about losing government cheques they’ve become used to.

*And lower government debt*
Bigger surpluses, and the much more rapid delivery of a substantial surplus will mean much quicker reductions in government debt. The budget had the government on track to eliminate net debt by 2030. Labor’s costings will have it on track to eliminate it much sooner.

Despite what the Coalition would like to claim, the key reason why Labor’s surpluses will be bigger than its isn’t that Labor won’t be matching its longer term tax cuts. Bracket creep means tax rates need to be cut or thresholds adjusted from time to time to ensure the personal tax take doesn’t climb too high. Labor’s costings recognise this, including a built-in assumption of tax cuts after the tax take hits 24.3% of GDP, a figure cunningly selected because it was the tax take when Howard left office.

If delivered as income tax cuts, at about the time the Coaltion’s high end tax cuts are due, it’ll cost A$200 billion, but the method of delivery will depend on circumstances at the time.

*With future tax cuts baked in*
Labor’s “technical assumption” that the tax take won’t climb beyond 24.3% of GDP is different to the Coaltion’s “guarantee” that it won’t climb beyond 23.9% of GDP. It is a technical assumption rather than a promise, of the kind usually included in budget documents as a way of allowing for inevitable future tax cuts.

Without it, Labor’s surplus projections would have been much bigger, and would have been hard to believe. With it, the projections should be credible.

The secret sauce in the Labor’s better budget projections isn’t that it isn’t adopting the Coalition’s tax cuts. It is that it’s tackling the handing out of billions of dollars in dividend imputation cheques to people who don’t pay tax in a way the Coalition wasn’t prepared to.

Not that it didn’t think about it. A file list seen by Fairfax Media shows treasury created a file entitled “Tax Policy - Dividend Imputation” in the lead up to then Treasurer Scott Morrision’s 2017 budget.

The tax reform discussion paper commissioned by his predecessor Joe Hockey found “revenue concerns with the refundability of imputation credits”.


----------



## HelloU (10 May 2019)

Tink said:


> This latest act of vandalism in Kooyong using Nazi symbols on a billboard of mine is an insult to every victim of the Holocaust and Australian servicemen and women who fought against Nazi tyranny.
> 
> To think that this cowardly and criminal act was committed just days after Holocaust Remembrance Day shows how ignorant the perpetrators are of the horrors of history.
> 
> ...



let me guess ....... done in the dead of night. that tells the character story.


----------



## rederob (10 May 2019)

Tink said:


> Mutual respect is at the heart of a good society and let’s debate ideas and people’s words and records, but let’s not as a community accept for one minute this type of behaviour or attitude.



A party of hypocrites that now finds itself having had to disendorse 7 of its candidates because they never bothered to properly check their social values.


----------



## chiff (10 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Penny Wong,  classless act.



I hope that is not a precursor to 'in victory revenge-in defeat malice'.It aint over yet Wayne.I do like Penny Wong-understated intelligent and a class act.On the other side one of the better acts is Josh Frydenberg.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 May 2019)

chiff said:


> I hope that is not a precursor to 'in victory revenge-in defeat malice'.It aint over yet Wayne.I do like Penny Wong-understated intelligent and a class act.On the other side one of the better acts is Josh Frydenberg.




A Wong-Julie Bishop battle over foreign affairs would have been a sight to see. Thanks to the misogyny of the Liberal Party that won't happen.


----------



## moXJO (10 May 2019)

rederob said:


> 9 May - Link:
> "A Liberal candidate, meanwhile, who linked same-sex marriage and paedophilia lives to fight another day.
> Gurpal Singh was part of the 'No' campaign ahead of the 2017 same-sex marriage plebiscite.
> "I think it is also an issue of paedophilia," Mr Singh told SBS Radio at the time.
> ...



Having  a go at two religious black guys in a row yet protecting a white greens race hate speech. Oh robbie

Jokes aside, this election is a lot closer than it should be. And its just been scomo out front as there is no one left in the libs as they all quit,  are too toxic,  or unknowns.
Labor shouldn't be patting themselves on the back,  this election should be a landslide. 
Labor having the same dregs as last time doesn't help 
Labors policies suck for a huge portion of the economy.
Bill Shorten is a glitter rolled turd.

Despite all this I thought labor would take it easy. Surely independents must be taking up the slack.


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Having  a go at two religious black guys in a row yet protecting a white greens race hate speech. Oh robbie
> 
> Jokes aside, this election is a lot closer than it should be. And its just been scomo out front as there is no one left in the libs as they all quit,  are too toxic,  or unknowns.
> Labor shouldn't be patting themselves on the back,  this election should be a landslide.
> ...



Agreed.  This should be a cake-walk for Labor.

If it was the Labor of old they'd bolt home with a leg in the air. Idendity politics and the toxicity (and surprisingly poor performance in the debates)of Shorten  is costing them.


----------



## basilio (10 May 2019)

Well you can't blame the Murdoch Press for the Libs problems. The are doing every little bit they can to Kill Bill.  Another (current) Murdoch journalist is pulling the chain on the toxic reporting processes.

* 'Craziness has been dialled up': News Corp journalist unloads on his own paper *
Rick Morton says journalists at the Australian are increasingly uncomfortable about its political stance and there is ‘guerrilla warfare’ in the newsroom

A News Corp journalist has gone on the record with critical remarks about his own paper, the Australian, saying “the craziness has been dialled up” in recent months.

*The paper’s social affairs writer, Rick Morton, told journalism students at the University of Technology, Sydney, that senior writers know what the editorial line is and write stories to fit.*

Asked whether the Murdoch paper’s journalists were uncomfortable with the Australian barracking for the Coalition in the election, Morton said they were “more uncomfortable certainly now than at any time I’ve been there in the past seven years”.

“There is a real mood that something has gone wrong,” he said in a podcast posted online by UTS.

“People will tell you going back a decade it used to be a very great paper, and in many ways it still is, but some of the craziness has been dialled up.

“We know what the empire is, we know what the papers do, but something has changed in the last six months. I don’t know what it is. Death rattles or loss of relevance? And journos pretty much spend all day talking about it.”

*Morton said editors did not give explicit instructions, but senior writers wrote within accepted parameters or found stories that were so good the paper had to run them despite their slant.*

“We kind of know what the editorial line is at the paper,” he said. “The people at the top know what it is and there are key staff … who are old enough and ugly enough to deal with the awful truth that occasionally there is a line that will come out of [news] conference.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/10/news-corp-rick-morton-australian


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2019)

basilio said:


> Well you can't blame the Murdoch Press for the Libs problems. The are doing every little bit they can to Kill Bill.  Another (current) Murdoch journalist is pulling the chain on the toxic reporting processes.
> 
> * 'Craziness has been dialled up': News Corp journalist unloads on his own paper *
> Rick Morton says journalists at the Australian are increasingly uncomfortable about its political stance and there is ‘guerrilla warfare’ in the newsroom
> ...



...and still no comment about the far left wing bias of the Guardian from you. 

Bias,  huh?


----------



## SirRumpole (10 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> ...and still no comment about the far left wing bias of the Guardian from you.
> 
> Bias,  huh?




The Guardian is chicken feed when it comes to the size of the Murdoch megaphone.

Trying to compare one with the other is like comparing Bambi with Godzilla.


----------



## basilio (10 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> The far left wing bias of the Guardian



Two points.

1) I was talking about the Murdoch Press both locally and across the world. The Daily Mail.  The Fox megaphone.  As Rumpy points out the breadth and impact of this media conglomerate with its particular political focus is in another league

2) I reject your version of "a far left bias" at The Guardian. IMV it's just another Wayne diversion smear.  The Guardian offers a liberal view of where it  like to see the world progress.  It uses facts and evidence. It doesn't debase real science in favour of  lies and misinformation that are propagated by the shills of big business.

*IMV the most damning indictment of the worldwide Murdoch press is it's promotion of climate denialism and rejection of evidence that shows we are facing a collective existential threat.
*
I am delighted that a couple of Murdoch journalists are* prepared to call out the rubbish for what it is. *A bit like Khrushchevs epic speech denouncing Stalinism*.

 The secret speech that changed world history 
Fifty years ago Nikita Khrushchev shocked the Soviet Union by denouncing Stalin in a special address to Communist party comrades. The text, detailing the dictator's crimes, was smuggled out of Moscow and later published in full in The Observer. John Rettie recalls his part in the mission and reflects on a pivotal episode of the 20th century 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/26/russia.theobserver



*


----------



## basilio (10 May 2019)

Interestingly if one reads the article from The Guardian you'll discover the role it played in exposing the savagery of the Stalin regime.


----------



## qldfrog (10 May 2019)

But the guardian pretends to be intelligent whereas Murdoch use naked girls click bait
It is rubbish and does not pretend otherwise whereas the guardian draps itself as journalism...
Worse dishonesty in my view
A bit like the ABC...


----------



## moXJO (10 May 2019)

The Australian was a paper I read a decade ago but I agree with the slide. I haven't read it in a long time.

The Guardian is full of brainwashed twits as well. There is a definite slant and if you can't see it,  well you're probably one of said "twits".
I will say that the Guardian did seem to be drifting back to center and ousted a few idiots on their payroll.


----------



## moXJO (10 May 2019)

basilio said:


> Interestingly if one reads the article from The Guardian you'll discover the role it played in exposing the savagery of the Stalin regime.



While fostering group think. Go figure...


----------



## rederob (10 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Agreed.  This should be a cake-walk for Labor.
> If it was the Labor of old they'd bolt home with a leg in the air. Idendity politics and the toxicity (and surprisingly poor performance in the debates)of Shorten  is costing them.



Who said it will not be?
Today the betting odds SHORTEN for Labor - by a considerable margin.
We need to wait for the fat lady, of course, but those punting for the Liberals can make a killing putting their money where there politics lie.
You other comments are as vacuous as ever.


----------



## moXJO (10 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Who said it will not be?
> Today the betting odds SHORTEN for Labor - by a considerable margin.
> We need to wait for the fat lady, of course, but those punting for the Liberals can make a killing putting their money where there politics lie.
> You other comments are as vacuous as ever.



Can you punt on hung parliament?


----------



## rederob (10 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Can you punt on hung parliament?



Yes - today at $6.00 on Sportsbet.


----------



## Logique (10 May 2019)

I hope people give a lot of thought to their Senate votes







> https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/05/the-tracks-of-his-tears/
> The Tracks of His Tears  By Peter O'Brien, 10th May 2019
> ...the real Bill Shorten.  Shifty, deceptive, cynical, self -serving and treacherous, as both Rudd and Gillard can attest...
> ...The sheer arrogance and contempt that Shorten has displayed with his “how can you discuss the cost of real action on climate change without also discussing the cost of doing nothing” meme plunges deeper than any nadir he has previously plumbed...


----------



## moXJO (10 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes - today at $6.00 on Sportsbet.



Cheers might slap a long shot bet.


----------



## wayneL (10 May 2019)

I gather the blocked ****wit is still being a ****wit. 

*****

Trivia: just spotted, and had a great conversation with a potential Senate crossbencher. 

Let's say the Senate is gonna be an interesting place


----------



## PZ99 (10 May 2019)

I reckon the '20's will be a decade of decadence in the senate


----------



## rederob (10 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> I gather the blocked ****wit is still being a ****wit.
> 
> *****
> 
> ...



When will you stop playing the man and actually post something credible?
As if the Senate has not been an interesting place for many years now .


----------



## Bill M (11 May 2019)

The one single issue that has swayed my vote against Labor has been the Franking Credit Rebates issue. They say there are up 1 Million Self Funded Retirees that may be affected and they are not the wealthy ones. I just hope that all the seniors are clued about this and vote against Labor and stop this unjust tax against retired people. I got a feeling that this election is not a forgone conclusion and that the Labor Party has under estimated the backlash of this policy. I took a bet of $4.25 to $1 that the Libs will form Government, I hope my hunches are right. Here's a photo I snapped yesterday in my marginal electorate, good luck all.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2019)

Bill M said:


> The one single issue that has swayed my vote against Labor has been the Franking Credit Rebates issue. They say there are up 1 Million Self Funded Retirees that may be affected and they are not the wealthy ones. I just hope that all the seniors are clued about this and vote against Labor and stop this unjust tax against retired people. I got a feeling that this election is not a forgone conclusion and that the Labor Party has under estimated the backlash of this policy. I took a bet of $4.25 to $1 that the Libs will form Government, I hope my hunches are right. Here's a photo I snapped yesterday in my marginal electorate, good luck all.
> View attachment 94554




Labor reckons that 95% of retirees will be unaffected by their franking credit changes, and the 5%  that are would probably not vote for them anyway.

BTW, that photo is of a long deceased US woman and has been used in political campaigns around the world, she doesn't care about franking credits.


----------



## Bill M (11 May 2019)

Well they lost me anyway. Just in case you missed it on the other thread I'll put it up here with what real living Aussie's are saying about it.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 May 2019)

As a previous Liberal voter until this election, I have had to change for the good of the country and my kids.

I used to vote for the party of Menzies but it's become the party of Murdoch.

I feel I need to join the party to help get it back on track. 

Rupert said it's OK for them to lose this election as he instigated the removal of Turnbull.

Let's face it, the Libs plan to lose. If they wanted to win they would have at the very least made Julie Bishop the Prime Minister.

Sorry Bill.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2019)

Senior Cabinet Ministers start to panic as Coalition campaign runs out of steam.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...9-shorten-finds-feet-morrison-panics/11102786


----------



## chiff (11 May 2019)

Bill M said:


> The one single issue that has swayed my vote against Labor has been the Franking Credit Rebates issue. They say there are up 1 Million Self Funded Retirees that may be affected and they are not the wealthy ones. I just hope that all the seniors are clued about this and vote against Labor and stop this unjust tax against retired people. I got a feeling that this election is not a forgone conclusion and that the Labor Party has under estimated the backlash of this policy. I took a bet of $4.25 to $1 that the Libs will form Government, I hope my hunches are right. Here's a photo I snapped yesterday in my marginal electorate, good luck all.
> View attachment 94554



Why do you think it should be called a tax?-most retirees pay no tax.


----------



## Bill M (11 May 2019)

chiff said:


> Why do you think it should be called a tax?-most retirees pay no tax.



Because they will be thieving tax already paid money from my personal income. There is a whole thread on this, here is the link. https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1025418/


----------



## chiff (11 May 2019)

Bill M said:


> Because they will be thieving tax already paid money from my personal income. There is a whole thread on this, here is the link. https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/1025418/



Without reading the article...If you are paying tax on your personal income,can't you claim the franking credits against your income?As they say Australia is the only place in the world where you can get a tax refund without paying tax.As I have said before I get franking credits,but there are other options to get a similar income-and I am prepared to be flexible.Wouldn't the attitudes change if there was share market crash.It was a good lurk while  it lasted,and I think it will continue with monetary limits as to how much can be claimed.The centre alliance ,if they hold balance of power in senate ,will see to that.You will not be disadvantaged Bill,if you are prepared to be flexible.Too many scare campaigns!


----------



## Bill M (11 May 2019)

chiff said:


> I get franking credits,but there are other options to get a similar income-and I am prepared to be flexible.



If it goes through like Labor wants it too then yes of course I might have to dump stocks and get into other investments that may offer what I had before. If thousands of people start selling their shares then that could cause the Australian Sharemarket to take a dive too. Your points about the senate might eventuate too. Who knows what we will end up with exactly, I prefer to leave it as it is.


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2019)

I think the most massive mistake that the liberals have made in this campaign is allowing the Labor Party to frame the dividend imputation issue as a taxpayer funded gift to people who don't pay tax. 

Scomos explanations of the issue, whike technically accurate are not understandable to the broad bulk of the populace.

If in Australia we support that you have no double taxation, then this policy will be an absolute travesty and will cause low income retirees to pay a larger effective tax rate than those people on much higher incomes.

It is both unfair and hard hearted and while I cannot find myself supporting the liberals at this time, I hope they can pull a rabbit out of the Hat to hold those postmodern bolsheviks out of government.


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2019)

As far as negative gearing is concerned I have never been a supporter of negative gearing in its current form. While I believe losses should be held over and set off against future profits, I have never been able to support the idea of an *intentional* trading loss against current income.

I don't know if labour has the right policies on this but I support that issue being addressed, along with other housing market issues such as security of tenure etc.


----------



## IFocus (11 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> I think the most massive mistake that the liberals have made in this campaign is allowing the Labor Party to frame the dividend imputation issue as a taxpayer funded gift to people who don't pay tax.
> 
> Scomos explanations of the issue, whike technically accurate are not understandable to the broad bulk of the populace.
> 
> ...




Nice to see you posting rather than narking 

Agree your comment re  double taxation I think that was comrade Keatings policy BTW.

Howard changed that double taxation issue to a refund regardless whether tax was paid or not (because he was a mug punter that blew a mining boom on buying re-elections)

If you are in a tax free vehicle  or under the tax free threshold it stops being a double taxation situation, if you are paying tax then its warranted.

Note I am directly impacted by the policy.

Also understand Bill M's and others lament.

Juniors comments about the previous changes to Superannuation by Coalition having a far greater impact yet not a murmur are worth far more consideration.


----------



## IFocus (11 May 2019)

I know Labor has thrown this out to scare people but haven't seen it seriously refuted.

"Coalition policies deliver an $80 billion tax cut to high earners, partially funded by $40 billion cuts to services."


----------



## Logique (11 May 2019)

Bill M said:


> The one single issue that has swayed my vote against Labor has been the Franking Credit Rebates issue. They say there are up 1 Million Self Funded Retirees that may be affected and they are not the wealthy ones. I just hope that all the seniors are clued about this and vote against Labor and stop this unjust tax against retired people. I got a feeling that this election is not a forgone conclusion and that the Labor Party has under estimated the backlash of this policy. I took a bet of $4.25 to $1 that the Libs will form Government, I hope my hunches are right. Here's a photo I snapped yesterday in my marginal electorate, good luck all.
> View attachment 94554



Franking denial for Seniors as proposed by Labor is unfair, age-ist and cynical. 

PAYE wage earners are subject to the same kind of withholding tax, reconciled annually dependent on the marginal taxable income. Do we see Labor proposing to cancel the tax refund to PAYE earners with low (hence untaxable) income? Of course not. Might affect some union members/Labor voters.

Unfair and unjust on many levels. Labor Franking Deniers. Who's next on Labor's hit list?


----------



## wayneL (11 May 2019)

@IFocus 

All my posts have a point, even if I don't have the time for mansplainin' to those who fail to grasp them. It ain't no snarking.


----------



## Logique (11 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Labor reckons that 95% of retirees will be unaffected by their franking credit changes, and the 5%  that are would probably not vote for them anyway.
> BTW, that photo is of a long deceased US woman and has been used in political campaigns around the world, she doesn't care about franking credits.



 A 2010 Newspoll of Australians found 5% of respondents were vegetarian. So we can safely outlaw vegetarianism then? It's only 5% and probably a healthy proportion of Greens voters. I bet that little baby with Rickets in the news this week wishes it was outlawed!


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2019)

The Coalition's "strong economy" lie.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...tical-rhetoric-of-the-strong-economy/11102998


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 May 2019)

chiff said:


> I hear it said that it is hard for retirees to change from  shares?Shares are liquid and can be almost instantly sold.As I have said there are many other investment opportunities,but the franking credits lurk is too hard to pass up.Think on your feet!



A simple solution that most "genuine" self funded retirees would be reasonably happy with is just outright ban the practice of franking.

It's an obscure name for a rather obscure concept in the connected world in which we're living where the ATO knows your income before you do.

Pay shareholders their dividend and they can pay the appropriate rate of Income Tax on it exactly the same as bank interest or anything else including unfranked dividends. Simple and stops loopholes unless someone engages in outright fraud.

If they were serious about tax reform though, well there's a thing known as "salary sacrifice" which has spurned an entire industry. Tax avoidance it is yes. Legal tax avoidance but avoidance nonetheless. Now there's something that they could put a stop to.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Labor reckons that 95% of retirees will be unaffected by their franking credit changes, and the 5%  that are would probably not vote for them anyway.



Even if those figures are true, good governance doesn't involve punishing those who voted for someone else. Rather, it involves governing for the greater good and convincing them to vote for you next time.

As to whether or not it is true, well I don't know a huge number of retired people and the details of their circumstances but for those I do know for sure, the rough split is about 50% would be adversely affected, about 15% straight onto welfare, rest onto a fairly generous superannuation payment from a corporate or government scheme which long pre-dates compulsory super and which is protected against market or tax changes.

Of the 50% who would be adversely affected, the key defining characteristic is all having ceased work, in all cases involuntarily due to various reasons, prior to reaching "official" retirement age. No chance anyone will employ them so thank heavens they invested their own money outside super - if it wasn't for that they'd be on the dole.

It hasn't happened to me yet but I've always assumed I'll be in that situation someday simply because it's the most common scenario I've seen play out. Once someone's over 50 they're very often in their last job and if that doesn't last the next 15 years well then that's it, they're now retired in practice. Not totally impossible that someone gets a new job in their late 50's but it's the exception not the norm these days.


----------



## sptrawler (12 May 2019)

I guess it sounds better to say we aren't giving a tax rebate to those who don't pay tax.
Than to say we want to take that money and give a tax cut to some other people who don't pay any tax.
With indexing of the pension, it won't be long before the pension becomes more than what a worker, can expect to earn by saving.
So I guess it isn't all bad, untill it becomes unaffordable, then everyone loses.lol
I really am looking forward to the implementation, and the resultant fall out, of Labor's proposals, another Labor brain fart, with far reaching implications I think.


----------



## wayneL (12 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The Coalition's "strong economy" lie.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...tical-rhetoric-of-the-strong-economy/11102998



One pretty reliable gauge I use is the prices achieved at thoroughbred yearling sales.  Although there are other factors other than strength of the economy, it's not a bad barometer.

The observation here is that there is some overall weakness in prices this year.

Additionally,  my clients come from across a wide range of socioeconomic stratas, from differing equine fraternities; I can't think of one that is positive about the economy and most are quite pesimistic and expecting a recession.

It's getting to the point that the next government may be inheriting a poison chalice, no matter how good or bad the policy decisions are.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Even if those figures are true, good governance doesn't involve punishing those who voted for someone else. Rather, it involves governing for the greater good and convincing them to vote for you next time.




Both sides are playing the class war. The Coalition spent 6 years trying to get a tax cut for corporations through Parliament, and when that failed they suddenly discovered the ordinary voter on the eve of the election.

That's why they have defended negative gearing for so long, because it favours people with spare cash  who can afford to buy more than one house (which probably includes a lot of politicians also), not your average worker on the median wage.

Both parties really represent the extremes of society now. The Libs under Menzies tried to represent the middle class but have now moved further to the Right, Hawke/Keating did a good job of pragmatic government but Shorten seems to have moved further Left. Personally I would prefer a *slightly *Left of Centre government as I believe totally free markets and open slather for business to be an ideological failure.

We need a change of government in my view to shake things up . If Labor stuff it up this time (assuming they win), they could be out of power for a long time come the next election in 3 years.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 May 2019)

Warringah is interesting.
Appears there is a push for Labor voters to put Abbott in front of Steggle. The mess Abbott will cause in opposition could greatly help the Labor party. It's known he hates Morrison.
I personally hope for the sake of the Liberal Party that he loses.

Also very happy ABC and SBS promised more funding if Labor get in. ABC in particular has appeared to be pretty broke. Virtually no new drama this year.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Pay shareholders their dividend and they can pay the appropriate rate of Income Tax on it exactly the same as bank interest or anything else including unfranked dividends. Simple and stops loopholes unless someone engages in outright fraud.



A company makes a profit and pays its tax on that profit.
You receive a dividend from that company which is due to its profit, and for which tax has been paid.
You claim the dividend as income and, as the tax has been paid it affords you an imputed credit on your tax return so that the company's profits are not double taxed (via your dividend payment).
Where a retiree does not pay tax, then the imputed credit is returned by the ATO to the retiree.  The net effect of this special transaction means that the retiree's investment in the company precludes the government from deriving a tax revenue.
The logic of Labor's policy is sound.
The effects for self funded retirees whose SMSFs are only around the $1m mark can be profound as some would receive less annually than the pension, were Labor's policy to go through the Parliament.
There are two simple solutions.
First, allow self funded retirees to earn a total income at least equal to the pension, before recouping imputation credits.
Second, and the proposal I sent to Bill Shorten, was for retirees that ordinarily do not pay tax, have their imputation credits treated as income and be taxed according to the prevailing tax regime.  This effectively means that up to $18200 in imputation credits would not currently be taxed, and allow those on marginal self funded retirement incomes to continue to live modestly without a tax payer funded pension.


----------



## Belli (12 May 2019)

Superannuation was initially designed to be consumed in the retirement phase.  So why is it seemingly wrong to do so and consider that the investment income from a SMSF must equal the account-based pension?   At age 65 with $1M the account-based pension is $50k (the equivalent of a wage earner on $63k.)  There is nothing adverse in consuming capital to fund retirement.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Warringah is interesting.
> Appears there is a push for Labor voters to put Abbott in front of Steggle. The mess Abbott will cause in opposition could greatly help the Labor party. It's known he hates Morrison.



 Zali now ahead of Tony in the betting stakes, which was not the case to begin.
Nationally, the Coalition has drifted from $3.50 early last week, to $6.00 today, on Sportsbet.
The punters don't always win, but in 2-horse races it's safest to believe the winner will becomes more obvious as the price Shortens.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2019)

Belli said:


> Superannuation was initially designed to be consumed in the retirement phase.  So why is it seemingly wrong to do so and consider that the investment income from a SMSF must equal the account-based pension?   At age 65 with $1M the account-based pension is $50k (the equivalent of a wage earner on $63k.)  There is nothing adverse in consuming capital to fund retirement.



First, not everyone has an account based pension with a theoretical number attached.
Second, once capital is consumed, the theoretical $50k diminishes and a government funded pension becomes a likelihood.
The purpose of Keating's superannuation policies was to get rid of the need for governments to fund pensions, and have them only as a safety net, and not a right for all.
Third, it was possible to retire with a little less than $1m and be comfortable - not at all wealthy.  Some in retirement are in this ballpark, and removing say $10k in franking credits from their annual $35k dividend stream, means their retirement plans are out the window!


----------



## Bill M (12 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Warringah is interesting.



Warringah indeed is very interesting and I hope Tony gets the boot once and for all. Steggall is a much better candidate and if I was still living there I would be voting for her.

*My bolds*

---
Steggall pushed back on his argument that she would deliver Labor’s policies, *saying unequivocally that she would oppose Labor’s plans to remove cash refunds on franking credits for self-funded retirees. She described it as “completely wrong” and “moving the goalposts.”*
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ke-its-own-cars-despite-closing-down-industry
---


----------



## chiff (12 May 2019)

I was thinking,have I ever voted on self interest.I think that I am being honest when I say no.Franking credits come down the list.Before that come the environment,climate change and decent government.Decent government?If the coalition get in again the National Party will be in charge of the MDB again....more rorting dishonesty etc and pork barrelling their parasitic recipients.My member in Mayo,Centre Alliance candidate Rebekhah Sharkie,says they will block franking credit reforms.Well she would say that , Mayo has the oldest population profile in Australia.The proposed reforms that favour younger people are well over due.I hope that they vote in droves.


----------



## Logique (12 May 2019)

Belli said:


> Superannuation was initially designed to be consumed in the retirement phase.  So why is it seemingly wrong to do so and consider that the investment income from a SMSF must equal the account-based pension?   At age 65 with $1M the account-based pension is $50k (the equivalent of a wage earner on $63k.)  There is nothing adverse in consuming capital to fund retirement.



Are sure you're not missing the point Belli? Self funded retirees take the pressure off the pension system, just as the privately health insured (probably next on Labor's hit list) take the pressure off the public health system.

Labor/Greens are too blinded by ideology and class envy to comprehend this. The Liberals aren't a whole lot better, capping super balance limits under Kelly O'Dwyer.

All self funded retirees ask for is a fair go, and that the goalposts aren't moved after decades of retirement saving. Which is about the first sensible thing I've heard Z.Steggall say.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2019)

Logique said:


> Are sure you're not missing the point Belli? Self funded retirees take the pressure off the pension system, just as the privately health insured (probably next on Labor's hit list) take the pressure off the public health system.



However, the point that Bowen makes is that the very wealthy in retirement can literally receive a tax refund well in excess of $100k and all that is money that is now lost from government revenue as the company tax component has been negated.
So while the goal posts are being moved, the point posts should stay so that those who never kicked straight enough to earn the big bucks can still be part of the self funded retirees' team, and *not *the pensioners' team.


----------



## Belli (12 May 2019)

Logique said:


> Are sure you're not missing the point Belli? Self funded retirees take the pressure off the pension system, just as the privately health insured (probably next on Labor's hit list) take the pressure off the public health system.
> 
> Labor/Greens are too blinded by ideology and class envy to comprehend this. The Liberals aren't a whole lot better, capping super balance limits under Kelly O'Dwyer.
> 
> All self funded retirees ask for is a fair go, and that the goalposts aren't moved after decades of retirement saving. Which is about the first sensible thing I've heard Z.Steggall say.




I should declare I have a SMSF and investments outside super.  Apart from the concessionally taxed arrangements in the SMSF and subject to current personal tax arrangements to avoid double taxation of dividends, I am not on the public teat.  Well, I don't consider I am.

From my understanding general superannuation was established to support people in retirement but not to replace the Age Pension.  From Paul Keating's July 1991 speech after he resigned as Treasurer:

"based on the aged pension and... augmented by a privately funded and employment related national superannuation scheme fuelled by a fully mature level of contributions"

Such a scheme would maintain the age and service pensions as the foundation of equity and adequacy in retirement income arrangements, but be complemented by the income of private superannuation with the dual systems integrated through to tax and social security systems."

Possibly views have morphed since then.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (12 May 2019)

What are the Labor  policy's that favor people aged between 20-40? 

160B to welfare every year. Save billions from that easy. 

Go down to Centrelink and take a look at all the people getting a handout all the while people go to work to pay for their DSP, housing, medication, free transport.

Massive rort.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2019)

Belli said:


> From my understanding general superannuation was established to support people in retirement but not to replace the Age Pension.  From Paul Keating's July 1991 speech after he resigned as Treasurer:



Your partial quote was misleading.
Try reading this as a better perspective from Keating himself.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> What are the Labor  policy's that favor people aged between 20-40?
> 160B to welfare every year. Save billions from that easy.
> Go down to Centrelink and take a look at all the people getting a handout all the while people go to work to pay for their DSP, housing, medication, free transport.
> Massive rort.



Another ill informed comment from the ranks of those who do not understand the social security system!
Most social security payments are means tested, so they go to the poorest in society and every cent is spent on living costs - not always wisely, but spent nevertheless.
The proposed removal of imputation credits is a *taxation arrangement* applying to self funded retirees - a  relatively wealthy element of the population.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (12 May 2019)

Because they won't go and get a job.

What are the policy's that favor 20-40yr old?


----------



## Macquack (12 May 2019)

I have always thought there should be at least a token tax (1 to 5%) on superannuation earnings in pension mode. It would raise a massive amount of revenue for the government with not much pain.

Superannuation contributions are subsided by the government on the way in, earnings are subsided throughout and then finally the earnings are received tax free plus any company tax paid on earnings are refunded in full. This system has proven to be the biggest tax rort in history for the wealthy.

Joe average with their meager super balances will end up on the pension after the effects of inflation diminish there earnings purchasing power and the government loses out because they end up funding these pensioners and have missed out on a lot of taxation throughout the super scheme life.

The biggest winners in superannuation are the wealthy and those greedy fund managers.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Because they won't go and get a job.
> What are the policy's that favor 20-40yr old?



This is the tired and testing mantra of imbeciles.
You think that the people who write dozens of application for jobs every week, are listed online for work with various organisations, don't want to work?  The unemployment rate is most a factor of job availability.  I know this because I worked as a labour economist for several years, and there was no magic pudding that any government could bake to create jobs out of thin air.  We regarded about 2% of the population as being "unemployable" for many reasons, and for most it was poor or no meaningful education as causative.
WRT to 20-40 year olds, why not read what the parties propose that will assist?


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (12 May 2019)

thats not trying to get a job writing an application.

go to sites like gumtree, airtasker, facebook buy & swap sites there are jobs advertised all the time.

the long term bludgers are moved to the disability pension, they live a very comfortable life.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> thats not trying to get a job writing an application.
> go to sites like gumtree, airtasker, facebook buy & swap sites there are jobs advertised all the time.
> the long term bludgers are moved to the disability pension, they live a very comfortable life.



If that's the quality of your comments then I will leave you to your ignorance.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (12 May 2019)

chiff said:


> I was thinking,have I ever voted on self interest.I think that I am being honest when I say no.Franking credits come down the list.*Before that come the environment,climate change and decent government.Decent government?*If the coalition get in again the National Party will be in charge of the MDB again....more rorting dishonesty etc and pork barrelling their parasitic recipients.My member in Mayo,Centre Alliance candidate Rebekhah Sharkie,says they will block franking credit reforms.Well she would say that , Mayo has the oldest population profile in Australia.*The proposed reforms that favour younger people are well over due*.I hope that they vote in droves.




i climate change is becoming the best thing ever. Best excuse for price increases.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (12 May 2019)

rederob said:


> If that's the quality of your comments then I will leave you to your ignorance.




look at all the migrants who came to this country with qualifications that weren't recognised or needed upgrading. They done manual jobs, taxi's, drivers, factory work etc worked hard and have a great life.

good, leave me alone


----------



## moXJO (12 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> thats not trying to get a job writing an application.
> 
> go to sites like gumtree, airtasker, facebook buy & swap sites there are jobs advertised all the time.
> 
> the long term bludgers are moved to the disability pension, they live a very comfortable life.



I agree with this. I grew up in a dole bludger town and the mentality was that they were entitled to government money and did not have to work. That mentality had a huge negative  effect on the region for 30+ years. And even today I still know guys in their 40s living in their mums garage happily waking at 1pm and playing xbox.
Long term bludgers breed a community of bludgers mentality.

Personally I think single mums need more $, with a focus on good education for their kids to break the cycle. Not sure how, as the rorts/ problems are endless and creative.

And yes there are those out there that have no chance of a job due to unemployment, location,  health.

 It's not as bad as the 90s. Dole scams and workerscomp scams were out of control. "Big brother" computing has curbed a lot of that. And in the case of workerscomp,  Id say they have gone too far rejecting claims.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Both parties really represent the extremes of society now. The Libs under Menzies tried to represent the middle class but have now moved further to the Right, Hawke/Keating did a good job of pragmatic government but Shorten seems to have moved further Left. Personally I would prefer a *slightly *Left of Centre government as I believe totally free markets and open slather for business to be an ideological failure.



Agreed with your whole post.

The Liberals have substantially abandoned the middle class they used to represent and now represents the big end of town whilst Labor seems to have pretty much forgotten about their traditional support base of the working class, particularly blue collar workers, almost completely and is now the party for those who see welfare as the default not a last resort where all else fails.

I'm still undecided who to vote for, I sure aren't keen on the Liberals and their overall conservatism wanting to cling to the past but this selective taxation from Labor is a deal breaker so far as I'm concerned on account of the unfairness to some which could easily be avoided, whilst retaining the original intent, by the use of a much sharper tool. In both cases the "dumb" approach is being applied.

Over the next few days I'll be looking very closely at the independent and minor party candidates in my electorate with the intent that one of them receives my #1 vote. 

I'm not a Greens voter but I'll give credit where it's due in that of the significant parties, and whilst they're minor in numbers they're significant as such, they're the only ones who don't seem to be trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes as to what they're about. That doesn't mean I agree with all their ideas, some yes but not all, but they seem to be being far less deceptive about their policies than the two majors.


----------



## IFocus (12 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Because they won't go and get a job.
> 
> What are the policy's that favor 20-40yr old?




Child care, improved TAFE training for starters then benefits from better investment in health care etc.

Thats before the tax cuts that are fully funded unlike the Coalitions.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (12 May 2019)

this in the The Age today,

looks like more reviews?

https://www.theage.com.au/federal-e...ds-and-people-on-welfare-20190507-p51kro.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 May 2019)

rederob said:


> There are two simple solutions.
> First, allow self funded retirees to earn a total income at least equal to the pension, before recouping imputation credits.
> Second, and the proposal I sent to Bill Shorten, was for retirees that ordinarily do not pay tax, have their imputation credits treated as income and be taxed according to the prevailing tax regime.  This effectively means that up to $18200 in imputation credits would not currently be taxed, and allow those on marginal self funded retirement incomes to continue to live modestly without a tax payer funded pension.



You certainly seem to be taking a balanced view in terms of acknowledging that there are problems with the Labor proposal etc.

A major concern in any "compensation" sort of proposal is what defines a retiree.

I'll be politically incorrect and straight to the point and say that for anyone employed on the basis of physical strength or appearance, and there are huge numbers of both, well then the superannuation preservation age (60) is unrealistic and the Age Pension age (67) is silly to the point of farce. 

It's politically incorrect to say it but I will. If you're applying for jobs facing the public and aren't reasonably good looking then forget it with rather a lot of employers. There's usually the token older person so it all looks legit but such jobs are overwhelmingly skewed toward younger workers particularly women. For most blue collar work it's much the same, there are exceptions but it's very heavily skewed to those under 50 in practice.

So we have a situation where many in their 50's or in a few cases even 40's find themselves in a situation where either they're self funded involuntary retirees, done completely outside of superannuation, or they're going to spend the next ~15 years on the dole jumping through an endless stream of hoops in order to claim a payment that's barely adequate. It's a not uncommon scenario in practice.

Those who've seen it coming tend to be the people who invest most heavily outside of super and that's motivated by fear far more than any desire to actually be rich. Those people have, of course, already paid more tax by choosing this course of action given they'll be paying tax on the returns from those investments at their marginal rate whilst they're working. Plus they won't be claiming welfare, avoiding that being the primary reason they've invested.

So in any "compensation" arrangement I'd want to see it apply to retirees as such with age not forming part of that definition. If someone's a self-funded retiree at whatever age well then they're a self-funded retiree. 

Those in this situation tend to be "off the record" almost completely. Not in employment, not on any form of welfare, not drawing on superannuation, paying a bit of tax but not a lot. They largely don't exist from a statistical perspective, they're not captured in anything which records employment, unemployment, pensioners or those living on superannuation since they're doing none of those. As such they're easily overlooked but personally I know a few so it's a real thing most certainly.


----------



## jbocker (12 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Those in this situation tend to be "off the record" almost completely. Not in employment, not on any form of welfare, not drawing on superannuation, paying a bit of tax but not a lot. They largely don't exist from a statistical perspective, they're not captured in anything which records employment, unemployment, pensioners or those living on superannuation since they're doing none of those. As such they're easily overlooked but personally I know a few so it's a real thing most certainly.



Add me to your list, and I too know several. Well described Smurf, I never really thought about whether I was on any statistical radar, and as such probably largely ignored.


----------



## Macquack (12 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'll be politically incorrect and straight to the point and say that for anyone employed on the basis of  *physical strength or appearance*, and there are huge numbers of both, well then the superannuation preservation age (60) is unrealistic and the Age Pension age (67) is silly to the point of farce.




Are you saying that half of ASF members are ####ing ugly and weak as piss?


----------



## qldfrog (12 May 2019)

Macquack said:


> Are you saying that half of ASF members are ####ing ugly and weak as piss?



Count me in just past 50 do i i real want to carry on in it, learning another trendy it language . i think i am past 20 so far in my career, and be always too expensive vs a Bangalore programmer
So i saved and saved and now i am in pre retirement and obviously do not get a cent from the government, as per all my life here since my arrival as a fully educated and trained migrants..but i am now an enemy in the eyes of Labor, how dare i succeed instead of begging and blaming...
Real lineralism please, leave me alone, make people responsible once educated


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Count me in just past 50 do i i real want to carry on in it, learning another trendy it language . i think i am past 20 so far in my career, and be always too expensive vs a Bangalore programmer
> So i saved and saved and now i am in pre retirement and obviously do not get a cent from the government, as per all my life here since my arrival as a fully educated and trained migrants..but i am now an enemy in the eyes of Labor, how dare i succeed instead of begging and blaming...
> Real lineralism please, leave me alone, make people responsible once educated




That's a really good point.

Labor is ignoring a lot of the electorate like self employed tradies, professionals, small business owners and just appealing to low paid workers that are typically union members.

I think their health and education policies are good though, as are their electric car and renewables policies, those gets them over the line for me against the incumbents who have been total failures for 6 years.


----------



## basilio (12 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> You certainly seem to be taking a balanced view in terms of acknowledging that there are problems with the Labor proposal etc.
> 
> A major concern in any "compensation" sort of proposal is what defines a retiree.
> 
> ...




I can see Smurfs point about a certain number of people being early involuntary retirees eking out a small income from shares and dividend imputation rebates.  How many ? As he points out it is hard to say. I suggest he is more likely to notice these situations because he most clearly identifies with it and seems to live/work in a circle of people in that possible situation.

I have already suggested that in the world of real politics Labour will come under enormous pressure to soften it's stance on this policy and allow a certain about of dividend imputation credits for  minor recipients. 

But the facts are that a very large amount of the $5-6-7 Billion in tax rebates is flowing to a core of very wealthy people who have structured their investments to exploit this creative tax loophole. This is the tax target.

There has been an analysis of the recipients  of these rebates.  It's not that long. The highlights are

_Of the 0.1% of individuals with credits between A$20,000 and A$40,000, the average cash refund is A$8,743. The average taxable income for the group is just over A$68,000 and the average superannuation balance is just under A$721,000.

For the top group who have credits in excess of A$40,000, the average cash refund is almost A$63,000, over A$1,200 a week. The average taxable income for the group is the lowest of all groups at A$17,735, falling below the lowest income tax threshold. Almost half (45%) have no taxable income. Their average superannuation balance is A$1,344,782.
_
Allowing the 99% of people who receive minimal rebates (up  to $40840k a year average for only a very small number .8%)  to keep their rebates  would be a small price to pay to target a small group of very wealthy people who  have a nice little rort on their hands.
https://www.solepurposetest.com/opinion/labor-dividend-imputation-policy-hit/


----------



## chiff (12 May 2019)

If anyone is doing it tough...consider living overseas.Much lower living costs.I get a magazine "International living" .They cover a wide range of countries.In our region Thailand,Malaysia,Bali,Vietnam etc.A few other are France ,Spain,Portugal Costa Rica etc.If I were ever to do that,no plans, I would choose Malaysia....English widely spoken,better governance,cheap rent and food.Good services like  fast internet.Live on under 25k a year.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 May 2019)

Macquack said:


> Are you saying that half of ASF members are ####ing ugly and weak as piss?



I'm just being pragmatic.

Some people are employed for their intellectual abilities.

Some are employed due to having formal qualifications, licences and/or practical experience.

Some are employed due to their physical abilities.

It's very politically incorrect to say it but some are in practice employed due to appearance. The old "include a photo with your application" and it's no secret what that's really about.

Those in the latter two categories have an age limit in practice and this includes those for whom it's only part of the job.


----------



## moXJO (12 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a really good point.
> 
> Labor is ignoring a lot of the electorate like self employed tradies, professionals, small business owners and just appealing to low paid workers that are typically union members.




Not just ignoring - bending them over the barrel. There are multiple hits to self employed. The reason I wouldn't vote for them. They do have some policies I like as well.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 May 2019)

basilio said:


> I can see Smurfs point about a certain number of people being early involuntary retirees eking out a small income from shares and dividend imputation rebates.  How many ? As he points out it is hard to say. I suggest he is more likely to notice these situations because he most clearly identifies with it and seems to live/work in a circle of people in that possible situation.



Basically yes.

Of all people I've known (ever) who've retired, the majority did so not under circumstances of their choosing and would have gone at a different time if not for some trigger event which caused it to happen when it did. Corporate restructuring or cutbacks, being transferred a long way away at the age of ~60, project comes to an end and so does their job, health, etc.

So thinking about that, well I've known more forced early retirees than I've known people who retired when they wanted to or who are disabled, openly gay or who attend church (to pick random examples).

Exactly how common it is I don't think anyone really knows since from a statistical perspective such people fall through the cracks, They're not employed but they're not officially unemployed either. They're not drawing on superannuation, they're not self-employed in a business and they're not on any sort of welfare. They're off the radar basically.

At a personal level, I've only been unemployed once but I've never claimed the dole. Yep, I was one of those self-funded people during that time. Apart from a Tax Return I wouldn't have showed up in any statistic for anything. Not employed, not on the dole, not running a business. Nobody basically. For what it's worth, no I didn't have much in the way of franking credits at the time, since most of what I was invested in didn't pay franked dividends, but that doesn't mean that others will have made the same choices given that the biggest and most well known companies listed on the ASX do pay franked dividends.

That experience did however teach me something about people. Taught me quite a bit actually.

Meet someone for the first time and pretty soon the conversation turns to "what do you do for a living?". Tell them you're unemployed and it gets a certain response. A response that in most cases changes dramatically if you simply add the words "but I'm not on the dole". Now all of a sudden disdain turns to curiosity. Hmm....

There's a lot of prejudice out there against those doing it tough yes, especially if they're claiming welfare despite being legally entitled to do so. It's a strange world where someone wants to be your friend only once you've confirmed that you're not claiming a relatively trivial sum of taxpayers' funds. Interesting.

Back to this policy of Labor's, well I'm fine with the idea of stopping anyone rorting this or anything else but I cannot support a "blunt" approach which brings with it innocent victims who've done all the right things until they suffered whatever misfortune has caused them to now have a genuinely low income and be relying on their own funds for however long.

I'm using the same logic there as saying yes I fully support the idea that murderers and so on should be dealt with. Good idea yes. No way however will I support locking up innocent people as well just because that's easy and makes sure we get the bad guys. Nope - do it properly and if it costs $$$ for court trials to ensure we don't lock up innocent people well then so be it, as a society we need to wear that cost rather than be locking people up for no good reason.

Same with this one. Labor needs to use a sharp knife not a blunt hacksaw to cut out the rorts. With the amount politicians are paid, and the resources government or major opposition parties have at their disposal, it's not unreasonable to expect them to do so.


----------



## sptrawler (13 May 2019)

I haven't had a lot of access to the internet recently, so I'm sitting in a hotel room and just reading the latest posts.
The problem with labor, is they bring out awe inspiring big ticket wow factor policy, that usually ends up unraveling and becoming a financial nightmare.
It is somewhat like letting your teenage kids, run the household budget and set the goals and parameters.
There is no doubt IMO, their proposals will end up causing a massive sugar hit to the budget, but the fall out will no doubt cause a budget problem at a later date.
IMO:The incentive to save will diminish, the welfare bill will blow out and the gap between rich and poor will increase.
The franking credit, negative gearing and CGT changes require a progressive component added, or else the only ones who benefit from the changes will be the rich.
Franking credits, only available to those who earn over 30% tax threshold.
Negative gearing, only available to those who can afford to build a new investment property.
Those who can afford to build a new investment property, not only can negative gear, but also get rental assistance to top up rent.
I would assume the CGT changes, will have less effect on developers, who probably pay on company tax rates, as opposed to PAYE tax rates.
The money taken, which will be mainly from the middle class, will be handed to the welfare sector. This in turn will just disenfranchise the middle class, and cause a reduction in productivity, which will in turn reduce investment.
Interesting times ahead I think, unfortunately tax increases are slower to be removed than applied and by the time the penny drops it will be way too late. IMO


----------



## PZ99 (13 May 2019)

Smurf1976, agree with everything else you've said but just on this...



Smurf1976 said:


> I'm using the same logic there as saying yes I fully support the idea that murderers and so on should be dealt with. Good idea yes. No way however will I support locking up innocent people as well just because that's easy and makes sure we get the bad guys. Nope - do it properly and if it costs $$$ for court trials to ensure we don't lock up innocent people well then so be it, as a society we need to wear that cost rather than be locking people up for no good reason.



Our tax system has never worked the way you're advocating. You are generally overtaxed, and then you spend a lot of time /effort/ money to prove you are owed a refund once a year


----------



## sptrawler (13 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Smurf1976, agree with everything else you've said but just on this...
> 
> 
> Our tax system has never worked the way you're advocating. You are generally overtaxed, and then you spend a lot of time /effort/ money to prove you are owed a refund once a year



The Government should only tax enough to run the Country, not tax as much as possible, then try and work out what to spend it on.


----------



## PZ99 (13 May 2019)

Speaking of tax....

"Obtained under freedom of information laws, a senior NSW Treasury official in October 2015 wrote: "The Commonwealth appears more willing to consider broader tax reform.

"The Commonwealth Treasurer has indicated that all options need to be considered, including superannuation, capital gains tax and negative gearing."

Mr Morrison in February 2016 said there were "excesses" in negative gearing and that the government was considering changes."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...nterest-overhauling-negative-gearing/11105830

Woops.


----------



## sptrawler (13 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Speaking of tax....
> 
> "Obtained under freedom of information laws, a senior NSW Treasury official in October 2015 wrote: "The Commonwealth appears more willing to consider broader tax reform.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone disputes it, just the ham fisted approach Labor is suggesting, is what the uproar is about.
Which is part for course when Labor try to implement anything.


----------



## PZ99 (13 May 2019)

It looks more like a lost opportunity to me and it speaks volumes of how sponsorship determines policy rather than betterment of the community.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (13 May 2019)

Hopefully next election we can vote a party which will introduce a mining tax. 

Long overdue.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I don't think anyone disputes it, just the ham fisted approach Labor is suggesting, is what the uproar is about.
> Which is part for course when Labor try to implement anything.




When it comes to negative gearing reform , I can't think of a more non intrusive way to reverse it than what Labor is suggesting, ie grandfathering existing investments, retaining NG on new houses etc.

I think your comment is based on the fact that you just don't like Labor, rather than on the merits of the proposal.


----------



## Macquack (13 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> It looks more like a lost opportunity to me and it speaks volumes of how sponsorship determines policy rather than betterment of the community.



I yearn for the good old days when pretty much all people earnt roughly the same wage. A friend of mine does not work at all because the absolute best he can earn is less than 1/3 of his wife's salary.

 I yearn for when most people retired on the pension, and the pension was a rock solid benchmark for gauging real cost of living pressures and comparison to average incomes across the board. Today, people are petrified that they will run out of money in retirement because the Jones's next door have more money and they are also scared they will run out of money.

I am sick of class warfare where the current political agenda of all parties is to divide and conquer and stuff the average person.


----------



## chiff (13 May 2019)

Macquack said:


> I yearn for the good old days when pretty much all people earnt roughly the same wage. A friend of mine does not work at all because the absolute best he can earn is less than 1/3 of his wife's salary.
> 
> I yearn for when most people retired on the pension, and the pension was a rock solid benchmark for gauging real cost of living pressures and comparison to average incomes across the board. Today, people are petrified that they will run out of money in retirement because the Jones's next door have more money and they are also scared they will run out of money.
> 
> I am sick of class warfare where the current political agenda of all parties is to divide and conquer and stuff the average person.



I spoke to a childhood friend of mine...I put forward that we were happier as boys when we were all riding around on our bicycles...noone cared who had the better bike or the best brand etc.
He didn't agree with me...


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 May 2019)

Macquack said:


> I am sick of class warfare where the current political agenda of all parties is to divide and conquer and stuff the average person.



This plus a substantial % of the population seems similarly obsessed with the whole “status” thing.


----------



## wayneL (13 May 2019)

Macquack said:


> I yearn for the good old days when pretty much all people earnt roughly the same wage. A friend of mine does not work at all because the absolute best he can earn is less than 1/3 of his wife's salary.
> 
> I yearn for when most people retired on the pension, and the pension was a rock solid benchmark for gauging real cost of living pressures and comparison to average incomes across the board. Today, people are petrified that they will run out of money in retirement because the Jones's next door have more money and they are also scared they will run out of money.
> 
> I am sick of class warfare where the current political agenda of all parties is to divide and conquer and stuff the average person.



Things weren't perfect back then either of course,  but I agree,  Australia was a better place in those days.


----------



## wayneL (13 May 2019)

I've been getting up to speed on Labor's gender policy.  To be honest, I think it is terrifying and actually very counterproductive for those folks so afflicted.


----------



## Junior (13 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> I've been getting up to speed on Labor's gender policy.  To be honest, I think it is terrifying and actually very counterproductive for those folks so afflicted.




Hi Wayne, what is their gender policy?


----------



## wayneL (13 May 2019)

Junior said:


> Hi Wayne, what is their gender policy?



This of course has a bit of a conservative slant to it, but I think is a fair discussion on some of the concerns


----------



## rederob (13 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> This of course has a bit of a conservative slant to it, but I think is a fair discussion on some of the concerns [/MEDIA]



It's totally unbalanced and just another of your delusional claims.
Quite funny tho!


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> This of course has a bit of a conservative slant to it, but I think is a fair discussion on some of the concerns



My personal view is that a child is born either male or female and this should be noted at the time.

To the extent anyone's taking issue with the law in Tasmania though, well Tas has a majority Liberal government. That's Liberals alone not Liberal-Green, Liberal-National or anyone else, just Liberal. To the extent that anyone sees a problem with that, or any other, law in that state well the only political party that can blamed is the party in government and that's Liberal.


----------



## CNHTractor (13 May 2019)

Quote from Amanda Vanstone "People say they don’t trust him. They hear a shallowness in his voice and see him as a hollow man. And this is from my Labor mates!"

I agree


----------



## PZ99 (13 May 2019)

One week to go. 

Stand by for the dirt file on Bill Shorten from the Murdoch political party media.

I'll betcha a fifty it's that old rape claim again


----------



## IFocus (13 May 2019)

Talking about the Liberals.............what are their policies?

Really weird I missed that part at the launch yesterday just like all the previous Liberal Prime Minsters.

The Liberal campaign is more like an oppositions and Labours more like a Government how can that happen?

Lets face it the Coalition are just ramble with Scomo doing some child acting not to say the punters wont elect them on that basis Yanks elected Trump so any thing goes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> Talking about the Liberals.............what are their policies?



A point made to me this morning in the offline world is that both major parties are playing identity politics based around their leader.

That being so, regardless of who is elected to government, since they have campaigned heavily on the basis of the party leader the public has reasonable grounds to expect that person to remain as leader. Therefore any change of leadership, unless due to reasons of genuine ill health (or death), should automatically trigger the immediate calling of an election.

Seems like a reasonable idea to me. 

Another point which came up is that the Nationals have become _completely_ invisible to the point that one could be excused for being unsure if the party even still exists.


----------



## moXJO (13 May 2019)

CNHTractor said:


> Quote from Amanda Vanstone "People say they don’t trust him. They hear a shallowness in his voice and see him as a hollow man. And this is from my Labor mates!"
> 
> I agree



Hollow man sums him up very well. Even his "I love my mummy" speech felt off.

  Labor needs to ditch all those recycled front benchers from the rudd era as well. They were terrible during the rudd and Gillard years and no better now.


----------



## moXJO (13 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> Talking about the Liberals.............what are their policies?
> 
> Really weird I missed that part at the launch yesterday just like all the previous Liberal Prime Minsters.
> 
> ...



And yet the election could change on a dime. That says a lot about labor as well. Albo probably would have won in a landslide, but the unions want their empty headed stooge in top position.


----------



## sptrawler (13 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> When it comes to negative gearing reform , I can't think of a more non intrusive way to reverse it than what Labor is suggesting, ie grandfathering existing investments, retaining NG on new houses etc.
> 
> I think your comment is based on the fact that you just don't like Labor, rather than on the merits of the proposal.



Time will tell.


----------



## PZ99 (14 May 2019)

Newspoll 2PP state by state...

NSW > 51-49 to Coalition
Victoria > 54-46 to Labor
QLD > 50-50
WA > 52-48 to Coalition
SA > 52-48 to Labor

Tassie isn't listed yet.


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Newspoll 2PP state by state...
> 
> NSW > 51-49 to Coalition
> Victoria > 54-46 to Labor
> ...



I reckon the Soviet Socialist State of Victoria should secede. 

Just sayin'


----------



## Knobby22 (14 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> I reckon the Soviet Socialist State of Victoria should secede.
> 
> Just sayin'




Victoria used to be the jewel in the Liberal crown, from Menzies onwards, but they have treated us like we are the arse.

Despite having the strongest growth they have cut back on our infrastructure funding. They spend all their time sucking up to Queensland and giving NSW volumes of cash.

Also we liked Turnbull and they boned him.

The state Libs couldn't get enough crazy right wingers so they got Mormons everywhere despite the fact they make up a tiny fraction of the population. They had a party hack beat two highly qualified women to take one seat. We finally got rid of that imbecile state leader Kroger.

We haven't got right wing shock jocks here or one party paper towns fed disinformation by Newscorp.
Some Libs actually said as they overthrew Turnbull that it was necessary to keep the Queensland seats and though it wouldn't go down well in Victoria the seats were all too safe to lose.

I hope they lose 4 seats in Melbourne so we can treated seriously again.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Newspoll 2PP state by state...
> 
> NSW > 51-49 to Coalition
> Victoria > 54-46 to Labor
> ...



So Victoria's the only state where there's any clear preference it would seem.

I wonder if we'll end up with a hung parliament or tiny majority to whichever side wins?


----------



## PZ99 (14 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> So Victoria's the only state where there's any clear preference it would seem.
> 
> I wonder if we'll end up with a hung parliament or tiny majority to whichever side wins?



Could be analogous to state Govt results. 
State Libs are popular in NSW. Not in Vic as stated above.
That 51-49 in NSW is a 5% improvement for the Coalition this year. In Vic it's unchanged.
Historically, the Libs usually campaign better than Labor and they also do better in postal votes.

I think it's heading for a hung parliament with Labor winning more seats than the LNP but still unable to form Govt. In which case we will have to vote again.


----------



## rederob (14 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I wonder if we'll end up with a hung parliament or tiny majority to whichever side wins?



Count by seat rather than State by State.
Labour look like getting a clear majority in the Reps.
Betting today:
*Ladbrokes betting odds*
NEXT FEDERAL ELECTION
Coalition = $6.00
Labor = $1.12
Australian Conservatives  = $301
One Nation = $301
Greens = $301​


----------



## moXJO (14 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Count by seat rather than State by State.
> Labour look like getting a clear majority in the Reps.
> Betting today:
> *Ladbrokes betting odds*
> ...



Can't argue with the bookies.
 I honestly can't see libs winning.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Can't argue with the bookies.
> I honestly can't see libs winning.



Morrison done a good campaign considering the handicaps he was given.


----------



## moXJO (14 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Morrison done a good campaign considering the handicaps he was given.



I agree...
It was a total whitewash at one stage.
But when you look closer labors "team unity", they were all the ones who reigned over death, money blowouts and disaster.
I'm surprised they haven't hammered the labor team for being the same stale useless buggers from before.

Even putting keneally out front speaks volumes of peoples attention spans. She was Obeids show poodle for one of the most corrupt state governments ever.  Nsw has not elected another labor government since.

And the rumors around Billy boy. No wonder sco mo brought it back.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Morrison done a good campaign considering the handicaps he was given.




Apart from this first homeowners scheme , where is the policy ?

Just a vote buying tax cut and more of the same rubbish.

He's playing the small target game but I don't think it will help him.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Apart from this first homeowners scheme , where is the policy ?
> 
> Just a vote buying tax cut and more of the same rubbish.
> 
> He's playing the small target game but I don't think it will help him.




That was what I meant by handicaps. The party is completely in stasis on policy.
Even that first home owners scheme was a last minute Captains' pick by Morrison, he didn't even run it past cabinet much less get it costed but he had to say something at the Liberal launch.


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Victoria used to be the jewel in the Liberal crown, from Menzies onwards, but they have treated us like we are the arse.
> 
> Despite having the strongest growth they have cut back on our infrastructure funding. They spend all their time sucking up to Queensland and giving NSW volumes of cash.
> 
> ...



Victoria can never again be treated seriously.  Giving Andrechev a second term means the rest of us want to expel you guys from the Federation and build a goddam wall.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Victoria can never again be treated seriously.  Giving Andrechev a second term means the rest of us want to expel you guys from the Federation and build a goddam wall.




You dream of working at Flemington.


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> You dream of working at Flemington.



Good prices, if you can get paid.  

Trivia,  I am licenced to plate runners there,  and did so in late 90's, early 00's. 

Lucrative,  but full on,  especially  now... might be getting a bit old to run a business, AND fight antifa.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 May 2019)

Not a wall but Victorians already do their best to keep everyone else out.

Cross the border and you'll lots of signs all warning of fines for this, that and something else.

Go the other direction and Vic to SA there's just a "welcome to SA" sign and the speed limit goes up 10 km/h.


----------



## basilio (14 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Victoria can never again be treated seriously.  Giving Andrechev a second term means the rest of us want to expel you guys from the Federation and build a goddam wall.





Indeed  !! Totally get it Wayne  

If the soulless, transgendered, Dementors  get into power it's all over Red Rover.

Time to bring together the remnants of the  real Blue Ties  get on the Ark and sail to the US and form an International Brigade to fight for the preservation Christianity, White Rights and a Pure Nation under the
leadership of the Great Yellow Hope.  

GO Wayne !  It will be a truly noble cause.  There will be many people happy to support  your good fight.

Meanwhile back in the land of Oz check out the  series on the upcoming Premiership fight between the Blue Ties and the Labour Rats on* Countdown to Glory * Very, very good.

https://iview.abc.net.au/show/countdown-to-glory


----------



## Knobby22 (14 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Not a wall but Victorians already do their best to keep everyone else out.
> 
> Cross the border and you'll lots of signs all warning of fines for this, that and something else.
> 
> Go the other direction and Vic to SA there's just a "welcome to SA" sign and the speed limit goes up 10 km/h.



Unfortunately true.


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2019)

basilio said:


> Indeed  !! Totally get it Wayne
> 
> If the soulless, transgendered, Dementors  get into power it's all over Red Rover.
> 
> ...



I still think Oz is saveable,  well,  apart from Victoria, so will hang on here for a bit,  bas. We can cut our losses and get the Vics to pay for the wall. 

Then at some stage we can invade... once all the men are on estrogen pills.


----------



## Logique (14 May 2019)

Agreed Wayne, the Peoples Republic of Victoria...saveable?  Our Victorian friends are welcome to come up here and charge up their mobile phones, along with the Croweaters.

On another subject: *Labor's Parent Visas unlimited* Anyone who has been in or visited a hospital recently will know - what an obscenity is this proposed Labor policy.

The poor overrun public hospitals, they can't keep up as it is. Add in an unlimited influx of *country-shopping oldies*, to *luxuriate on Medicare* at taxpayers expense... Plus the inevitable Labor gouging on private health insurance premiums.

Equals: collapse of public health system. Anyone who thinks I'm exaggerating.. just wait and see. It's stretched tight as a drum.


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2019)

Shorten's rape allegation resurfaces. 

It's bouncing around FaceAche overnight and this morning,  but interesting that it's not getting coverage on MSM. 

https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/20...qc-and-alleged-bill-shorten-rape-victim-.html


----------



## rederob (15 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Shorten's rape allegation resurfaces.
> 
> It's bouncing around FaceAche overnight and this morning,  but interesting that it's not getting coverage on MSM.
> 
> https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/20...qc-and-alleged-bill-shorten-rape-victim-.html



My view is that people who raise false allegations in social media are the scum of the earth.
People who latch onto false allegations and recirculate them are equally culpable.
People who wonder why legitimate media do not recycle false claims seem to live in an alternative universe.


----------



## Junior (15 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> I still think Oz is saveable,  well,  apart from Victoria, so will hang on here for a bit,  bas. We can cut our losses and get the Vics to pay for the wall.
> 
> Then at some stage we can invade... once all the men are on estrogen pills.




Victoria is leading Australia in a number of areas, in the current era.  Clearly the most popular place to be, with consistent population growth.  The biggest and best infrastructure projects which are ACTUALLY BEING BUILT, unlike anywhere else.  

Budget in surplus, consistent jobs growth and a stable government.  Very much unlike what is happening at a federal level.

The only people criticising are those who don't live here.  Sky News after dark is not a great source of information, if you actually want to know what is happening on the ground here.


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2019)

Junior said:


> Victoria is leading Australia in a number of areas, in the current era.  Clearly the most popular place to be, with consistent population growth.  The biggest and best infrastructure projects which are ACTUALLY BEING BUILT, unlike anywhere else.
> 
> Budget in surplus, consistent jobs growth and a stable government.  Very much unlike what is happening at a federal level.
> 
> The only people criticising are those who don't live here.  Sky News after dark is not a great source of information, if you actually want to know what is happening on the ground here.



 clearly my comments were tongue-in-cheek, and referencing cultural aspects rather than economic

But,  according to the font of all knowledge, GSP per capita for 17-18 is behind even the basket case that is Queensland and substantively lower than Oz average. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_states_and_territories_by_gross_state_product


----------



## SirRumpole (15 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> It's bouncing around FaceAche overnight and this morning, but interesting that it's not getting coverage on MSM.




Defamation actions likely I would think.


----------



## PZ99 (15 May 2019)

Northern Territory highest GSP per capita but their Govt is worse than broke.

Huge potential for mineral export but no will to make it happen.


----------



## basilio (15 May 2019)

This doesn't bode well for the Libs

*Federal election 2019: Vote Compass finds broad desire for more action on climate change*
key points:

81 per cent of voters want more government action on climate change
Among Coalition voters, 60 per cent now back more climate action
More than two-thirds of voters favour efforts to boost renewable energy and electric cars


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-15/federal-election-vote-compass-climate-change/11110912


----------



## basilio (15 May 2019)

Really believe JJ's take on the upcoming Premiership Cup deserves a squizz
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/countdown-to-glory


----------



## moXJO (15 May 2019)

rederob said:


> My view is that people who raise false allegations in social media are the scum of the earth.
> People who latch onto false allegations and recirculate them are equally culpable.
> People who wonder why legitimate media do not recycle false claims seem to live in an alternative universe.



The alleged victim investigation was kept very quiet. There was no solid evidence. But she could be placed at the event. Shades of Kavanaugh except Shorten was actually there at the time.
She never got her me too moment.


SirRumpole said:


> Defamation actions likely I would think.



If they argue truth then it would be investigated. Would be interesting as it was swept under the carpet.


----------



## basilio (15 May 2019)

Another great ! ad from your Honest Government Advertising Agency.
(It's certainly not a Labour front...)


----------



## moXJO (15 May 2019)

Is anyone here still undecided on who or what lines they will vote?


----------



## SirRumpole (15 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Is anyone here still undecided on who or what lines they will vote?




Nope. 

6 years of failure and promise breaking can't be rewarded in my view.


----------



## moXJO (15 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Nope.
> 
> 6 years of failure and promise breaking can't be rewarded in my view.



I tend to agree. The complete lurch to authoritarian policies and smashing of our rights did it for me. In saying that whoever I vote for will more than likely be a wasted vote or would form with libs anyhow.


----------



## PZ99 (15 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Is anyone here still undecided on who or what lines they will vote?



Yep. For me it's a 50/50 choice of penalty rates versus franking credits.

I'm probably not going to be voting Liberal. The *mal*contents who dumped Turnbull didn't get their desired PM in the chair. They got ScoMo instead - when that happened they publicly stated they'll bring him down if he ran. All those people are still in their positions, in and out of parliament. So the sniping and back stabbing will continue. Australia deserves better.

I don't think Bill will be any good - he won't cope with a hostile senate. But I do think his job will be decided by the voters - not by some self appointed elitists sponsored by an utterly corrupt media company.


----------



## moXJO (15 May 2019)

Vote independent in Senate is all I can say.


----------



## Junior (15 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Is anyone here still undecided on who or what lines they will vote?




Yes.

I cannot vote for the Coalition, whilst they have that nasty 'conservative' streak.  They do not stand for liberal values right now.  After Abbott and Dutton are gone I could consider it.

I can't vote for Shorten's identity politics, Big Government ideology, and that 'top end of town' b/s he keeps promoting.  I do respect how bold some of the policies are.

I don't know where that leaves me for this Saturday!


----------



## chiff (15 May 2019)

We all buy shares -and we like shares with some blue sky or future prospects-not the status quo.So it is for me with politics.


----------



## rederob (15 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Nope.
> 
> 6 years of failure and promise breaking can't be rewarded in my view.



Richard Di Natale was the stand-out performer on Monday's Q&A based on audience reaction.
Simon Birmingham was the most laughed at.
The Independent candidate for Indi  - Dr Helen Haines - was great.
Our household has been polled 4 times in 3 weeks!
I suspect polls are likely to be skewed to older people as it's difficult to get younger people on land lines.  I know polls try to get an appropriate age mix, but this isn't always achieved.
I have not put a bet on an outcome, but I will not be surprised to see what people are calling a close vote to become instead a landslide.
The one certainly this election which differentiates it from all others is a focus on climate change, and that's where the present government's response has been to bring a lump of coal to Parliament to show where it puts its money.


----------



## jbocker (15 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Yep. For me it's a 50/50 choice of penalty rates versus franking credits.
> 
> I'm probably not going to be voting Liberal. The *mal*contents who dumped Turnbull didn't get their desired PM in the chair. They got ScoMo instead - when that happened they publicly stated they'll bring him down if he ran. All those people are still in their positions, in and out of parliament. So the sniping and back stabbing will continue. Australia deserves better.
> 
> I don't think Bill will be any good - he won't cope with a hostile senate. But I do think his job will be decided by the voters - not by some self appointed elitists sponsored by an utterly corrupt media company.




Very undecided. ScoMo tells us the PM cannot be kicked out of their position while in office. Not sure how that happens, but don't trust Abbot Dutton. Shorten is just another who got the job after white anting Gillard and Rudd. At least the party has held line with him in the lead. Not sure they have much else on offer. The second tier has been scarce in both parties. Only see the two leaders very little else during the campaign.
I don't feel confident we have a real leader either way. Not sure how well either will be accepted on the international scene, when that sorts itself out. No surprise I suppose when you look at govts in UK and US they are in much bigger mess.
I suppose I hope it will be the party that keeps us on track with due consideration to the masses. I feel what we risk is a little too right and a little too left in our choices.


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2019)

I am undecided.

In the purely political sense,  Labor deserves gumint more than the Coalition,  but there are some insurmountable dealbreakers in their agenda for me. The coalition doesn't know what party its wants to be,  so who even knows what their agenda is? 

I live in a Labor held seat so probably won't even matter.  Probably will give one or another of the scalliwags a tick. 

Senate is a different story.  My mind is made up there.

Post election I'll probably find some bush vantage point to witness the Trudeuification of a once great country.


----------



## jbocker (15 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Post election I'll probably find some bush vantage point to witness the Trudeuification of a once great country.



Save us a spot, I bring will along some beers.


----------



## chiff (15 May 2019)

Both Shorten and Morrison say they are in for three years.What if they resign for personal reasons?


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> One week to go.
> 
> Stand by for the dirt file on Bill Shorten from the Murdoch political party media.
> 
> I'll betcha a fifty it's that old rape claim again




Here you go people - you read it first on the most disreputable website on the planet.

https://www.pickeringpost.com/2019/05/15/bill-shorten-rape-allegations-re-emerge/

If you think this campaign is dirty you ain't seen nuthin yet


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Here you go people - you read it first on the most disreputable website on the planet.
> 
> https://www.pickeringpost.com/2019/05/15/bill-shorten-rape-allegations-re-emerge/
> 
> If you think this campaign is dirty you ain't seen nuthin yet



MSM isn't too interested, this has been up and going for 2 or 3 days already.


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> MSM isn't too interested, this has been up and going for 2 or 3 days already.




Yeah, but as of now the media blackout for political advertising is in place 

That opens the door for all forms of fake news from the fifth estate...


----------



## Tink (16 May 2019)

We didn't vote Labor in the Victorian election and won't be voting Labor in Federal.



https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics/australian-federal-politics


----------



## SirRumpole (16 May 2019)

More evidence of the Coalition's "strong economy" lie.

Higher unemployment.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-16/unemployment-and-employment-april-2019/11118482


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> More evidence of the Coalition's "strong economy" lie.
> 
> Higher unemployment.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-16/unemployment-and-employment-april-2019/11118482



I'm pretty convinced that we're heading into recession Horace, no matter who wins the election


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

The Big Shorten 

(Ahhh sheet... someone best me to it... )

https://www.smh.com.au/business/mar...e-run-up-to-the-election-20190516-p51nuy.html


----------



## basilio (16 May 2019)

As usual there are many independents running for the Senate.

I just came across a new party which is a focused solely on Climate Change action. Interestingly it sets itself up as a group of associated independent candidates  (??) who want to see full scale climate action. It looks like they want to  bring CC action to the middle ground and attract people who don't want to vote Green because of other perceived policies.

They have candidates in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

https://i-c-a-n.com.au/


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> I'm pretty convinced that we're heading into recession Horace, no matter who wins the election



Of all possible things someone could observe or measure in an attempt to predict a coming recession, well I can't see any that aren't pointing that way really.

Unemployment was the only "missing" one but that's now going in the expected direction so pretty much all the boxes are now ticked.

Who to blame?

Both sides of politics have sat by and watched the hollowing out of the Australian economy and the running up of massive debts over an extended period and I don't think there's overly much difference between them. Both have basically just stood there watching the place burn.

Politically, well if we are indeed heading into a recession then the future becomes interesting:

If Labor wins then the Liberals can say "told you so" and assuming they have a united front for the 2022 election will probably win it and they'll trot out "the recession" in 2025 as well.

If Liberal wins well there goes the Liberals "good economic management" claim - you won't hear that one again and it destroys the primary basis as to why someone who isn't rusted on to either side would vote Liberal. The party will have an awful lot of soul searching to do, coming up with a convincing reason why people ought to vote Liberal that isn't based around the economy.

Could get interesting.....


----------



## basilio (16 May 2019)

Came across the full list of parties looking for a gig in the Senate.
What a dogs breakfast..
*Your cheat sheet to every party running in the Senate this federal election*
Stuck on the Senate ballot booth looking at parties you've never heard of?

Use the searchable table to find a party you want to know more about, or skip past the table to see those parties running in your state. 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...very-party-running-for-a-senate-spot/11111752


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 May 2019)

Junior said:


> I cannot vote for the Coalition, whilst they have that nasty 'conservative' streak.
> 
> I can't vote for Shorten's identity politics




That sums up my view at the moment.


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2019)

basilio said:


> Came across the full list of parties looking for a gig in the Senate.
> What a dogs breakfast..
> *Your cheat sheet to every party running in the Senate this federal election*
> Stuck on the Senate ballot booth looking at parties you've never heard of?
> ...



Cheers

Big decision is which mob will be effective in blocking the most toxic aspects of Labor's agenda, while giving fair passage to the positive. Hmmmm


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2019)

Seems to be all over Red Rover 



Senate is the focus


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Seems to be all over Red Rover
> 
> 
> 
> Senate is the focus




How on earth can they call that? 

As for the senate: JLN for me if they're in Lindsay, I haven't looked.


----------



## basilio (16 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> How on earth can they call that?
> 
> As for the senate: JLN for me if they're in Lindsay, I haven't looked.





I think you'll find it is joke/hoax...


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

basilio said:


> I think you'll find it is joke/hoax...



I C - nothing like a bit of satire after a few beers


----------



## basilio (16 May 2019)

Excellent presentation  of the rebranding of Scott Morrison into a vaguely electable PM.


----------



## moXJO (16 May 2019)

Labor 1.18
Liberal 4.75
One Nation 126
Greens 201


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

Neither side instills any confidence for me, Libs aren't really offering a vision and labor's tax hammer is too ridiculous for words. 
I wish there was another option, somewhere in the middle, which put forward sensible holistic tax reform and a realistic well thought out renewable energy plan.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 May 2019)

basilio said:


> I think you'll find it is joke/hoax...



No it's true.
I put on $5 two days ago because I thought it was game over and got paid out today $5.75. 

Probably too many Labor bets coming in so they thought better to end it.


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

^ I'm in the wrong game with this day trading bizo


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> No it's true.
> I put on $5 two days ago because I thought it was game over and got paid out today $5.75.
> 
> Probably too many Labor bets coming in so they thought better to end it.



I've had a small flutter on a minority gumint on Betfair at 3/1.

Probably done my two bob, but it has tightened in to $3.90


----------



## SirRumpole (16 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> I've had a small flutter on a minority gumint on Betfair at 3/1.
> 
> Probably done my two bob, but it has tightened in to $3.90




Minority for who ?


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Minority for who ?



Either,  just has to be a minority govt... IOW it is a bet against a majority govt of any stripe.


----------



## basilio (16 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> No it's true.
> I put on $5 two days ago because I thought it was game over and got paid out today $5.75.
> 
> Probably too many Labor bets coming in so they thought better to end it.




Wow! That surprises me. I just checked on the Sports Bet website and it  still seems to be offering odds of $1.18 for Labour to win.

In theory one can put down a bet and then get paid out a winning amount ?  Surely not..
https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics


----------



## Logique (16 May 2019)

Marry in haste, repent at leisure, what can I say.. At least, mercifully, the Palmer ads have stopped







> *Australia’s Looming Thugocracy*, 16 May 2019, by: Professor David Flint: https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/05/australias-looming-thugocracy/
> ... A Shorten government will steal billions of tax refunds from older Australians, most of limited means. Their crime? They have organised their affairs in an attempt not to be burdens on the taxpayer....
> ...Australians would never elect such a government if they knew the facts. We will have a long time to rue the result if they do...


----------



## basilio (16 May 2019)

_... A Shorten government will steal billions of tax refunds from older Australians, most of limited means. Their crime? They have organised their affairs in an attempt not to be burdens on the taxpayer..._. Professor David Flint

Well there is an absolute and total lie. A clear investigation of the change to franking dividends proves that the overwhelming dollars retained by the government will come from a very small very wealthy group of people who have certainly arranged their tax affairs to take advantage of this lurk.

No doubt Professor Flint will be one of these poor suffering devils.

_*It’s hard to tell who benefits…*

As part of the move to make super income tax free, superannuants were no longer required to declare their superannuation income to the Tax Office, making it hard to tell how well off those receiving imputation cheques really were.

But the Tax Office has released to researchers a series of confidentialised files of individual income tax returns that provide clues.

The 2% sample of all taxpayers in 2015-2016 contains 269,639 individual records. I’ve focused on those with taxable incomes of less than A$87,000 (222,083 records) because they are the ones likely to receive cash refunds. I’ve excluded those who receive any government pension or allowance as they are unaffected by Labor’s policy, leaving 190,146 records.

The best measure of these people’s wealth in the data is their total superannuation account balances which the Tax Office collects from member contribution statements.

 ...*although it can be done*

Calculating refunds using tax bands and rules, I find that of the people with taxable incomes less than A$87,000 and with no pension income, 81% have no franking credits and receive no refund cheques. Their average taxable income is just below A$40,000 and their average superannuation balance is just below A$67,000. 

 A further 15% receive credits of less than A$1,300. Their average refund is A$102. Their average taxable income is also below A$40,000 and their average superannuation balance is almost A$179,000. 

Of the 3% of individuals with credits between A$1,300 and A$8,000, the average cash refund is A$1,593. The average taxable income for the group is just over A$37,000 and the average superannuation balance is about A$363,000.

Of the 0.8% of individuals with credits between A$8,000 and A$20,000, the average cash refund is A$4,043. The average taxable income for the group is just over A$53,000 and the average superannuation balance is almost A$455,000. 






 Elizabeth Savage/ATO 2015-16 unit file
_
*Of the 0.1% of individuals with credits between A$20,000 and A$40,000, the average cash refund is A$8,743. The average taxable income for the group is just over A$68,000 and the average superannuation balance is just under A$721,000. 


For the top group who have credits in excess of A$40,000, the average cash refund is almost A$63,000, over A$1,200 a week. The average taxable income for the group is the lowest of all groups at A$17,735, falling below the lowest income tax threshold. Almost half (45%) have no taxable income. Their average superannuation balance is A$1,344,782. *
_
*It’s the wealthiest who benefit the most*

The results tell a clear story. 

The largest average benefits are paid to the wealthiest group.

Their wealth measured by superannuation account balance is 20 times that of the group that receives no cash refund. Their superannuation wealth is 76 times their taxable income. 

It is misleading it is to use their taxable income as a measure of their well-being.
https://theconversation.com/its-har...ut-it-is-possible-and-it-isnt-the-poor-116370
_


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

Actually Bas, Bill M on here is one of those poor suffering devils, as he already explained earlier.
But I guess, as long as there isn't too many in Bill M's position, who really gives a $hit?
Just shows how Australia has become an "I'm alright Jack, stuff you society". IMO
The ones who are adversely affected are just collateral damage, as long as it gets the rich ones, that justifies it.
Oh my, how compassion, seems to be so subjective.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Australia has become an "I'm alright Jack, stuff you society"



Sadly this is very true. It has happened under governments of both persuasions and nothing I've seen from the more notable minor parties would do anything about it either.

On another matter, I hear that Bob Hawke was right when he said that he wouldn't be around to see the outcome of the election. He has passed away according to the news.


----------



## SirRumpole (16 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> On another matter, I hear that Bob Hawke was right when he said that he wouldn't be around to see the outcome of the election. He has passed away according to the news.




One of the great PM's. A shame he couldn't hang around for a couple more days. 

RIP Hawkey.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 May 2019)

basilio said:


> Well there is an absolute and total lie. A clear investigation of the change to franking dividends proves that the overwhelming dollars retained by the government will come from a very small very wealthy group of people who have certainly arranged their tax affairs to take advantage of this lurk.



The data in your post would seem to suggest that a cap, not complete removal, would rectify the problem without the collateral damage which Labor's current proposal brings.


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Sadly this is very true. It has happened under governments of both persuasions and nothing I've seen from the more notable minor parties would do anything about it either.



Yes IMO the current Australian psyche, lends itself to pack mentality, which in turn doesn't seem to have a reliable moral compass.
As long as the goal is in tune with the pack, the innocent caught up in the carnage seem to be acceptable as long as the enemy is caught.
All the political parties have to do, is demonise those who they wish to attack, the hysteria is fueled by the media then the mob start chanting.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> One of the great PM's. A shame he couldn't hang around for a couple more days.



I suspect a lot of those under ~40 have no idea how much of what they take for granted today owes its existence to Hawke and/or Keating and how much they both achieved compared to those we've had since.


----------



## Humid (16 May 2019)

I’d be happy if people here could just fess up to voting for the current lot rather than concentrating on the things that haven’t happened yet


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

Humid said:


> I’d be happy if people here could just fess up to voting for the current lot rather than concentrating on the things that haven’t happened yet



The reason people are concentrating on the upcoming 2019 election, is because that is what the thread heading is, just in case you hadn't noticed.


----------



## Humid (16 May 2019)

Fess up mate


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Fess up mate



To what? who I voted for last election? who I'm going to vote for this election, or what?
You really need to get out more.
Who I voted for last election, you can find out by reading back issues of ASF, who I vote for this election I don't know yet, but it wont be silly Billy.


----------



## Humid (16 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Yes IMO the current Australian psyche, lends itself to pack mentality, which in turn doesn't seem to have a reliable moral compass.
> As long as the goal is in tune with the pack, the innocent caught up in the carnage seem to be acceptable as long as the enemy is caught.
> All the political parties have to do, is demonise those who they wish to attack, the hysteria is fueled by the media then the mob start chanting.




Current lol
You seem to forget Abbott in opposition 
Doesn’t suit your current agenda as Peter Garret said “short memories “


----------



## Humid (16 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> To what? who I voted for last election? who I'm going to vote for this election, or what?
> You really need to get out more.
> Who I voted for last election, you can find out by reading back issues of ASF, who I vote for this election I don't know yet, but it wont be silly Billy.



No you need to admit the failure of the party YOU elected


----------



## moXJO (16 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Current lol
> Peter Garret said “short memories “



Not that short.
Who knew Peter Garret would make "Beds are Burning"  a labor policy.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 May 2019)

Humid said:


> I’d be happy if people here could just fess up to voting for the current lot



I voted Labor last time for federal as well as state elections.

Still undecided who to vote for on Saturday - the Liberals haven’t improved but Labor’s showing incredible arrogance for a government that isn’t even actually the government yet.

I doubt that my #1 vote will go to either ot the major parties.


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

Humid said:


> No you need to admit the failure of the party YOU elected



In reality they haven't failed and also as you say they were elected, so you need to build a bridge, and climb over that chip on your shoulder.


----------



## Humid (16 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Not that short.
> Who knew Peter Garret would make "Beds are Burning"  a labor policy.




US forces......John Howard.....Iraq


----------



## Humid (16 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> In reality they haven't failed and also as you say they were elected, so you need to build a bridge, and climb over that chip on your shoulder.



Who elected Morrison?


----------



## Humid (16 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> In reality they haven't failed and also as you say they were elected, so you need to build a bridge, and climb over that chip on your shoulder.



Labor might build a bridge with your franking credits lol


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Who elected Morrison?



The same group of people who elected Keating, when he took over from Hawke, similar to the people who replaced Gillard with Rudd. Like I said time to build a bridge.


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Labor might build a bridge with your franking credits lol



Yes now you are showing your true colours, we were discussing it earlier, the attitude is rampant and I can see it will end up biting you. Karma is a bitch.


----------



## Humid (16 May 2019)

Karma isn’t a bitch mate it’s a mirror


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Not that short.
> Who knew Peter Garret would make "Beds are Burning"  a labor policy.



Peter Costello was all over that one


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Karma isn’t a bitch mate it’s a mirror



Well carefull you don't look into it.
By the way have you made a stock related post yet? Or are you still just trolling? 
After all you have been on the forum for over a year now, isn't it time you started contributing?


----------



## Humid (16 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well carefull you don't look into it.
> By the way have you made a stock related post yet? Or are you still just trolling?
> After all you have been on the forum for over a year now, isn't it time you started contributing?



You might want to polish your stock related nous as the easy street franking bus is losing its wheels pops


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

Humid said:


> You might want to polish your stock related nous as the easy street franking bus is losing its wheels pops



You might want to polish up on any financial nous, because you are going to need it, when you stop work, young fella.
I own my house and have enough to see me through, the pension in its current form, probably wont be there when you arrive.
We are probably drifting off thread, but if it's entertaining, please continue.


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

Tony Abbott's curious statement on Hawke...







To which someone replied:

"This is tasteless. A great former Prime Minister has passed and you've taken the opportunity to rewrite history for your own political positioning.

Also it's the 16th of May, not the 17th. Seems you've rewritten the future while you were at it."

I think Mr Abbott will pay dearly for that bit of attempted political millimeterage...


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Tony Abbott's curious statement on Hawke...
> 
> View attachment 94685
> 
> ...




Why? it is true. If anything I think Abbott is giving him credit.
https://thewest.com.au/politics/far...r-skoller-and-diehard-romantic-ng-b881202098z
From the article:
_After replacing Labor leader Bill Hayden in February 1980, Hawke led a landslide victory in 1983 to overthrow a tired Malcolm Fraser government before he went on to become Australia’s longest-serving Labor prime minister.

In nine months, together with the Robin to his Batman in Treasurer Paul Keating, the Hawke government had floated the Australian dollar and went on to privatise the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and deregulated the markets with an Accord between the ALP and Australian Council of Trade Unions. Throughout his time in The Lodge he created what we now know as Medicare, superannuation and enterprising bargaining agreements_.

If he was nasty, he could have brought up the pilots dispute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Australian_pilots'_dispute


----------



## qldfrog (16 May 2019)

Abbott or not, aren't Bob and Keating's great achievements the way they got rid of the rusted leftist economic views and indeed did a real liberal policy releasing the power of Australia and giving us 20y of success?
Rudd might have had a go with a decent mining tax..the initial version but the Labour leaders since look like straight of a 1980's UK mining union movie, and this is not a compliment
Bill is a bit different, if he could be PM with a one nation cap, he would be one nation today
He is not alone,Macron,Trudeau ,Jacinta...all frauds...
So Australia might soon join the Instagram politic nations group..
God or whatever saves us...


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Why? it is true. If anything I think Abbott is giving him credit.
> https://thewest.com.au/politics/far...r-skoller-and-diehard-romantic-ng-b881202098z
> From the article:
> _After replacing Labor leader Bill Hayden in February 1980, Hawke led a landslide victory in 1983 to overthrow a tired Malcolm Fraser government before he went on to become Australia’s longest-serving Labor prime minister.
> ...



It's not the done thing to attempt to politicise statements on indulgence.
Maybe that wasn't his real motive but I reckon many will take the view that it was.
It looked pretty clumsy to me.


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> It's not the done thing to attempt to politicise statements on indulgence.
> Maybe that wasn't his real motive but I reckon many will take the view that it was.
> It looked pretty clumsy to me.



If Abbott had finesse and speaking skills, he would still be the Libs leader, I do think that it reads as a complimentary tribute. 
Hawke had flaws that could be aired, if he wanted to be nasty. I just think Abbott is so on the nose, no matter what he said, it would be criticised.


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> If Abbott had finesse and speaking skills, he would still be the Libs leader, I do think that it reads as a complimentary tribute.
> Hawke had flaws that could be aired, if he wanted to be nasty. *I just think Abbott is so on the nose, no matter what he said, it would be criticised*.



Sometimes I feel the same way mate.
I read a comment today about people being blind for expressing their opinion on here...
I seem to remember someone else taking offense to a comment about TLS shares once 

Well... Abbott himself obviously wasn't happy with his tribute so he released another one.






Hey I don't care what he says - personally I think he would've been better off with one of his 20 second silent nodding acts - but plenty of people thought it was tasteless and he's trying to win an election on two days time. He may have just done the country a favour


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Sometimes I feel the same way mate.
> I read a comment today about people being blind for expressing their opinion on here...
> I seem to remember someone else taking offense to a comment about TLS shares once
> 
> ...



Like I said, he never was a skilled speaker and I'm with you and actually don't care what he says. 
Sorry if it appeared I was defending him, I wasn't, I was just making an observation.
Just got home late last night, so I'm not abreast of any sniping Abbott may have been doing.


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Like I said, he never was a skilled speaker and I'm with you and actually don't care what he says.
> Sorry if it appeared I was defending him, I wasn't, I was just making an observation.
> Just got home late last night, so I'm not abreast of any sniping Abbott may have been doing.



Nah - it's all good mate. Nothing wrong with defending him. I'm all for free speech


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Sometimes I feel the same way mate.
> I read a comment today about people being blind for expressing their opinion on here...



Much was said during the 1960’s - 00’s about tolerance, respect, equality, diversity of opinions and so on.

In the past I used to wonder how the likes of Hitler ever got anywhere, it all seemed too bizarre that the masses would be sucked in by something like that. Everyone thinks for themselves, right?

Looking at where things have ended up in 2019 with essentially zero tolerance for diversity of thought it’s both educational and frightening.

Educational because so much history now makes sense.

Frightening because we’re heading down exactly the same track. Agree with the mainstream “or else....” and that sure isn’t a good development.


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Nah - it's all good mate. Nothing wrong with defending him. I'm all for free speech



I think Abbott is way past defending, it was just my take on the text, as written.
The second post you put up was more general, and didn't capture what Hawke actually achieved, which was quite incredible.
I think Abbott's first post, was more accurate of Hawke's achievements, just my opinion. We could do with a Hawke right now, to be perfectly honest.


----------



## PZ99 (16 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Much was said during the 1960’s - 00’s about tolerance, respect, equality, diversity of opinions and so on.
> 
> In the past I used to wonder how the likes of Hitler ever got anywhere, it all seemed too bizarre that the masses would be sucked in by something like that. Everyone thinks for themselves, right?
> 
> ...



No argument there. On the mainstream point I seem to remember another former PM stating to win an election you need to get votes from the centre. 

So I guess there's more than one way to skin a cat


----------



## moXJO (16 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Much was said during the 1960’s - 00’s about tolerance, respect, equality, diversity of opinions and so on.
> 
> In the past I used to wonder how the likes of Hitler ever got anywhere, it all seemed too bizarre that the masses would be sucked in by something like that. Everyone thinks for themselves, right?
> 
> ...



It is scary. Funny how progressive has become regressive.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Nah - it's all good mate. Nothing wrong with defending him. I'm all for free speech



Here is an article about the response to Abbott's post.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/lib...his-tribute-to-bob-hawke-20190516-p51o90.html
From the article:
_Former Hawke minister Susan Ryan rebuked Mr Abbott on ABC television, saying there was “nothing Liberal about Bob”.

“He was absolutely Labor through and through. He loved the Labor movement. He loved nothing more in his later years than getting together with union colleagues, singing Solidarity for Ever, knowing the verses. It came from the heart,” she said.


“The idea that he would advance and create new directions in terms of deregulation was not Labor being Liberal, it was just hugely intelligent understanding of the way the world was going and making decisions that would ultimately be best for all the people of Australia_.”

To me that is similar to what Abbott said, a Labor heart and a Liberal head with his deregulation policy.
The thing with Hawke, he had a 75% popularity rating, which meant he had backing to do just about anything. 
The majority of people, felt that he had Australia at heart and whatever he chose to do, they trusted it was for the best.
There are very few politicians anywhere, that gain that amount of public trust.


----------



## qldfrog (17 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Here is an article about the response to Abbott's post.
> https://www.smh.com.au/national/lib...his-tribute-to-bob-hawke-20190516-p51o90.html
> From the article:
> _Former Hawke minister Susan Ryan rebuked Mr Abbott on ABC television, saying there was “nothing Liberal about Bob”.
> ...



True, Except Pauline but she missed the intelligence test in my opinion


----------



## chiff (17 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Much was said during the 1960’s - 00’s about tolerance, respect, equality, diversity of opinions and so on.
> 
> In the past I used to wonder how the likes of Hitler ever got anywhere, it all seemed too bizarre that the masses would be sucked in by something like that. Everyone thinks for themselves, right?
> 
> ...



Re reading 'The Dark Valley'by historian Piers Brendon .The years between the two world wars.This explains very well how the Nazis came to power in Germany.The book has sections on Italy (el Duce rise) Britain,USA,Japan(rise of the military) and Russia.Each page has interesting and often amusing ancecdotes.
What the joke was about one English politician who was widely believed to be bent...If he swallowed a nail he would shite a corkscrew!


----------



## basilio (17 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The data in your post would seem to suggest that a cap, not complete removal, would rectify the problem without the collateral damage which Labor's current proposal brings.




And I have agreed with that idea  in at least two other posts on this topic. It just makes sense.
I also believe Labour will end up adopting that strategy because it will spare smaller investors while  making sure the extremely wealthy individuals don't *exploit* this this particular rort.
*
$5billion a year with reports it will reach $8B in a couple of years is a big chunk of money.*


----------



## Humid (17 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> You might want to polish up on any financial nous, because you are going to need it, when you stop work, young fella.
> I own my house and have enough to see me through, the pension in its current form, probably wont be there when you arrive.
> We are probably drifting off thread, but if it's entertaining, please continue.



Well you can wing it or give it all due diligence you like and then you have a change in government and your bent over again.
Bali,3 1/2 hours from Perth $200 return 
Rent your house out here and live off it without dipping into your savings 
No warm clothes required


----------



## HelloU (17 May 2019)

the 2018/19 welfare spend is $175B

(how does $5B compare to $175B when comparing money amounts)


----------



## jbocker (17 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Well you can wing it or give it all due diligence you like and then you have a change in government and your bent over again.
> Bali,3 1/2 hours from Perth $200 return
> Rent your house out here and live off it without dipping into your savings
> No warm clothes required



No thanks. I worked to live here. To be with my friends and family and have the things that make Australia great. (I appreciate your point  but I am not a well man I wouldn't like to be sick in Bali or many other places in the world). Australia is still worth striving for regardless of what party is in power.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Well you can wing it or give it all due diligence you like and then you have a change in government and your bent over again.
> Bali,3 1/2 hours from Perth $200 return
> Rent your house out here and live off it without dipping into your savings
> No warm clothes required



Yes a mate of mine and his wife, have been living there for the last 15 years, it isn't my bag but everyone to their own.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> the 2018/19 welfare spend is $175B
> 
> (how does $5B compare to $175B when comparing money amounts)



That will be heading up fast, if Labor doesn't modify their franking stance. IMO


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> That will be heading up fast, if Labor doesn't modify their franking stance. IMO




How many people do you think the franking credit changes will force onto "welfare" ?


----------



## drsmith (17 May 2019)

No prizes for guessing who I'll vote for.

Labor I'm anticipating will win, either in minority or with a small majority.

ScoMo has done will to get the polls as close as they are. It doesn't look quiet close enough but I do hope otherwise.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2019)

Final calls ?

Labor by 8 for me.


----------



## wayneL (17 May 2019)

Unless I like what happens in the Senate I'm actually going to give up work and put my penchant for mathematics to work and live on the punt.

Stuff working my nuts off for the bolsheviks


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

I declined a fourth opportunity to be polled last night.
Apart from the usual questions about which party did what better, etc., the most telling question was about "who did I think had a vision for Australia?"
Well, there is one party completely blind to what Australia should become, and that's the one presently in government.
This is the first election since when Whitlam came to power that the contrast in options has been most Stark.  Kings Landing has been decimated by chaos and the Iron Throne beckons new blood.  Who sits there will be revealed on Monday at latest!


----------



## explod (17 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Unless I like what happens in the Senate I'm actually going to give up work and put my penchant for mathematics to work and live on the punt.
> 
> Stuff working my nuts off for the bolsheviks



Be pleased you still have nuts


----------



## PZ99 (17 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Final calls ?
> 
> Labor by 8 for me.




I'm calling a hung parliament.

Labor need a 1% uniform swing to get a majority and I can't see that happening.







After subtracting Lindsay from ALP I don't think we'll have a Govt next week.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I'm calling a hung parliament.




I think a "Hawke effect" may get Labor over the line.


----------



## PZ99 (17 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I think a "Hawke effect" may get Labor over the line.



If that eventuates I hope Bill Shorten treats it with respect.


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I'm calling a hung parliament.
> Labor need a 1% uniform swing to get a majority and I can't see that happening.
> View attachment 94695
> 
> After subtracting Lindsay from ALP I don't think we'll have a Govt next week.



Swings are never uniform.
My best guess is a Labor majority of 6 (assuming "others" are attributed to Opposition), but I will not be surprised to see it higher.  My reason is that I believe the polls have failed to account well for the newly enrolled young people who are likely to be much more strongly Greens/Labor due to *climate change* issues, while taxes will be of little concern.
My litmus test seat is New England.  If Joyce does ok, then Coalition losses might not be so bad.
If he goes down, then we are likely to see a bigger swing to Labor than the polls suggest today.
My post acknowledges Wayne's crystal balls as the font of wisdom.


----------



## wayneL (17 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> If that eventuates I hope Bill Shorten treats it with respect.



He won't.  But I hope the Senate crossbench holds him to reasonanle account.


----------



## chiff (17 May 2019)

See where an investment company owned by Angus Taylor's mate was the recipient of the outrageous 80 million payment for mdb water.A Hong kong/Cayman islands company.If only to drum people like him and Barnaby Joyce out of public life a Labor victory would be worthwhile.I am quite pleased with the independent in my seat ,Sharkie-the dumb-cluck alternative is Downer.She gave a train wreck of an interview last week on local radio.A far right extremist ,unable to answer basic questions.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Unless I like what happens in the Senate I'm actually going to give up work and put my penchant for mathematics to work and live on the punt.
> 
> Stuff working my nuts off for the bolsheviks




Hey don't stress Wayne, that guy was probably just trying to look nice to his girls, he is probably a big industrialist  who treats his workers like sht. Keep working


----------



## Knobby22 (17 May 2019)

Sorry, just realised you meant the Labor party, not your clients.


----------



## macca (17 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I think a "Hawke effect" may get Labor over the line.




I agree SR, Bob Hawke always had great timing, his passing will remind people that Labor can provide good governance.

Unfortunately the current Labor policies are so far removed from those which Bob would follow that I believe the current Liberals are closer to his style.

I also believe that Abbotts original statement was actually a compliment, but TA does tend to put his foot in there doesn't he.


----------



## IFocus (17 May 2019)

Abbotts coments on Hawke were extraordinarily stupid.

The idea a pass president of the ACTU and leader of the Australian Labor party have in any way a a link to the Liberal Party is beyond stupid.

I dont think Hawkes untimely passing will translate to Labor votes.

I do think the prepoll numbers may tell a different story


----------



## macca (17 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Unless I like what happens in the Senate I'm actually going to give up work and put my penchant for mathematics to work and live on the punt.
> 
> Stuff working my nuts off for the bolsheviks




In which case you will be a professional punter, they will get you there as well


----------



## sileverback (17 May 2019)

Boat people or Rwandan genociders ?
" Geez, fair go! Not the boat people, the queue jumpers. I'll take the Rwandan killers every day !!!"
overheard in a conversation between Scomo, Abbott, Dutton and Howard


----------



## sileverback (17 May 2019)

Strong economy???
Check the RBA assessment this week. A classic libcon disconnect. Pure marketing from a run of the mill marketer.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2019)

sileverback said:


> Strong economy???
> Check the RBA assessment this week. A classic libcon disconnect. Pure marketing from a run of the mill marketer.




Unemployment up and growth forecast down.

Great economic managers these Libs.


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Unemployment up and growth forecast down.
> Great economic managers these Libs.



Yeah!
What about house prices then?
Oooooooooooopsie....... my bad.
Thanks Scomo .
All the better to negatively gear on the cheap.
Thanks Scomo  .


----------



## sileverback (17 May 2019)

Labor's big spend. Big debt. 
Are they saying that they wouldn't have done the same thing responding to the GFC?  Really?  Australia was one of the very very few countries that avoided a recession with that Keynesian policy in response to Wall St's/US governments incompetece/negligence in sparking the financial meltdown.  China did what we did, spent big, which helped us as well. While people in the US were losing their houses to the repossession banker swill, and many committing suicide, australia avoided that 'inconvenient" collateral damage.   
Plus+
We've been dancing along the precipice of deflation for the last 6 years. What have these great economic managers (the libcons) done about that? We're about to slip into the abyss like japan did. They are still in economic stagnation after 20 years. 
Think again 
Vote labor for a strong economy.


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

sileverback said:


> Boat people or Rwandan genociders ?
> " Geez, fair go! Not the boat people, the queue jumpers. I'll take the Rwandan killers every day !!!"
> overheard in a conversation between Scomo, Abbott, Dutton and Howard



But they were only *allegations*, not *facts*.
And...they were *not terrorists*.  Instead, they were just misguided murderers.
Also, they never posed a threat to American society and never will...now.
Plus, we only had to take a few murderers while the Americans now have to look after hundreds of psychologically damaged women and children.
Anyway, if they cause any trouble we can probably claim they were undocumented Maoris and repatriate them across the ditch.
All good .


----------



## sileverback (17 May 2019)

Scrap negative gearing for the boomer investors. Switch the negative gearing to 1st home buyers, the generation that has been so poorly catered for by the 'selfish' generation


----------



## sileverback (17 May 2019)

rederob said:


> But they were only *allegations*, not *facts*.
> And...they were *not terrorists*.  Instead, they were just misguided murderers.
> Also, they never posed a threat to American society and never will...now.
> Plus, we only had to take a few murderers while the Americans now have to look after hundreds of psychologically damaged women and children.
> ...



You're entitled to believe the americans that they exhaustively vetted these people. Like our leaders did in for the WMD Iraq war.


----------



## chiff (17 May 2019)

Just got the usual email from Centre Alliance....Sharkie's first goal in the next parliament is to have Federal Corruption Watchdog....if only


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> How many people do you think the franking credit changes will force onto "welfare" ?



Well there is four I know personally, that have either reduced their capital or are reducing their capital to get the part pension, they are of pension age. 
I don't think it will force people onto welfare, I think people will chose to go the welfare route, as has been proven in the past when they had to tighten access to disability pensions.
Why would a person in the accumulation phase add to their super balance, when they can achieve a financially better outcome, by not adding to their super balance?


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

sileverback said:


> Labor's big spend. Big debt.
> Are they saying that they wouldn't have done the same thing responding to the GFC?  Really?  Australia was one of the very very few countries that avoided a recession with that Keynesian policy in response to Wall St's/US governments incompetece/negligence in sparking the financial meltdown.  China did what we did, spent big, which helped us as well. While people in the US were losing their houses to the repossession banker swill, and many committing suicide, australia avoided that 'inconvenient" collateral damage.



In the U.S people were walking away from negative equity houses, just handing in the keys, as the loan is against the house not the person. The opposite is the case in Australia.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

My gut feeling is a big swing to Labor, we haven't had a recession for 20 years and the younger people think times are tough, so will vote against the Government.


----------



## Bill M (17 May 2019)

sileverback said:


> Scrap negative gearing for the boomer investors. Switch the negative gearing to 1st home buyers, the generation that has been so poorly catered for by the 'selfish' generation



What? If you are going to scrap negative gearing for "boomer investors" wouldn't you do that for ALL investors? Or are we just going to pick on older people? And don't forget, any rules in place now is available to ALL people in Australia, young and older, so if you wish to use them you can. There is nothing stopping any Australian utilising the laws that are in place, same rules for all players, that's fair.


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

sileverback said:


> Scrap negative gearing for the boomer investors. Switch the negative gearing to 1st home buyers, the generation that has been so poorly catered for by the 'selfish' generation



First home buyers can negatively gear if it's a new home.
However, older homes are likely to be more affordable, and there won't be the "selfish" generation out there competing for them as investments if Labor's proposal gets up, because they won't be "gearable".


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2019)

Anyone know if Labor is going to treat "knock down and rebuild" as a new or existing premise for NG purposes ?


----------



## Bill M (17 May 2019)

OK, my last post on the election. I just hope, more than anything including my franking credits that above all Tony Abbott looses Warringah. After living in that electorate for 30 years and seeing him in person a few times, I will be the happiest guy on Saturday night once this clown is gorn! May you all have a happy election day.


----------



## moXJO (17 May 2019)

Don't vote labor in the Senate.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 May 2019)

sileverback said:


> Scrap negative gearing for the boomer investors. Switch the negative gearing to 1st home buyers, the generation that has been so poorly catered for by the 'selfish' generation



Whilst I can see definite problems with negative gearing as a concept in multiple ways, there's absolutely nothing standing in the way of any adult doing it right now. 

There's no law saying someone needs to remember the 1950's in order to negatively gear. Someone could have been born in the year 2000 and be doing it right now.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyone know if Labor is going to treat "knock down and rebuild" as a new or existing premise for NG purposes ?



One .would expect a knock down to be a new build, or else everything becomes dependent on new land releases.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 May 2019)

If knock downs are advantageous regarding policy then here comes "the law of unintended consequences".


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

The only people who will be negative gearing, will be developers or professional people, they will be the only ones who will be able to afford it.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> If knock downs are advantageous regarding policy then here comes "the law of unintended consequences".



I posted earlier where there are protest marches, against developers buying established to land bank, restrict supply, then develop and rent at inflated prices.
Labor, masters of great ideas and terrible implementation.


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> If knock downs are advantageous regarding policy then here comes "the law of unintended consequences".



Not likely.
Labor intends gearing to apply to new supply.
The example is preservation by capital improvement.


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I posted earlier where there are protest marches, against developers buying established to land bank, restrict supply, then develop and rent at inflated prices.
> Labor, masters of great ideas and terrible implementation.



Pretty sure you are just explaining “business as usual” and it has nothing to do with who is in power.
Local councils hold the keys to cheaper housing supply.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Not likely.
> Labor intends gearing to apply to new supply.
> The example is preservation by capital improvement.



From what I've read it is new build, which in turn should add to supply. I haven't read that it has to add to supply.
A house purchased from a home owner, knocked over and a new build rental constructed adds to supply.
Capital improvement is only on an established house.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Not likely.
> Labor intends gearing to apply to new supply.



What I’m wondering is the detail.

Buying a 1960’s house, knocking it down and putting something new on the site is not new supply but if there’s a loophole then someone will exploit it.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> What I’m wondering is the detail.
> 
> Buying a 1960’s house, knocking it down and putting something new on the site is not new supply but if there’s a loophole then someone will exploit it.



If it was PPR before and the new building is rented, it is adding to supply, in the rental market I would have thought. Otherwise the only negative geared properties would all be in outer development suburbs, which in turn will make it harder for first home buyers, in the new market. As they will be competing with developers, who want to access the Government suppliments, that go with the new policy


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> If it was PPR before and the new building is rented, it is adding to supply, in the rental market



Increased supply in the rental market at the expense of decreased supply in the owner occupied market so it’s a wash.

Another thing is the type of property and the issue of places being built to make a profit for developers not to be a place that people want to live.

There’s a limit to the number of people who actually want a one bedroom apartment or a house on 250m2 land. Most are looking for bigger than that but developers go for whatever maximises profit per m2.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Increased supply in the rental market at the expense of decreased supply in the owner occupied market so it’s a wash.
> 
> Another thing is the type of property and the issue of places being built to make a profit for developers not to be a place that people want to live.
> 
> There’s a limit to the number of people who actually want a one bedroom apartment or a house on 250m2 land. Most are looking for bigger than that but developers go for whatever maximises profit per m2.



Exactly.
The penny will drop with people, but way after tomorrow.


----------



## qldfrog (17 May 2019)

And the danger is once again increasing complexity and distorsion in our already crappy tax system
It is a common fact in the world that you can deduct costs from profit before paying tax on your profit..or losses
.negative gearing is just that but lets not get bothered with facts, we are Labor


----------



## rederob (17 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> It is a common fact in the world that you can deduct costs from profit before paying tax on your profit..or losses
> .negative gearing is just that but lets not get bothered with facts, we are Labor



You can only deduct costs which are allowable.  That’s a fact.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2019)

It's quite funny the only ones that will benefit from the tax changes, will be the rich, the ones it is supposed to be hitting.
The rich still get the franking credits.
The rich, who can afford to build new rental properties, can negative gear.
The rich, who work through a company structure, will be least effected by the CGT changes.
The weird part is, the working class, are cheering it on, even though there is no progressive steps mentioned to protect their access to the initiatives.


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2019)

This morning its Winx odds at $1.11 for the Bolsheviks, the coalition blowing out to $8.60 on Betfair. 

Majority gummint is at $1.25 and $4.40 against. Probably have done my $5.00 there. 

I'm starting to make plans for life in a Soviet style state with attentant 2019 Postmodernist tweaks. 

I'm gonna dye my hair pink, change my gender identity and find a way to scam welfare and I've just ordered a pallet of candles. I may even preemtively convert to Islam and call everyone else racists and Islamophobes to curry favour with the new brownshirts. 

Or I may just find a cave,  grow dreads and drink my depression away.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2019)

Australia manages to stay in the middle ground by switching as one side veers too far. 

Not many countries can do this usually ending near the extremes.

Go to Trump paradise if you hate it so much. You can earn $5 an hour and know you will get ripped off medically. You can enjoy the fact that the rich and powerful have almost complete control. Control through the media telling you culture wars are more important than your well-being.

Leave this horrible dystopia.


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Go to Trump paradise if you hate it so much.



Oh what a muppet comment. The point is that I love Australia and don't want to see some of the potential changes that might happen


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2019)

Like what?


----------



## rederob (18 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Like what?



Stop asking tricky questions.


sptrawler said:


> It's quite funny the only ones that will benefit from the tax changes, will be the rich, the ones it is supposed to be hitting.



Except that it's mostly the "rich" who are opposing Labor's policies. 


sptrawler said:


> The rich still get the franking credits.



Everyone entitled will still get them, because the concept of double taxing company profits is well understood.  Apparently the concept of giving a cash credit back, thereby negating the company tax paid, is not equally understood.


sptrawler said:


> The rich, who can afford to build new rental properties, can negative gear.



Anyone able to get finance to buy a property can negatively gear.  It's a nonsense to suggest its just "rich" people.


sptrawler said:


> The rich, who work through a company structure, will be least effected by the CGT changes.



The "poor" will not have assets affected by capital gains provisions, so I toss that idea out with the bathwater.


sptrawler said:


> The weird part is, the working class, are cheering it on, even though there is no progressive steps mentioned to protect their access to the initiatives.



The "working class" are the beneficiaries of most of the proposed reforms/policies, so it makes sense they would be fine with them.
I think your drinking water needs to be checked.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Well Rob, I certainly hope you are proven correct, time will definitely tell.


----------



## rederob (18 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well Rob, I certainly hope you are proven correct, time will definitely tell.



I tested your drinking water:  Somewhat discoloured, unusual frothing, with more than a hint of malt taste.
Problem solved.


----------



## IFocus (18 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Australia manages to stay in the middle ground by switching as one side veers too far.
> 
> Not many countries can do this usually ending near the extremes.
> 
> ...




Hell Knobby I am jealous that's the comment I wish I had thought of sums up the situation perfectly.

As for the election out come I have no sense of how it will go but no doubt your comment re culture war seen here most days will play a part.


----------



## Junior (18 May 2019)

Why would you negatively gear a property?  You are entering into an investment with *negative *cash flow....so you are losing money each year.  The short-term reason is to pay less tax right?  Correct, however there is a caveat on this, you are entering into this arrangement with the EXPECTATION that you will sell at a sizeable profit in the future.....

Now, the new rules will dictate you can only receive your tax benefits on NEW builds.  What happens when you go to sell in the future?  That buyer will *not* be able to negatively gear, as the property is not new anymore!  This will have an impact on the valuation....so you will overpay for the new build, as you compete with other investors and cover the sizeable marketing costs of the developer & commission payment to the salesman, but then when you sell 10 years later, your market will now be restricted to owner-occupiers.  Furthermore, if you have purchased in an outer-suburban housing estate, you may well be selling around the same time as 1,000 other "investors", in the same area, with the same type of house, in a poor location.  

Will the numbers stack up?


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Junior I doubt the policy will last 3 years, let alone 10, just my thoughts.


----------



## macca (18 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Junior I doubt the policy will last 3 years, let alone 10, just my thoughts.




From memory, NG was removed by a Labor govt before, the result was a shortage of rental accommodation in the cities causing a steep rise in rents.

Given the out of control housing problems caused by mass immigration over the past ten years and the likely 500,000 older people that will come in the next three years with the new Labor policy, changing the rental rules could be very unpopular.

I have always thought that a simple rule of "all investment properties must have a minimum of 10% ? unencumbered deposit at time of purchase" would stop a lot of the speculation and also lessen the amount of the tax deductions made.

Should any government wish to reduce the NG deductions they could simply change the % amount of the deposit.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 May 2019)

Junior said:


> Why would you negatively gear a property?  You are entering into an investment with *negative *cash flow....so you are losing money each year.  The short-term reason is to pay less tax right?  Correct, however there is a caveat on this, you are entering into this arrangement with the EXPECTATION that you will sell at a sizeable profit in the future.....
> 
> Now, the new rules will dictate you can only receive your tax benefits on NEW builds.  What happens when you go to sell in the future?  That buyer will *not* be able to negatively gear, as the property is not new anymore!  This will have an impact on the valuation....so you will overpay for the new build, as you compete with other investors and cover the sizeable marketing costs of the developer & commission payment to the salesman, but then when you sell 10 years later, your market will now be restricted to owner-occupiers.  Furthermore, if you have purchased in an outer-suburban housing estate, you may well be selling around the same time as 1,000 other "investors", in the same area, with the same type of house, in a poor location.
> 
> Will the numbers stack up?




The whole object of this policy in my view is to gradually replace investors in the housing market with owner occupiers, which is the way it should be.

People who have had to rent all their lives and then get to retirement age without owning their own home and still having to pay rent will be a massive burden on the social security system.

Home ownership is the bedrock of  retirement policy, investors are distorting the housing market and the retirement market in the long term.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

I completely agree with you Rumpy, I just think as usual, the implementation will be where the intent fails.


----------



## Junior (18 May 2019)

Same here.  I don't like negative gearing...but these carve-outs for new builds will cause a new set of problems.  There are other ways to encourage new housing.

A better option in my view is to kill NG and grandfather existing arrangements, OR allow 1 property NG per individual, OR have a $$ Cap on tax deductions from property.


----------



## rederob (18 May 2019)

Junior said:


> A better option in my view is to kill NG and grandfather existing arrangements, OR allow 1 property NG per individual, OR have a $$ Cap on tax deductions from property.



NG will be grandfathered, so that's one down.
Capping the number of negatively geared properties just limits potential for new builds, so not sure that's smart.
Capping tax deductions would distort markets due to housing of different size, value and quality at different locations.


----------



## IFocus (18 May 2019)

Negative gearing is sold as the holy grail for investing, except its not, plenty of property sold on this false basis at over inflated prices to property lemming punters.

 I know dozens of people who have done just that and are now under water holding a loss making investment that will be break even if that after 20 years.

Professionals know an investment has to stand on its own two legs with the required return long before NG is considered.

If anything it could help keep punters out of the market for their own good.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

I think it would be difficult to come up with a worse proposal than Labor are suggesting.
It is clumsiness at its best.IMO
Like Ive said the intent is good, the implementation will be a mess, as usual.
Exactly the same as the franking credit changes, the intent is good, but when it creates a situation that someone on welfare earns more than some who self funds, it has to create a new problem.
Just my opinion, it will all be very interesting.


----------



## basilio (18 May 2019)

The fun bits from the election campaign.
 
 Australian election 2019 
* How good was the Australian election campaign? The funniest moments from a mad month *

It wasn’t all policy pronouncements and mindless soundbites. *Naaman Zhou *looks back on the good times we had together 
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ampaign-the-funniest-moments-from-a-mad-month


----------



## basilio (18 May 2019)

Read an analysis of the Franking credits in Your Life Choices . This is a website that covers issues around retirement etc.

Very strong position taken by Kaye Fallick who runs the business. Certainly xissed off many of her readers. 

4th May 2019
FONT SIZE: A+ A-
EMAIL
PRINT
305 comments
Comment: Franking credits and who is really affected
Author: *Kaye Fallick*







Ever given a child a lolly and tried to take it back?

Outrage, right?

And the same goes for retirees and cash payments for franking credits. We’ve seen a lot of outrage and disbelief at Labor’s proposed reversal of this cash payment.

So what is the truth about changes to franking credits and who will bear the brunt?

First up, not all retirees are benefitting from cash payments for excess franking credits. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Office confirms that 92 per cent of Australians will be unaffected by Labor’s proposed changes to franking credits. This leaves eight per cent who are likely to be affected, and with all pensioners exempt (along with not-for-profit institutions and self-managed super funds with a pension recipient), this leaves a very tiny cohort whose income will be curtailed. Which is surprising given the hue and cry we have heard about this proposed change.

Those most likely to be affected are retirees who do not receive a full- or part-Age Pension (about 30 per cent of Australia’s 4.5 million retirees), those who describe themselves as ‘self-funded retirees’. But are they really ‘_self_-funded’? Extremely generous tax concessions apply to their superannuation and mean they pay no tax on the earnings or income derived from their super once it is accessed – for as long as they live.

The real question is, who else in Australia gets a free kick like this?

*In terms of GDP, such superannuation concessions cost Australians $55 billion per year, which is higher than the current cost of the Age Pension at $48 billion per year.


So if tax concessions, paid for by revenue foregone by the Australian Tax Office (ATO), allow retirees to have a higher income, such retirees cannot accurately be described as ‘self-funded’. For the sake of grammatical accuracy, such retirees are actually non-pensioners as, like age pensioners, they too rely on government concessions and handouts in retirement – just a different type.*

Does this mean Labor’s policy to remove franking credits from non-pensioners should be supported?

Yes, it should – for two reasons of equal importance: fiscal responsibility and intergenerational equity.
https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/...nitor&utm_term=labors franking credits policy


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

Another “expert” who fails to mention those not on superannuation who will be affected.

The good news though is there aren’t many of them so no need to worry.

Just like Aboriginals, gays, any religion other than Christianity and plenty of other groups are small minorities which presumably will also be overlooked if necessary in order to benefit the majority.

Strangely I have a feeling that won’t occur... (and it shouldn’t occur but we shouldn’t be stuffing up early retirees etc either).


----------



## Miss Hale (18 May 2019)

My understanding of NG was that it was originally brought in to create more housing as there was a shortage. Applying it to anything other than new builds does not achieve this purpose. However at the rate the skyscrapers and other apartment developments are going up around my area do we really need this at the moment? A lot of these apartments are sitting empty.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

Miss Hale said:


> However at the rate the skyscrapers and other apartment developments are going up around my area do we really need this at the moment? A lot of these apartments are sitting empty.



I think the issue is that most people want a house and of those who do want an apartment they want 3 bedrooms and low density not 1 bedroom in a high rise building.

A lot of the apartments which have been built really only appeal to young singles or for renting out to tourists, they’re not what most people want as their actual home.

Exceptions of course.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

A comment I saw elsewhere that’s worth repeating.

FA Cup final, A League grand final and the Eurovision Song Contest are all on this weekend in addition to the Australian election.

The difference is that whoever wins the FA Cup, A League and the Eurovision will still be the winner a year from now and will always have won the 2019 event. There won’t be a squabble over the trophy where someone else who didn’t win takes it off the actual winner. 

So if you’ve only got time for one then pick sports or music, at least whoever wins those will have actually won.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

I just hope the outcomes are what people expect and not just a further widening of the rich and poor chasm.
Australians enjoy one of the best living standards in the World, it is a Country where anyone who gets off their ar$e can get ahead, I hope that doesnt change.


----------



## Miss Hale (18 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I think the issue is that most people want a house and of those who do want an apartment they want 3 bedrooms and low density not 1 bedroom in a high rise building.
> 
> A lot of the apartments which have been built really only appeal to young singles or for renting out to tourists, they’re not what most people want as their actual home.
> 
> Exceptions of course.




I just look at them and wonder how long before they become like the old housing commission developments, neglected and run down. They are all the same boring pokey dog boxes yet they promote them like they are some kind of prestigious status symbol. You couldn't pay me to live in one of them.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 May 2019)

Miss Hale said:


> I just look at them and wonder how long before they become like the old housing commission developments, neglected and run down. They are all the same boring pokey dog boxes yet they promote them like they are some kind of prestigious status symbol. You couldn't pay me to live in one of them.




The suburbs are just dormitorys these days to house the slaves between work shifts.

Very little parkland or places for kids to play except on the streets, just rows of houses piled on top of each other.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Another “expert” who fails to mention those not on superannuation who will be affected.
> 
> The good news though is there aren’t many of them so no need to worry.
> 
> ...



Being outraged at discrimination, only works when you have the virtue signalers in your corner.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The suburbs are just dormitorys these days to house the slaves between work shifts.
> 
> Very little parkland or places for kids to play except on the streets, just rows of houses piled on top of each other.



I think you are going to see a huge increase in that trend.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Very little parkland or places for kids to play except on the streets, just rows of houses piled on top of each other.



Thankfully SA hasn’t done anywhere near as much growing as Sydney and Melbourne so there’s numerous outdoor open spaces within walking distance of my front door.

Much the same in Tasmania.

That we’ve got 40% of the national population living in two cities, and that this population has been growing, is a major factor in many of our difficulties with housing, environment, infrastructure and so on.


----------



## basilio (18 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Another “expert” who fails to mention those not on superannuation who will be affected.
> 
> The good news though is there aren’t many of them so no need to worry.
> 
> ...




That was one view. As always there are other perspectives. I reckon there will be some horsetrading if Labour wins and takes these proposals to the Senate.

https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/news/alternatives-to-unliked-retiree-tax


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2019)

I think Libs are going to win.


----------



## explod (18 May 2019)

Too close to call yet,

But Mr T  rabbit is out.  yeeeeeeeefkhaaaaaarrrrr

Pre-poll, mostly busy workers usually favours ALP


----------



## Miss Hale (18 May 2019)

All the people I know that pre-polled were chardonnay socialists, beneath them to line up on polling day with the plebs.


----------



## jbocker (18 May 2019)

Bye Bye Tony, Now lets hope your mate Mutton Dutton goes too.
The people have spoken.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 May 2019)

If Labor lose this it's the end of big target politics and back to petty nitpicking.


----------



## PZ99 (18 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I think Libs are going to win.



So do I. Without Tony as well.

He's now off my radar.

My thanks to Tony Abbott for his service to our nation and one wishes him well with his future endeavours.

I suspect Bill Shorten is finished too.

Tally Room updates > https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDefault-24310.htm


----------



## explod (18 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> If Labor lose this it's the end of big target politics and back to petty nitpicking.



Martial law will arise to hold back the the tide of discontent.

IMHO


----------



## PZ99 (18 May 2019)

There will be no more wrecking, no undermining, and no sniping


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2019)

The people are never wrong.
They want the Coalition without Tony Abbott. 
Labor have overreached, misjudged.
Liberals now have a chance to  rebuild within Government without any old leaders present. 

They still have the energy problem to solve but I think they will solve it. 

Next term will be very interesting.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (18 May 2019)

Great speech from Tony.

Be interesting to watch the final outcome of the election.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

basilio said:


> That was one view. As always there are other perspectives. I reckon there will be some horsetrading if Labour wins and takes these proposals to the Senate.
> 
> https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/news/alternatives-to-unliked-retiree-tax



That is unless they win a majority in both houses, unlikely but a scary proposition, that will cost Labor a lot of votes.IMO


----------



## explod (18 May 2019)

I'm with Barry Cassidy just now on abc24, it is still too early to call


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> The people are never wrong.
> They want the Coalition without Tony Abbott.
> Labor have overreached, misjudged.
> Liberals now have a chance to  rebuild within Government without any old leaders present.
> ...



Wow, sounds like a refreshed knob, are the coalotion going to win?  I cant waych, the other half wont have it on the tv.


----------



## Bill M (18 May 2019)

Bill M said:


> OK, my last post on the election. I just hope, more than anything including my franking credits that above all Tony Abbott looses Warringah. After living in that electorate for 30 years and seeing him in person a few times, I will be the happiest guy on Saturday night once this clown is gorn! May you all have a happy election day.



Anthony Green has called it.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-09/has-antony-green-called-the-election-yet/11095794

I am pretty sure I called it right.

1. Abbott gorn!
2. Liberal win, I keep my franking credits
3. I took a bet with tabcorp at $4.25 to $1 and will win 

And a message to Labor and all their supporters, don't piss off self funded retirees or those that work hard to save for their future. If you think 1 million + people are just going give you their franking credits, think again. We are not the big fish.........., bye bye Labor.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Well didnt I say, it looks like silly Billy could lose the unloseable election.
It would show the silent majority arent stupid.
The race to the bottom may be stopped, the bolshevics, may lose. Horray


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2019)

I'm stunned,  blown away. 

But how many times has this happened lately. Something is amiss in the polling


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Bill M said:


> Anthony Green has called it.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-09/has-antony-green-called-the-election-yet/11095794
> 
> ...



Bill it wasnt about SFRetirees, it was about anyone who wanted to save to provide for a better future for themselves and there children, being stripped of that to give it to welfare recipients.
It might make good press, but it stymies endeavour and reward for endeavour, which makes makes Australia great and unique. Advance Australia FAIR.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> I'm stunned,  blown away.
> 
> But how many times has this happened lately. Something is amiss in the polling



It just shows Australia is still Australian and not some sub set of a media trend from overseas.
Just take solice, in holding the faith, that Australia is still Australian IMO.
Obviously the younger generation have to be given credit.
The polling shows what the polsters want to happen.


----------



## moXJO (18 May 2019)

Did not see that coming. Well done to sco mo,  he pulled a rabbit out of his arse on this one.
Billy and the old labor guard reached too far. 

I'm actually shocked. Happy labor bit the dust. Not that happy that we may get another 'iron rule' liberal party. I hope the hardliner righties get assed from their seats.


----------



## Ferret (18 May 2019)

This looks like a great result. No Shorten and no Abbott. Hooray!


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The polling shows what the polsters want to happen.



I think that’s plausibly one factor, at least some organisations could be producing “poll” results as a tool to influence the result.

Another thing though is that I do think rather a lot of people wanted to vote Labor, wanted to be rid of the Coalition, but when the crunch came just didn’t feel comfortable in doing so.

Labor’s stance could be summed up as “just trust me” on a big vision and if you don’t like it then vote for someone else.

Sorry Bill, but “just trust me” would be a shocking position from a government and is off the scale coming from the Opposition. It’s the exact opposite of accountability. No surprise then that many have taken Bill’s advice and voted for someone else.

Had it not been for that arrogance then I think quite a few who wanted to be rid of the Coalition would actually have voted Labor.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I think that’s plausibly one factor, at least some organisations could be producing “poll” results as a tool to influence the result.
> 
> Another thing though is that I do think rather a lot of people wanted to vote Labor, wanted to be rid of the Coalition, but when the crunch came just didn’t feel comfortable in doing so.
> 
> ...



Especially with a personality rating that never moved up.
Trust me Im Bill, Kev and Julias knife merchant.


----------



## moXJO (18 May 2019)

Bill pis$ed off pensioners, small business, investors, accountants,  builders etc.

He ran has been rejects from the Gillard era. And they had an arrogance to them. (Hope they clear the decks).

Sco mo ran a one man race after a leader was knifed and still won. I don't even know what policies he ran with.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 May 2019)

Well, it's the end of big ideas.

The country will retreat into a US like everyone for themselves and petty politics wins.

Shame.


----------



## Ferret (18 May 2019)

Speaking of arrogance, I was totally turned off Labor a month ago when Bowen said if you don't like our franking credits policy, then don't vote for us. 
Good advice Thank you Chris.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

If Labor thinks the people have rejected the concept of a grand vision then I disagree.

They’ve rejected the arrogant dismissal of legitimate concerns about the detail not the concept of a grand vision itself.

For the record my #1 vote didn’t go to either of the major parties.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

All this shows is ScoMo should have been put in to replace Abbott years ago, as we said.
The problem was, the SMH and Labor wanted easy roll Turnbull in, well thank god they flucked him off in time.
Sorry Knobby but as Wayne and I said years ago, Turnbull should have been the Labor leader.
Now lets get on and sort $hit out.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

Ferret said:


> I was totally turned off Labor a month ago when Bowen said if you don't like our franking credits policy, then don't vote for us.



Right at this moment on the ABC - Labor arguing the case for all sorts of minority groups and that Labor will stand up for them.

And yet during the campaign “they’re just a minority” was the argument used to justify hurting lower-middle income recipients of franking credits.

The party needs to make its mind up one way or the other. Either minorities matter or they don’t, what the specific issue is shouldn’t change that.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> If Labor thinks the people have rejected the concept of a grand vision then I disagree.
> 
> They’ve rejected the arrogant dismissal of legitimate concerns about the detail not the concept of a grand vision itself.
> 
> For the record my #1 vote didn’t go to either of the major parties.



For the record my #1 vote went for Libs in the reps and the senate, the greens and labor got bottom score on both.
So for Humids record, I havent voted Labor, since I voted for Bob Hawke the second time, saves you having to ask again.


----------



## moXJO (18 May 2019)

I'll call bs on climate change being the number one issue as well. These polls seem rigged. High cost of living would have to be the number one.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, it's the end of big ideas.
> 
> The country will retreat into a US like everyone for themselves and petty politics wins.
> 
> Shame.



Just shows the general public, isnt ready to accept welfare, as the heights they have to apire to.


----------



## moXJO (18 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Just shows the general public, isnt ready to accept welfare, as the heights they have to apire to.



Too true. No one wants to pay more when they are struggling themselves.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

How the hell Shorten could say he would take money of those who have put their money into super, because they dont pay tax.
Yet give the same money to people who get Government handouts, is stupid.
Then to justify it by saying we cant afford it, just expects everyone to be stupid.
The arrogance and dismissiveness of wage earners is appalling.
Thank god people arent stupid.IMO


----------



## qldfrog (18 May 2019)

That's a nice unexpected surprise and remove the rush to relocate and wind down my company and assets here.
Maybe Australian majority want to work for Australians, not any loud set of tribes/minority
Now let's get to work and be ready for the black clouds ahead


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2019)

Clive Palmer looks like not getting into the Senate! Just shows you can't buy your way in. One Nation did much better. Greens also looking strong.


----------



## Logique (18 May 2019)

Some kind of evening, and into the bargain, the Swanees hung on against the Shinboners in the seat of Blundstone Arena.
What a shift in Australian politics:
- workers are voting for the Coalition, whilst
- silvertails are going with the Green Left - after all, their franking credits aren't at risk, and they can probably afford expensive electricity and plug-in cars


----------



## Humid (18 May 2019)

Awesome no jobs no wages growth exiting times


----------



## Humid (18 May 2019)

Whoops exciting


----------



## Humid (18 May 2019)

Too excited


----------



## qldfrog (18 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, it's the end of big ideas.
> 
> The country will retreat into a US like everyone for themselves and petty politics wins.
> 
> Shame.



big idea like franking credit and taxing CG to the max irrespective of inflation?
Or fracturing even more our society and putting every 2nd person on welfare?
This is definitely the vote which can prevent us from turning into the new US a la Clinton
Do not be sad, your kids have avoided or postponed a European future and saved some freedom of speech


----------



## Logique (18 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Awesome no* jobs* no wages growth exiting times



14,000 of them at Adani


----------



## Humid (18 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> For the record my #1 vote went for Libs in the reps and the senate, the greens and labor got bottom score on both.
> So for Humids record, I havent voted Labor, since I voted for Bob Hawke the second time, saves you having to ask again.




I think the only person who didn’t know that was your Mrs.....she stopped listening to yo 40 years ago


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Too excited



Dont feel too bad, even you self centred people have a future, beyond your current wage slave life.
In a few years time you will appreciate, the bullet you missed.


----------



## fiftyeight (18 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, it's the end of big ideas.






moXJO said:


> I'll call bs on climate change being the number one issue as well






sptrawler said:


> Just shows the general public, isnt ready to accept welfare, as the heights they have to apire to.




The above all may be true, but tonights results suggest nothing more than we ALL dislike Bill....ALOT


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> I'll call bs on climate change being the number one issue as well. These polls seem rigged. High cost of living would have to be the number one.




An issue that cuts across both of those is electricity. It’s a major source of CO2 emissions and at the wholesale level is costing ~$1.5 million per hour, every hour, than it was not too long ago.

I note also that power generation is the only real world industry, outside of politics itself, being discussed among commentators tonight and it’s had quite a few mentions. That alone speaks volumes.

I could say much more, I won’t derail the thread, but I’ll sum that up with a simple observation.

The surest way to cut emissions and costs in one fell swoop is to put the lights out.


----------



## Humid (18 May 2019)

So from here on in everything that happens to you people is self inflicted ok,,,,lol
Do they have a mandate lol wtf are their policies


----------



## Humid (18 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> An issue that cuts across both of those is electricity. It’s a major source of CO2 emissions and at the wholesale level is costing ~$1.5 million per hour, every hour, than it was not too long ago.
> 
> I note also that power generation is the only real world industry, outside of politics itself, being discussed among commentators tonight and it’s had quite a few mentions. That alone speaks volumes.
> 
> ...



14000 jobs at adani


----------



## Humid (18 May 2019)

Clean coal


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

fiftyeight said:


> The above all may be true, but tonights results suggest nothing more than we ALL dislike Bill....ALOT



Yes unfortunately the collateral damage from this, IMO is Chris Bowen.
When he was shadow minister for immigration, I thought he showed great qualities, since he has become the shadow treasurer he has cow towed to Shorten.
He IMO is the big loser, sold his soul, sad really


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

Humid said:


> 14000 jobs at adani



Sorry but I’m not following your point?

The Adani mine has nothing to do with the domestic supply of electricity either physically or in terms of economics or environmental impacts.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Clean coal



Better than a promise from a snake oil salesman.
At least it makes something, other than hot air.
It is about time you started trolling another forum. Lol


----------



## Humid (18 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Sorry but I’m not following your point?
> 
> The Adani mine has nothing to do with the domestic supply of electricity either physically or in terms of economics or environmental impacts.



Really environmental impacts?


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Humid said:


> So from here on in everything that happens to you people is self inflicted ok,,,,lol
> Do they have a mandate lol wtf are their policies



Not screwing over the working class, seems to have worked, just because you are in the minority doesnt mean it is the interlectual pool.
Luckily unlike me, you wont be bent over the barrel.lol
You are lucky the Libs arent as nasty as your lot.lol


----------



## bellenuit (18 May 2019)

Shorten has conceded and resigned as party leader. Only issue now is whether the coalition will have an outright majority or be a minority government.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Really environmental impacts?



Does that include the mining equipment you work on?


----------



## Humid (18 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Better than a promise from a snake oil salesman.
> At least it makes something, other than hot air.
> It is about time you started trolling another forum. Lol




I read in a bullying piece that the only thing worse than trolls were the idiots that continually feed them
Sound familiar


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

bellenuit said:


> Shorten has conceded and resigned as party leader. Only issue now is whether the coalition will have an outright majority or be a minority government.



It has given me faith that the FW havent taken over. There is still hope for Australia, thank god, and Im not religous. Yeh australia you flucking beauty.


----------



## Humid (18 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Does that include the mining equipment you work on?



Iron ore don’t burn without coal


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Humid said:


> I read in a bullying piece that the only thing worse than trolls were the idiots that continually feed them
> Sound familiar



Yep time to look in the mirror princess.


----------



## sptrawler (18 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Iron ore don’t burn without coal



Actually iron ore and coal could be the way of the future, read up on the hazer process, instead of trolling political issues.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Really environmental impacts?



It has _nothing _to do with the domestic energy supply chain, it’s purely for export, and thus no implication for domestic energy policy beyond the fact that it removes the option of using that resource for domestic purposes.

Politically I can only hope that all involved understand the difference.


----------



## qldfrog (18 May 2019)

Now the important question:
will the left blame the Russians, or will we start a new trend blaming China?


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

Have you got any links to the process for steel production very interested


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It has _nothing _to do with the domestic energy supply chain, it’s purely for export, and thus no implication for domestic energy policy beyond the fact that it removes the option of using that resource for domestic purposes.
> 
> Politically I can only hope that all involved understand the difference.



I was thinking along the nimby climate change type thing but hey


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Yep time to look in the mirror princess.



But I’m the troll?


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

Humid said:


> But I’m the troll?



Well obviously you are pretty bad at it, why not try to join in a constructive way? 
Im sure you have some input from mines and talk at the cliff face.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Have you got any links to the process for steel production very interested



It isnt steel making, it is hydrogen and graphite, which are both really important in the renewable arena.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

Will we see a rebound in the banks?


----------



## drsmith (19 May 2019)

Laura Tingle aged 10 years in 6 hours.

Can't wait to watch Insiders in the morning.

Well done ScoMo. A miracle indeed.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

drsmith said:


> Laura Tingle aged 10 years in 6 hours.
> 
> Can't wait to watch Insiders in the morning.
> 
> Well done ScoMo. A miracle indeed.



Yes the SMH has wasted 6months of print
Lol


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Dont feel too bad, even you self centred people have a future, beyond your current wage slave life.
> In a few years time you will appreciate, the bullet you missed.




Lol self centred.....you have done nothing but whinge for months about losing your franking credits and it didn’t happen 
Flog of the highest order


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

I hope for equalities sake now the purple rinse set will campaign hard with their local members to reinstate penalty rates.......Bahahaha


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Yes the SMH has wasted 6months of print
> Lol



Bit rich coming from you ....how much print have you wasted


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)




----------



## Wysiwyg (19 May 2019)

Labor has a better chance with Chris Bowen. Less BS and a straight shooter and if he becomes opp. leader, the coalition would want to have had a value adding term in control. Otherwise this bloke will pants Libs. My long range prediction. 

P.s. pending "policy" of course. Sometimes no change is bloody good.


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

Is the Senate workable?


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 May 2019)

drsmith said:


> Laura Tingle aged 10 years in 6 hours.
> 
> Can't wait to watch Insiders in the morning.
> 
> Well done ScoMo. A miracle indeed.



I have seen this commentary about "historical" and "unwinnable". Morrison always had his nose in front because he is a doer and people appreciate less talk and more action.
Miracle? Favourite won.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 May 2019)

Anyone know if Clive Palmer got back slammed? Like, he is the most deserving fat &*^% on the planet.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Lol self centred.....you have done nothing but whinge for months about losing your franking credits and it didn’t happen
> Flog of the highest order



And you were the one saying I was going to bent over a log, I can understand your disappointment, nasty to the core following in king Billys footsteps.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Bit rich coming from you ....how much print have you wasted



Well my print gave results, yours was obviously dribble, which by all indications you are not going to give up on.lol


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

Wysiwyg said:


> Anyone know if Clive Palmer got back slammed? Like, he is the most deserving fat &*^% on the planet.



I don't think he got a seat. Malcolm roberts is back,  Fraser Anning lost his...


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

Wysiwyg said:


> Labor has a better chance with Chris Bowen. Less BS and a straight shooter and if he becomes opp. leader, the coalition would want to have had a value adding term in control. Otherwise this bloke will pants Libs. My long range prediction.
> 
> P.s. pending "policy" of course. Sometimes no change is bloody good.



Yes Ive always liked Bowen, I just hope silly Billys brain fart, hasnt left him on the nose. So to speak.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> IFraser Anning lost his...



Poor guy suffers from (own) foot in mouth disease.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Yes Ive always liked Bowen, I just hope silly Billys brain fart, hasnt left him on the nose. So to speak.



In history's page, let every stage Advance Australia Fair.


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

'Billary' seems to be trending....


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2019)

Looks like I might collect on my minority gummint bet after all. Got 3s,  but coulda got 4s and above.  Oh well. 

My Reps vote was always going to be wasted in this electorate, but disappointed my first Senate choice won't get a berth. Se come choice got up though. 

Lessons for both major parties here and I reckon Labor might learn them better than the LNC... maybe. 

While some of Labor's reforms were terrifying, others would have been interesting and would have liked to have seen how they played out.

The LNC has a massive opportunity to recapture their own essence and their own base and to stop pandering to the disgusting postmodernists.


----------



## qldfrog (19 May 2019)

It is indeed a great chance for the right to renew itself, TA toxicity is gone and hopefully Dutton has learnt from his failed PM attempt..n
But not sure about that
For labour/green sadly, the Sarah @$# is still around and i expect no self introspection, just an easy blame Bill..which is probably just a part but not all of the explanation

Also hope  they will read their actual votes..not just the preference results.for both side
But Australia problems remain, a culture changing immigration for short term gain and long term issues, an economy of digging dirt, fake unemployment figures,low preparation for economic shock and far too high taxation for the amount of services provided
We still have debt, no infrastructure, overpriced cost of living especially non discretionary one: rates insurance water and power
Layer and layer of regulation, parasitism from building code to taxation or business red green tape
Much to be done, and still waiting the necessary reset of a recession/depression to reboot our society 
Last point might inflame some readers but we are actually paying too high a price of avoiding the GFC as a society in my opinion


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> If Labor thinks the people have rejected the concept of a grand vision then I disagree.
> 
> They’ve rejected the arrogant dismissal of legitimate concerns about the detail not the concept of a grand vision itself.




It will be difficult to sell big ideas in the future unless it's totally apparent that there are no losers as there always will be (unless the losers are corporations who don't vote). Scare campaigns seem to work well in the electorate.

In the meantime I guess Labor can argue that the LNP went into the election with no policies therefore they have no mandate for anything. I can see a lot of blocking of legislation, budgets etc if Labor/Greens control the Senate.

The Labor leadership will be interesting.

Bowen might have blown the election all by himself  with the "get stuffed if you don't like it" comment so I"m not sure if the public would warm to  him.

Albo is part of "old guard" so his chance may have gone.

Mark Butler seems pretty articulate so if Labor are in the mood for a modern leader he may be a good choice.

Plibersek is articulate but she always seemed a bit whiny and too Leftist to me.

What's pretty certain is that the electorate as a whole is going Right and the Labor Left doesn't cut it with voters anymore. Rudd won because he was a "gentler , kinder " version of Howard, and he had virtually no policies either.

I think Labor has to learn a lesson, try not to frighten the horses and just run negative scare campaigns from the Centre against the far Right of the LNP.

A recession is looming and it's not time for big ideas anymore. Labor certainly need to appeal to a greater slice of the electorate than they do now. They need more small business people, professionals and middle class aspirationals in their ranks not just ex union leaders.

They have to move with the times in other words.


----------



## qldfrog (19 May 2019)

_They have to move with the times in other words_.
Yes can not agree more, there is no class warfare in Australia so put back the poms unionists in their plane, and stop tribalism.thanksfully, Australia is still better than that
Break clearly links with radical left..aka greens
Unions are not representative anymore so change Labour party internals
Get economically relevant and gain some trust then you may have a chance
My outsider view
Or just play the Instagram politician as in France, NZ or Canada...
But labour tried with Shorten and it luckily seems to fail here
Do not take it too hard SirRumpole


----------



## Bill M (19 May 2019)

Labor was short on detail. Here is the reason a lot of older voters deserted them.

My bolds: Gloria is one of many thousands of low income people who would have lost out big time.

---
Let’s take Barry and Lesley as an example. Multimillionaires with all their superannuation sitting in their two large APRA-regulated funds totalling $3 million.

They are both 67 years old and draw an income of $150,000 a year from their super fund, which sits in pension phase.

They don’t pay any tax personally and their super fund is tax free. Better still, their super balance each year is topped up by franking credits of nearly $13,000.

*Compare this with Gloria, a 53-year-old divorced mother of three. She has very little in superannuation, a cash emergency fund and a share portfolio worth $300,000 from her divorce settlement.

She earns dividend income of $13,500 a year and receives a refundable franking credit of just under $6000 a year.


Under Labor’s proposed policy to abolish refundable franking credits, Barry and Lesley, the retired multimillionaires, will continue to get nearly $13,000 of franking credits to boost their super balance, however Gloria, the divorcee, will lose her refundable credit of about $6000 a year.*

*So how does it make sense that the multimillionaires keep their franking credits to top up their super but the single divorcee, who is struggling, loses it? And is this equitable?

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...d-their-franking-credits-20190517-p51obt.html*
---


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> _They have to move with the times in other words_.
> Yes can not agree more, there is no class warfare in Australia so put back the poms unionists in their plane, and stop tribalism.thanksfully, Australia is still better than that
> Break clearly links with radical left..aka greens
> Unions are not representative anymore so change Labour party internals
> ...




I'm certainly disappointed, but still fascinated by the demographics of it all.

The "young" who think themselves so "switched on" that they know better than anyone else seem not to have been a factor in this election, but maybe pre polling votes will tell a different story.

Offend the "grey warriors" at your peril it seems, even though Labor took pains to exempt pensioners and part pensioners from their franking credit reforms.

Those trying to get into the housing market also didn't rise up for Labor as expected, I wonder why.

Anyway I'm sure that there will be a lot of post mortems around in the Labor ranks. (I'm not a Labor Party member btw).


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2019)

Bill M said:


> *So how does it make sense that the multimillionaires keep their franking credits to top up their super but the single divorcee, who is struggling, loses it? And is this equitable?*




Yep, pity Labor did not use some sort of means test to decide who was eligible and who wasn't.


----------



## rederob (19 May 2019)

We get what we deserve.
Trump that!


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (19 May 2019)

Great outcome. I really hope the Government sorts out the welfare bill the country has.

There is 30-40 Billion per annum in savings I feel. Lots of jobs around.

Bowen stuffed it up for Labor.


----------



## Value Hunter (19 May 2019)

I am so glad the communist scum labour party didn't win the election!! I would have been crippled by the higher taxes of labour.


----------



## gartley (19 May 2019)

Don't worry about being crippled by higher taxes.  We are well overdue for a recession ... in which  it which case the sitting government will be sipping from a poison chalice of an economy. House prices will continue to fall irrespective, and no matter how hard they try, they won't be able to bring back the bubble.
All it will take is a crash on the US fake markets to trigger it.


----------



## verce (19 May 2019)

Never underestimate Labor's ability to lose an election.


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

Barry cassidy crying into his cornflakes this morning. Wong had a meltdown last night and plibersek blaming everyone else but themselves. 

Can't take responsibility for a loss. Whats even worse is that they are living in delusion.

Labor needs a winter culling.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

I must admit I'm shocked, I expected the younger generation who the media portray as being angry at the baby boomers, to flock toward Labor.
Maybe there is such a thing as false news.


----------



## Logique (19 May 2019)

Labor abandoned it's traditional base. Bob Hawke's sad passing was a reminder.

Daryl Van Horne and the Witches of Eastwick won't be missed on the government benches.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> It will be difficult to sell big ideas in the future unless it's totally apparent that there are no losers as there always will be (unless the losers are corporations who don't vote).



Maybe you nailed it, in the first sentance, hard to run a campaign of being fair, when you obviously aren't.
It probably left a lot wondering if they would be next in the firing line, as Bowen said if you don't like it don't vote for us, maybe a lot saw that as a warning.


----------



## fiftyeight (19 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I must admit I'm shocked, I expected the younger generation who the media portray as being angry at the baby boomers, to flock toward Labor.
> Maybe there is such a thing as false news.




We have nowhere to flock?


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2019)

drsmith said:


> Laura Tingle aged 10 years in 6 hours.
> 
> Can't wait to watch Insiders in the morning.
> 
> Well done ScoMo. A miracle indeed.




Australia rejected fairness for a child actor without any policies who will need lots of miracles  

Enjoy your moment as I am sure you will.

God help Australians the child actor wont.


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Great outcome. I really hope the Government sorts out the welfare bill the country has.
> 
> There is 30-40 Billion per annum in savings I feel. Lots of jobs around.
> 
> Bowen stuffed it up for Labor.





By far the largest part of the welfare bill goes to seniors maybe taking your advice we will  see more older women on the streets.

Coalition will still need the $40 bil as their policies are unfunded fairness wont be a factor where that comes from.


----------



## chiff (19 May 2019)

The Crows lost,but Sharkie got up!


----------



## rederob (19 May 2019)

chiff said:


> The Crows lost,but Sharkie got up!



I thought the Brisbane Bears won yesterday, but I was corrected.
Apparently they are now the Brisbane Lie-ons.
I don't get it.
When did Queensland catch up with the rest of civilisation ?

(note to footy commentators: not Brisbane *Lines -* they're not a bus company!)


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (19 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> By far the largest part of the welfare bill goes to seniors maybe taking your advice we will  see more older women on the streets.
> 
> Coalition will still need the $40 bil as their policies are unfunded fairness wont be a factor where that comes from.




no it doesnt, goes to males who wont work and then wiggle there way onto DSP (long term bludgers)

its their right though yeah


----------



## Macquack (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm certainly disappointed, but still fascinated by the demographics of it all.
> 
> The "young" who think themselves so "switched on" that they know better than anyone else seem not to have been a factor in this election, but maybe pre polling votes will tell a different story.
> 
> ...





SirRumpole said:


> It will be difficult to sell big ideas in the future unless it's totally apparent that there are no losers as there always will be (unless the losers are corporations who don't vote).



News Corporation votes.


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> no it doesnt, goes to males who wont work and then wiggle there way onto DSP (long term bludgers)
> 
> its their right though yeah




If you take the money off them best you spend your hard earned franking credits on beefing up home security


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Labor certainly need to appeal to a greater slice of the electorate than they do now. They need more small business people, professionals and middle class aspirationals in their ranks not just ex union leaders.




The problem with Labor is that they've got a lot in common with _that_ employee in a big corporation or government department who seems to do everything other than the job for which they are employed. 

Looking at Labor's policies and listening to Bill's speech last night, some observations as follows. 

In writing this I'm trying to capture "why a lot of people didn't vote Labor" not "why Smurf voted for someone other than the two major parties" and there's obviously a difference there. 

Schools, hospitals etc - been hearing that for decades now and quite frankly don't believe a word of it until it happens. It won't influence my vote since whichever party promises something, they usually find a way to wriggle out of it. Believe it when I see it, yeah whatever, next issue please......

Aboriginals, gays, immigrants and other minorities - well I'm extremely sympathetic to the cause and firmly on the "progressive" side there but what exactly is needing doing? What's the issue here? There are problems in remote Aboriginal communities yes but that has been the case forever and no government yet has managed to fix them so it's not a reason to vote one way or the other. As for the gays and immigrants, well what are the Liberals doing to them that's bad? The marriage issue was sorted and there's a hell of a lot of immigrants coming in so sorry Bill but I'm not seeing the issue here. This all sounds like someone trying to pad out their resume by continuing to fight yesterday's war, they're not core issues facing the Australian people at the present time.

Self-funded retirees - now there's the one minority group that the average mainstream person has a chance of becoming part of and which many hope to do so. Given they're saving money on welfare and that successive governments of both persuasions have encouraged this approach for a third of a century, attacking this group was a truly bizarre idea especially given the included free kick for high income earners.

The worker - ah yes, the workers? Remember them Labor? You know, those people who get up every morning and go and work for whoever to get paid? The people the party was established to represent? The ones you seem to have completely forgotten about to the point that the Liberals seem a more natural choice even for blue collar workers these days and most certainly so for professionals. The workers who want government to do something about wages, the cost of living, availability of employment and so on and only after that's sorted do you have time to be worrying about all the other social stuff.

Unions - perhaps have a chat to these guys? Shouldn't be too hard to get a meeting going. They'll tell plenty about the workers but if you go and talk to the traditional blue collar unions, so construction, trades and so on, they'll tell you about something else they're worried about too and that's an issue known as "men's mental health". It's quite an issue you see, and one being ignored by politicians but if anyone's looking for a great big social justice issue well then there it is.


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> And you were the one saying I was going to bent over a log, I can understand your disappointment, nasty to the core following in king Billys footsteps.



 Not really disappointed if they introduced a flat 30% up to 200k

You can call me Mr Nasty


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The problem with Labor is that they've got a lot in common with _that_ employee in a big corporation or government department who seems to do everything other than the job for which they are employed.
> 
> Looking at Labor's policies and listening to Bill's speech last night, some observations as follows.
> 
> ...




Bill Shorten’s Union is usually the one to sign the crap deal before the construction unions get on site


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yep, pity Labor did not use some sort of means test to decide who was eligible and who wasn't.



Over the next few days Shorten would be having meetings with Morrison regarding the handover of government if Labor had listened and approached this one properly.

It has been said on this forum and it has been said of plenty of other places as well. Sharp tools Bill, not blunt hammers, you need sharp tools!

Stop the rorts sure. Just don't hurt the small time investor who earned their money working in an ordinary job in the process.

The "go and vote for someone else" comment cost them the election in my view. It would have been incredibly arrogant if the government had said that, unbelievably so coming from the opposition.

Rule 101 that the unions could have told him - regardless of whether or not you're going to do anything about someone's concerns, don't ignore what's being said and sure as hell don't shrug them off like that.


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well my print gave results, yours was obviously dribble, which by all indications you are not going to give up on.lol




You haven’t voted Labor since Bob Hawke you say and then spend a decade on here trying to sound a balanced voter
RUSTED on much


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> It probably left a lot wondering if they would be next in the firing line, as Bowen said if you don't like it don't vote for us, maybe a lot saw that as a warning.



One thing that unions are always terrified of in any dispute over pay and conditions is that one worker or a small group does some sort of deal with management of their own accord. Once that happens, the remaining group is weakened and from there on it's just a "rinse and repeat" strategy of breaking off another group one at at time until those standing with the union are inconsequential. Quite literally divide and conquer.

It wasn't hard to see that's what Labor was doing with this policy so it wasn't hard to draw the conclusion that some other group, whoever, would be next and given the choice of target was somewhat obscure the same could well have applied next time around. A tax on red cars or black socks but not on any other colour sort of approach that makes no rational sense.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> no it doesnt, goes to males who wont work and then wiggle there way onto DSP (long term bludgers)
> 
> its their right though yeah



I'm all for cracking down on rorts but let's start in the most logical place with the big ones.


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I must admit I'm shocked, I expected the younger generation who the media portray as being angry at the baby boomers, to flock toward Labor.
> Maybe there is such a thing as false news.



I didn't see that coming either. I thought labor for sure given the labor  cheerleaders
Polls, News were oh so wrong.

Labor supporters are now out in force blaming scare campaigns and other bs covers.
The truth is they were taking something from to many taxpayers and seen to be rewarding bludgers.
BS was not leader material.
Labors front bench were older 'identity politics' rejects.
Hope they stick plebersek as leader and lose the next one as well.

Labor was not just beaten but smashed compared to expectations.

"Rejected fairness" my arse. Wasn't it the inner city leftists who voted labor. Workers abandoned labor in droves and for good reason.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2019)

Outcome of the election aside, there's a desperate need to get on with the job and start fixing our nation's infrastructure.

I won't dwell on the point and take the thread off topic but as the PM was claiming victory last night, Unit 1 at Yallourn power station shut down. 22 hours earlier Unit 2 at Loy Yang A failed suddenly. Both are in Victoria.

Critical infrastructure, particularly energy, is in far worse shape than the general public realises and I mean that in a purely technical sense but I acknowledge the economic and environmental issues there as well.

Nothing more to say really but another 3 years of inaction is the last thing we need so it's my hope that regardless of the details of who forms government, the decade long deadlock over the issue can finally be resolved.

I'd have posted the same regardless of who won by the way. I just see the interesting coincidence - the PM's on stage claiming victory at the very same time key infrastructure's coming to a halt. Hopefully that's not an omen.....


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Wasn't it the inner city leftists who voted labor. Workers abandoned labor in droves and for good reason.



Labor seems to have forgotten about the reason for the party's existence yes.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Labor seems to have forgotten about the reason for the party's existence yes.




I think we are now in for a period of industrial disruption not seen since the 1980's.

Sally McManus is an old style union activist and I don't think she is going to lie down and let wages stagnate further.

I think the union movement is going to be the government's biggest problem rather than the Labor Party for the duration of their term.


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I think we are now in for a period of industrial disruption not seen since the 1980's.
> 
> Sally McManus is an old style union activist and I don't think she is going to lie down and let wages stagnate further.
> 
> I think the union movement is going to be the government's biggest problem rather than the Labor Party for the duration of their term.



Further reducing our competitiveness. Cost of living and housing is the corollaric(sic) and more correct angle of attack imo.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The "go and vote for someone else" comment cost them the election in my view. It would have been incredibly arrogant if the government had said that, unbelievably so coming from the opposition.




Yes it's going to be difficult for Bowen to live that one down, even though in most other ways he seems to be a hard worker.

It will be interesting to see if they stick with this policy (and negative gearing)  and "explain" them more or ditch them altogether. In principle I don't think it's a bad idea as long as it doesn't hurt those on low incomes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I think the union movement is going to be the government's biggest problem rather than the Labor Party for the duration of their term.



I suspect you're right.

If I were ScoMo then I'd head it off right from the start and invite the ACTU to a meeting and gain a thorough understanding of their perspective and aim to establish a working relationship between government and the unions. That doesn't mean the Liberals become Labor, you don't have to agree on everything to have a working relationship, but doing so beats having a war.

Yes I understand that's a bit like getting atheists and the church to agree or mixing oil and water but what's to lose from trying?

Hawke did something similar getting business on side with Labor.

Former Tasmanian premier Jim Bacon (Labor) did much the same in 1998 getting business on side (to the point that the business lobby was publicly urging people to vote Labor, a somewhat remarkable situation in itself).

So whilst it might seem to be stretching it, the idea of the Liberals establishing a workable relationship with the unions doesn't seem totally out of the question to me and if it were up to me then I'd give it a shot. Worst case = nothing lost really, it's not as though they can really go backwards on the issue.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (19 May 2019)

unions are irrelevant these days. The CFMEU can rally all they like in the CBD's, they represent probably 1 in 5 construction workers.

the towers we get built (if any get built). its an isolated sector


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> In principle I don't think it's a bad idea as long as it doesn't hurt those on low incomes.



Done in a "sharp" manner I doubt you'd find too many people who'd be opposed to stopping actual rorts by multi-millionaires so long as it's not harming Joe Average the bricklayer who stops work at age 55 because their body's wearing out and then lives off their investments bought with income that's already been taxed once. Etc.


----------



## Junior (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes it's going to be difficult for Bowen to live that one down, even though in most other ways he seems to be a hard worker.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if they stick with this policy (and negative gearing)  and "explain" them more or ditch them altogether. In principle I don't think it's a bad idea as long as it doesn't hurt those on low incomes.




1 property per individual can be negatively geared....would be easy to administer and gives everyone access to the benefits, should they choose to take advantage.  Much like the PPR exemption, you can only nominate one property at any given time.  Existing arrangements grandfathered.

Or better still do nothing.....given super low interest rates and a soft property market, now is not the time, and there are bigger priorities.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Aboriginals, gays, immigrants and other minorities - well I'm extremely sympathetic to the cause and firmly on the "progressive" side there but what exactly is needing doing? What's the issue here? There are problems in remote Aboriginal communities yes but that has been the case forever and no government yet has managed to fix them so it's not a reason to vote one way or the other. As for the gays and immigrants, well what are the Liberals doing to them that's bad? The marriage issue was sorted and there's a hell of a lot of immigrants coming in so sorry Bill but I'm not seeing the issue here. This all sounds like someone trying to pad out their resume by continuing to fight yesterday's war, they're not core issues facing the Australian people at the present time.




I'd have to say that I gritted my teeth every time Labor mentioned "minority" groups.

Elections are won in the mainstream, on bread and butter issues that everyone has to deal with, cost of living, wages, jobs, infrastructure , skills.

Constant harping about one particular group or another just infuriates the "majority".


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> no it doesnt, goes to males who wont work and then wiggle there way onto DSP (long term bludgers)
> 
> its their right though yeah





Sigh...........note below age care and age pension / income support for seniors, please point out where all the money is going to long term bludgers.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (19 May 2019)

where is that table from

DSP, administration and other programs, job seeker income support

take some from each of them and you have my figure


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (19 May 2019)

"other welfare programs and administration" interesting one


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2019)

The Labor leadership contenders.

Albo has put his hand up.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...hony-albanese-labor-party-leadership/11127296


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The Labor leadership contenders.
> 
> Albo has put his hand up.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...hony-albanese-labor-party-leadership/11127296




It's always good to have a strong,  sensible and viable opposition. I like Albo for this role, perhaps with Bowen as deputy.  There are a couple of others who could fit the bill, but definitely not Tanya,  who will take the party further in its current disastrous direction.


----------



## SirRumpole (19 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> It's always good to have a strong,  sensible and viable opposition. I like Albo for this role, perhaps with Bowen as deputy.  There are a couple of others who could fit the bill, but definitely not Tanya,  who will take the party further in its current disastrous direction.




I think Albo will get it, but he's the "old guard Left class warrior" so I wonder how effective he will be.

The electorate has shifted to the Right and I think that Labor need to move more towards the Centre.

If you look at elections that Labor has won from Opposition, both here and overseas, I think of Tony Blair in the UK, and Hawke and Rudd in Oz, in all of those cases Labor distanced themselves from the unions and became more welcoming to aspirational middle class voters. Sure Hawke was a unionist but he campaigned on "national reconcilliation" and Rudd tried to give the impression that he was a fiscal conservative and didn't go around proposing new taxes and higher spending in Opposition so he didn't frighten voters.

Like it or not the electorate doesn't like rapid change and is becoming tired of class wars. Whoever gets the Labor leadership has to cosy up to business and to people in the middle class trying to get ahead, they can't rely on welfare recipients and the unions as much as they used to.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 May 2019)

Monday should be good on the share market.


----------



## jpgrygus (19 May 2019)

Wysiwyg said:


> The BS has started to flow freely.
> 
> 1) Tax sugary and alcoholic drinks to raise $3 billion to tackle obesity and health issues.
> 
> ...




Does that go for heroin as well?​


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

Humid said:


> You haven’t voted Labor since Bob Hawke you say and then spend a decade on here trying to sound a balanced voter
> RUSTED on much



I'm prepared to vote Labor, any time they put forward a decent platform, Kev was a dick and has been proven so, Gillard was no better, Bill is from the same mould.
As has been proven, Labor hasn't got a clue, don't talk fairness when your carrying a knife up your sleeve.
Hopefully they learn, this was an unlosable election, that was lost due to their perceived nastiness.
Middle Australia gave them the bird, because they couldn't trust that they wouldn't be next, in the cross hairs.
Elections are won on trust, not blind faith.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I think Albo will get it, but he's the "old guard Left class warrior" so I wonder how effective he will be.
> 
> The electorate has shifted to the Right and I think that Labor need to move more towards the Centre.
> 
> ...



Perfectly put Rumpy, you nailed it.


----------



## sptrawler (19 May 2019)

An Interesting article on Bloomberg, regarding the election results and demographics. It kind of backs up Rumpy's comment.
Labor seem to be attracting the yuppy left leaning intellectuals, at the expense of the blue collar middle class. 
I know my son, who works in the mines at Kal, reckons all his work mates prefer the Libs, which I found interesting.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...lia-s-shock-election-result-has-global-echoes

From the article:
_Despite some claims that the Coalition won on the basis of wealthy and older voters turned off by Labor’s promise to increase taxes on shares and investment property, some of the biggest swings to the Coalition were in lower middle-class suburbs and exurbs that have some of the youngest demographic profiles in the country. 

In particular, a swath of seats in western Sydney and the greater Brisbane region moved heavily to the government’s side, helping it retain power_.
And:
_By contrast, in Sydney’s wealthy northern beaches, the deep-dyed conservative former prime minister Abbott suffered the biggest loss of the night with a 19 percent swing to centrist independent Zali Steggall. In Melbourne’s affluent inner east, the seat of Kooyong that’s been the Liberals’ safest for more than a century suffered a 5.4 percent swing towards Julian Burnside, a campaigning refugee lawyer on the Greens party ticket, leaving it just a whisker above marginal status.



The traditional urban-rural maps on which Australia’s major parties have built their majorities are being scrambled. Just as in Texas and west London, right-of-center slices of its cities are growing more liberal; just as in Ohio and northeast England, left-of-center regional areas are becoming more conservative. Which side is better able to capitalize on those trends will decide the direction of politics for the coming decade, not just in Australia but across the world_.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Like it or not the electorate doesn't like rapid change and is becoming tired of class wars.






SirRumpole said:


> I'd have to say that I gritted my teeth every time Labor mentioned "minority" groups.
> 
> Elections are won in the mainstream, on bread and butter issues that everyone has to deal with, cost of living, wages, jobs, infrastructure , skills.
> 
> Constant harping about one particular group or another just infuriates the "majority".




Tomorrow is a normal unremarkable Monday for pretty much everyone except the few who are directly involved in politics.

People will get up, get dressed and go and do whatever they do on a Monday be that working as lawyer, driving a bus, tradies on building sites or self employed, trading shares or whatever.

Nobody's going to get up tomorrow morning, get dressed and then go and be an Aboriginal, lesbian or whatever. That someone happens to be Aboriginal or happens to be gay is incidental to most of what they'll do tomorrow but it's not the focus.

That's not to say that I or most people aren't sympathetic to the cause when it comes to past issues of discrimination against gays or injustices toward Aboriginals. In 2019 though, well a lot would be pondering what, exactly, is the ongoing issue there that hasn't already been fixed?

Economics and infrastructure, both taken in their broadest sense, would capture most of what's concerning the average person at the moment I think.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> An Interesting article on Bloomberg, regarding the election results and demographics. It kind of backs up Rumpy's comment.
> Labor seem to be attracting the yuppy left leaning intellectuals, at the expense of the blue collar middle class.



I think it's the middle class more generally, white collar as well as blue, and that some of the more radical and highly publicised "Left" issues won't be helping Labor's cause even though they're not Labor policy as such.

By that I mean the sort of "Left" thinking that's typified by concepts and words like "mansplaining".

From what I've observed that sort of thing, the whole concept of gender wars and age wars, doesn't go down overly well with people of either gender or any age who have work to do and lives to live. Whilst Labor wasn't weighing into that specific example, it's definitely a "Left" thing and Labor is associated with the Left quite clearly and most certainly did have "age" as a key policy plank.

Most people just want to get on with their lives basically and are more worried about real problems than manufactured ones. 

Labor seem to be competing more against what would be natural Greens policies than against the Coalition.


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> unions are irrelevant these days. The CFMEU can rally all they like in the CBD's, they represent probably 1 in 5 construction workers.
> 
> the towers we get built (if any get built). its an isolated sector




Less deaths on site and a better quality build is what you would get.
Union sites people speak up about safety without fear of the arse
You would have to have rocks in your head to buy some of these apartments


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Further reducing our competitiveness. Cost of living and housing is the corollaric(sic) and more correct angle of attack imo.




What a muppet statement get out of the stable and turn off Channel Rupert


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Less deaths on site and a better quality build is what you would get.
> Union sites people speak up about safety without fear of the arse
> You would have to have rocks in your head to buy some of these apartments



BS I've seen what went on Sydney.


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> BS I've seen what went on Sydney.



Well I’ve worked in the industry and it’s chalk and cheese but enlighten me I don’t work in that $hithole


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (19 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Less deaths on site and a better quality build is what you would get.
> Union sites people speak up about safety without fear of the arse
> You would have to have rocks in your head to buy some of these apartments



?

Somebody commented that unions are going to be militant now the coalition in.

When was last time a CBD site was open for 40hr week? People who work on those sites are greedy greedy people.

Best opportunity to significantly raise membership and they blow it year after year.

The union the quietest its ever been


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Well I’ve worked in the industry and it’s chalk and cheese but enlighten me I don’t work in that $hithole



Melbourne was as bad.
I'm not sticking my neck publicly on the block again.


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Melbourne was as bad.
> I'm not sticking my neck publicly on the block again.



Well I call bs on you too


----------



## Humid (19 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> ?
> 
> Somebody commented that unions are going to be militant now the coalition in.
> 
> ...




There’s more than one union mate!
Not any greedier than the developers.
How many of these workers live anywhere near the city?
How many of you ever risked a 20k fine for not going to work


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Less deaths on site and a better quality build is what you would get.
> Union sites people speak up about safety without fear of the arse
> You would have to have rocks in your head to buy some of these apartments




Absolutely true major issues with the latest apartments right across Australia non union bogey construction company's I have absolutely no sympathy.

As for safety unions changed the deaths per site budgets (I have work such jobs) but people still buy the anti union BS decades later.


----------



## IFocus (19 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> ?
> 
> Somebody commented that unions are going to be militant now the coalition in.
> 
> ...





Clearly you don't understand the draconian laws that are against workers right to carry out industrial action.

Hence workers get fu(k over and clearly you have never been in the industry to understand.


----------



## moXJO (19 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Well I call bs on you too



I could care less. I know what union grubs get up to.


----------



## PZ99 (20 May 2019)

Congrats to Sco Mo and Co. 

Just one thing though... Don't use the C word in your victory speech


----------



## wayneL (20 May 2019)

Humid said:


> What a muppet statement get out of the stable and turn off Channel Rupert



Your response convinces me I'm correct.

We already have the highest cost of business in the OECD. That needs to be reduced along with cost of living,  thereby maging wages *relatively (if not actually)  higher.

I acknowledge it's a complicated and almist insurmountable problem.


----------



## PZ99 (20 May 2019)

Dollars' up .78% .8% of late. Green day for ASX200 maybe ?


----------



## rederob (20 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Your response convinces me I'm correct.
> We already have the highest cost of business in the OECD. That needs to be reduced along with cost of living,  thereby maging wages *relatively (if not actually)  higher.



Another load of cobblers.
It's much easier to do business in Australia than in most countries in Europe, while starting a business is easier still.  Our brothers across the ditch rank best amongst all high income nations.


----------



## wayneL (20 May 2019)

"Ease" of doing business <> "cost" of doing business.  When I have a moment Ill see if I can find the relevant figures.


----------



## wayneL (20 May 2019)

I see Phelps looks to be out on her ear. 

Great result that


----------



## gartley (20 May 2019)

Enough about Labor, they stuffed it.
Going forward, what are the sitting government do for this country that will improve things? More of the same very little more if the markets are any guide:
1/ Housing market is tanking
2/ Dollar is tanking
3/ Stock market wave B looks to be topping and has been a very choppy and anaemic rise compared to other world stock indices not even overtaking 2007 high.
Look below:





	

		
			
		

		
	
  A very rare sight these days..... we make next to no value added goods. Whatever was left was killed almost entirely
by one term Tony. Why is it that other countries around the world have gone all out to protect their industries but these clowns have not?
We have gone from a nation that was self sufficient, and having so many diverse industries to relying digging up the dirt and sending it to China and housing. Housing has already turned the corner.
Putting all our eggs in the China basket is and will cost us dearly one day and even now as the trade wars have started to really heat up.


----------



## Logique (20 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> I didn't see that coming either. I thought labor for sure given the labor  cheerleaders
> Polls, News were oh so wrong.
> Labor supporters are now out in force blaming scare campaigns and other bs covers.
> The truth is they were taking something from to many taxpayers and seen to be rewarding bludgers.
> ...



"_..Workers abandoned labor in droves..."_ ..moXJO
Indeed. In NSW, Hunter (ALP Joel Fitzgibbon), a seat that is coal mining, unionized and as blue collar as you like, suffered a 10% swing against Labor, going from a +12.5% to now a marginal seat.  Strong government needs a strong Opposition, so I hope the penny will drop with the Labor hierachy


----------



## SirRumpole (20 May 2019)

gartley said:


> Going forward, what are the sitting government do for this country that will improve things? More of the same very little more if the markets are any guide:
> 1/ Housing market is tanking
> 2/ Dollar is tanking
> 3/ Stock market wave B looks to be topping and has been a very choppy and anaemic rise compared to other world stock indices not even overtaking 2007 high.




So which government that has been in for 6 years stuffed all that ?


----------



## IFocus (20 May 2019)

gartley said:


> Enough about Labor, they stuffed it.
> Going forward, what are the sitting government do for this country that will improve things? More of the same very little more if the markets are any guide:
> 1/ Housing market is tanking
> 2/ Dollar is tanking
> ...




Silver lining Abbotts gone and of course a big relief we wont lose our weekends and utes..............

Just a pity another 3 years of chaos / infighting / lack of energy policy not to mention no front bench thats before you get to the unfunded $40 bil handout.


----------



## jbocker (20 May 2019)

To Me, Shorten is a bit like the Vegan. I sort of get what you are banging on about but I cant invite you to my barbeque.


----------



## gartley (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So which government that has been in for 6 years stuffed all that ?



Not sure if they responsible for much of that, but their their comments re " stable economy under their leadership" is certainly not reflected by the markets and where they seem to be headed


----------



## jbocker (20 May 2019)

jbocker said:


> To Me, Shorten is a bit like the Vegan. I sort of get what you are banging on about but I cant invite you to my barbeque.



...because I am not sure what you will put on the plate and how much of it;
Dont know you will be giving us enough palatable benefits of the vegan food to keep me happy after making me eat it;
Don't trust you and your mates might do to everyone elses steaks;
Will you p!ss everyone off about me having a barbeque and what  I power it with
 or turn it off and we eat salad.

At the end of the day Bill I am having a barbeque and I am going to eat the juicy steak I have already bought.
Yes I am aware I have the deal with _that _uncle who always brings too much marinade and hogs the plate. He is a little more predictable.


----------



## PZ99 (20 May 2019)

Banks are orbiting as expected


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

gartley said:


> Look below:
> View attachment 94788
> 
> 
> ...




Actually if we are going to factual, which would be a novel experience, the start of the current loss of manufacturing started when tariffs were reduced and our markets were opened to global competition.
Funnily enough we have just been waxing on and espousing the virtues, of this action over recent days, and espousing the virtues of those who did this.
Weird reality in Labor Australia, is there any wonder they can't get a message across, they can't even get their own history correct


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Banks are orbiting as expected



Just shows how much money was sitting on the sidelines, to see the outcome of this election, everyone was running scared.


----------



## PZ99 (20 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Just shows how much money was sitting on the sidelines, to see the outcome of this election, everyone was running scared.



Not me - I loaded up on the premise the promise was amiss 







This is not something you see everyday - needless to say - took profits. LOL


Now... about that recession...


----------



## gartley (20 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Banks are orbiting as expected



Yeah good jump for the banks but patterns in play don't suggest an end to their bear markets.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (20 May 2019)

Still got a long way to go. The Labor movement has destroyed people's investments


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Now... about that recession...



I think that is highly unlikely now.
Now there is some stability in the Government, one would think, some longer term planning will rise to the fore. At least that is what I'm expecting


----------



## rederob (20 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Still got a long way to go. The Labor movement has destroyed people's investments



Six year's of a Coalition government somehow let Labor affect investments!
Off with the fairies .


----------



## rederob (20 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Not me - I loaded up on the premise the promise was amiss
> View attachment 94800
> 
> This is not something you see everyday - needless to say - took profits. LOL
> Now... about that recession...



If ever there was an advertisement for the "top end of the town" and who supports it, you nailed it.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

rederob said:


> If ever there was an advertisement for the "top end of the town" and who supports it, you nailed it.



The top end of town, doesn't have the majority of the vote, middle Australia does.
The way middle Australia saw it, Labor were hitting them and giving it to those who don't want to work, they didn't like that.
It might not have been Labor's intent, but that was the way it looked, simple really.
In reality, the only ones who vote Labor are the top end of town and those on welfare, they are the only ones who can afford Labors social platform.
Just my opinion


----------



## moXJO (20 May 2019)

People are worried about feeding their families and getting their kids ahead on issues within their ability.
Cost of living is the big one imo.

Media types with $7.5 million dollar mansions have been lecturing how dumb Australians are for voting against labor for a "fair" australia. 
That chardonnay bubble is impenetrable.

The meltdowns are gold though.


----------



## moXJO (20 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Now... about that recession...



I think we need one at some stage. Either that or a slow deflation drift down.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The way middle Australia saw it, Labor were hitting them and giving it to those who don't want to work, they didn't like that.




OK so people who have cancer don't want to work, and people who do work but have their money eaten up by child care are unworthy recipients of taxpayers money ?

I didn't see any budgetted money for the so called "bludgers" in the Labor policies, just relief for those who need it.


----------



## tech/a (20 May 2019)

I work on a few larger projects
Railways
Freeways
Subdivisions
The people we work for take safety very seriously.

So do we.
If you don't you just don't win contracts.

Even so Accidents do happen.
But its way way better than the 1980s!
Can it improve---of course--once its second nature to EVERYONE 
all sites become safer.


----------



## basilio (20 May 2019)

Well that was a surprise... Certainly makes ScoMo look like The Messiah.

It was interesting to hear comment from the Libs before the election that a Liberal win but losing Tones would be the best possible outcome. I suspect not having Palmer in The Senate is also great news.

Where to now ?  Well the big money knows it is going to get a very fat bonus. Treasury will be running around trying to square the circle to justify the second trance of proposed tax cuts. We'll see how a ScoMo government deals with the usual suspects - public health,  public schools, ABC and welfare.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> OK so people who have cancer don't want to work, and people who do work but have their money eaten up by child care are unworthy recipients of taxpayers money ?
> 
> I didn't see any budgetted money for the so called "bludgers" in the Labor policies, just relief for those who need it.



You can get all emotive about it, I'm just saying how the public viewed the tax changes. The primary vote was shot to you know what and it wasn't because they wanted to spend money on cancer or child care, it was how they were getting the money to pay for it.


----------



## rederob (20 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Just my opinion



I prefer data.
I don't have any... yet.
However, my thesis is very different to yours and I am happy to wait and see if it pans out.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> You can get all emotive about it, I'm just saying how the public viewed the tax changes. The primary vote was shot to you know what and it wasn't because they wanted to spend money on cancer or child care, it was how they were getting the money to pay for it.




The workers would have got a tax cut either way. I think there must be more to it.

The general situation around coal mining seems to have hit Labor hard in relation to jobs in areas where mining is an issue eg Qld and the Hunter Valley. Maybe Labor need to rethink their policy regarding emissions and do it in a less invasive way.


----------



## PZ99 (20 May 2019)

basilio said:


> Well that was a surprise... Certainly makes ScoMo look like The Messiah.
> 
> It was interesting to hear comment from the Libs before the election that a Liberal win but losing Tones would be the best possible outcome. *I suspect not having Palmer in The Senate is also great news.*



We can thank Malcolm Turnbull and his reformed senate vote rules for that.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The workers would have got a tax cut either way. I think there must be more to it.
> 
> The general situation around coal mining seems to have hit Labor hard in relation to jobs in areas where mining is an issue eg Qld and the Hunter Valley. Maybe Labor need to rethink their policy regarding emissions and do it in a less invasive way.




I think if they had put a progressive component, or a step component in their policies, they would have fared much better.
The only guy I know that voted Labor, is the only really rich guy I know and he sees himself as a miniature philanthropist, while he sits in his million dollar mansion on the river.


----------



## PZ99 (20 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I think if they had put a progressive component, or a step component in their policies, they would have fared much better.
> The only guy I know that voted Labor, is the only really rich guy I know and he sees himself as a miniature philanthropist, while he sits in his million dollar mansion on the river.



Yesterday I spoke to colleagues at work (both jobs) and most had voted Labor. When asked why Labor didn't win, all pointed the finger at Shorten saying he was full of last nights' dinner.

Well all but one - my union delegate - he was against the franking and NG changes


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Yesterday I spoke to colleagues at work (both jobs) and most had voted Labor. When asked why Labor didn't win, all pointed the finger at Shorten saying he was full of last nights' dinner.
> 
> Well all but one - my union delegate - he was against the franking and NG changes



Well you're probably in one of the mega paid IT jobs. 
Or work in Canberra.


----------



## PZ99 (20 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well you're probably in one of the mega paid IT jobs.



Factory work actually. You know - heavy lifting? Forklift driving?  Mans' work? 

No wimmin, no water can... LOL


----------



## chiff (20 May 2019)

The two main things I do not like are-no federal ICAC(not that labor were for it either) and people like Barnaby Joyce and Angus will get away with their rorting,self interest etc with regard to the MDB.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The workers would have got a tax cut either way. I think there must be more to it.



Just my opinion, but the problem was IMO, it came across that everyone that wasn't on some form of welfare, was put into the same basket and called rich.
Like I said, just my opinion, it will be interesting when the demographics of the vote come out.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Just my opinion, but the problem was IMO, it came across that everyone that wasn't on some form of welfare, was put into the same basket and called rich.
> Like I said, just my opinion, it will be interesting when the demographics of the vote come out.




It has to be a slap in the face for the climate changers with the Greens only marginally improving their vote.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> It has to be a slap in the face for the climate changers with the Greens only marginally improving their vote.



Yes I think the fallout will be far reaching, I think a lot of issues are perceived differently, due to the representation by T.V personalities.
The channels are full of presenters telling everyone how it is and how it should be, when in reality the younger are on social media talking to each other and deciding for themselves.
The T.V presenters, with the money they are on, really are only reflective of what the chardonnay set think. IMO
I think the World is changing and the media is no longer reflective of the general mood of the population, but it makes for an interesting debate, for us old foggies.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

Another thing I found interesting, was a One Nation and a Liberal Party supporter, were stabbed at the polling booths. You don't usually see that sort of behaviour on election day.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I didn't see any budgetted money for the so called "bludgers" in the Labor policies, just relief for those who need it.



Apart from a few rednecks, I think it's fair to say that most Australians have no objection to paying taxes in order to provide welfare for those who, for whatever reason, are in difficulty and need assistance. That's the right thing to do both morally and practically and I don't hear many opposing that.

Likewise most seem fine with the idea of equal opportunity for all. Children from poor families should have access to a decent education. Everyone should have access to high quality medical care regardless of their financial circumstances. It's not unreasonable to run public transport at a loss propped up by taxpayers and it's not unreasonable to have things like libraries which also don't make a profit.

What I think people are objecting to though is the notion of equal outcome. Equal opportunity sure, but equal outcome only for those who make equal effort and in practice that won't occur.

If person A works part time and person B works full time plus all available overtime well then yes person B deserves to be wealthier for doing so. Without that incentive then why would they bother?

Likewise if person A spends everything they earn, using Newstart as their fallback and intending to claim the Age Pension at age 67, whilst person B saves and invests such that they never need Newstart or the Pension, well then yes person B should reasonably expect to be better off financially for their efforts. 

That Labor seems to want equal _outcome_ as distinct from equal _opportunity_ is the heart of the problem so far as I can tell. Australians support the idea of a fair go and nobody minds that someone who had the misfortune to be disabled or get cancer will cost a lot to look after, nobody's objecting to paying for that, but the idea that persons A and B in my above examples should receive an equal _outcome_ is what most reject as unreasonable.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> That Labor seems to want equal _outcome_ as distinct from equal _opportunity_ is the heart of the problem so far as I can tell.




I'm not even sure that this was a factor in most peoples minds or how much it actually affected the result, but I agree that most people would rather hang on to their money than have government spend it for them, and that ultimately affects the people you mentioned like the sick and disabled who don't have a chance  to work hard and invest for their future. The bottom line is if a government needs to raise revenue you can't get blood out of a stone, ie those with the most end up paying the most, there is little way around that.

Maybe the best tack for Labor is to leave individuals alone and go for corporations, transfer payments, royalty payments etc that reduce their tax payable, and really get serious again about a resource rent tax.

If the great voting public can be persuaded that Gina Reinhart will pay for their next tax cut I think they will go for that no problem.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> The general situation around coal mining seems to have hit Labor hard in relation to jobs in areas where mining is an issue eg Qld and the Hunter Valley. Maybe Labor need to rethink their policy regarding emissions and do it in a less invasive way.



I've observed rather a lot of these environment versus industry debates over the years and whilst there's probably an exception somewhere, the outcome is always the same.

Lots of words from politicians about all sorts of things to transform the local economy and so on but it always ends up involving an overall decline. You lose, to keep the numbers simple, 1000 jobs in whatever industry and years later there's 500 new jobs at half the pay rate in something else usually tourism. Apart from those who were near retirement anyway, the original 1000 have left the region.

That then comes back to economics. Not many jobs on even $80K, so a normal wage, in low value service industries and pretty much none paying $100K+ and which involve serious professional or trades work. 

So I don't think anyone seriously believes it when there's some grand claim that government will do this, that or whatever and everyone will be looked after. Initially perhaps but not for long has been the case thus far.

There's a need to move away from coal yes, nobody would sensibly deny that at this stage, but if I was a miner then I sure wouldn't be trusting government of any persuasion to do it sensibly.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe the best tack for Labor is to leave individuals alone and go for corporations, transfer payments, royalty payments etc that reduce their tax payable, and really get serious again about a resource rent tax.



Or go a step further and really stand up for the national interest.

Leverage the nation's mineral wealth for advantage rather than just selling the ore etc.


----------



## moXJO (20 May 2019)

Someone told Tanya Pleber to sit down in the labor leadership race. Once Gillard and Shorten picked her as a replacement she was instantly marked, well...even more so.

The labor party must be listening hard now. They need to wipe their front bench clean as well.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Someone told Tanya Pleber to sit down in the labor leadership race. Once Gillard and Shorten picked her as a replacement she was instantly marked, well...even more so.
> 
> The labor party must be listening hard now. They need to wipe their front bench clean as well.



They really do need to wipe a lot clean, they have obviously lost complete touch with their voter base. Which honestly is very bad for Australian politics, the last thing the Australian worker needs, is another Malcolm Fraser.
As others have said Labor and or Liberal needs to get serious about chasing the miners for a tax on resources, in a sensible manner, not the back of the napkin crap they put up last time.
They need a sensible well thought out resource tax, that is flexible enough to keep our market advantage, but realistic enough to provide a sensible return for loss of a non renewable resource.
This plan of trying to find any individual who has money, then take it of them to give to someone who hasn't, will only end up with everyone on welfare.
You can't grow an economy, by punishing individual endeavour, all this will do is drive  avoidance and reduced effort.
All Labor seems to be concerned with, is the bleed of its base to the Greens, rather than focusing on a vision that reduces the load on the worker.
This then allows the individual to invest, innovate and strive, rather than worrying about who is going to be the next Government, to pick his/her pocket.
My rant for the week.


----------



## qldfrog (20 May 2019)

And a well designed resource tax should also be based on the volume of disturbed ground
You should not reward the waste of low yield ore forever  by only
 caring about the final  production
Overall and grossly, the environment cost and the ore which is given to a miner is linked to the disturbed ground, not the absence or not of efficiency of the miner
We should encourage the best use of our resources


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> And a well designed resource tax should also be based on the volume of disturbed ground
> You should not reward the waste of low yield ore forever  by only
> caring about the final  production
> Overall and grossly, the environment cost and the ore which is given to a miner is linked to the disturbed ground, not the absence or not of efficiency of the miner
> We should encourage the best use of our resources



As you say, it should be volumetric based.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> And a well designed resource tax should also be based on the volume of disturbed ground
> You should not reward the waste of low yield ore forever  by only
> caring about the final  production



Agreed although I think the detail needs some careful thought.

Don't want to waste the lower grade ore certainly.

On the other hand taxing someone for moving lots of clay and rock to get to the gold below, and gold's almost always at a very low concentration, could end up being somewhat punitive versus an iron ore mine where most of what's dug up can be sold as is.

A middle approach could be taxation on the basis of mineral content so counting all the iron ore, gold or whatever regardless of grade (so the volume approach) but not counting the clay or whatever's sitting above it and which will be put back afterward.

Or for fuels then tax on the basis of energy content not physical volume. So 1 tonne of 30 MJ / kg coal pays the same tax as 2 tonnes of 15 MJ / kg coal. Etc (not that anyone's mining 15 MJ / kg coal at the moment, both of those mines have shut in the past few years, but in principle that seems reasonable since the value is in the energy not the ash or water).


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed although I think the detail needs some careful thought.
> 
> Don't want to waste the lower grade ore certainly.
> 
> ...




With the amount of money that could be made, a department dedicated to working out the tax for all minerals, could be established.
The iron ore companies, were selling iron ore a couple of years ago for $30/ton, now it is selling for $100/ton, I'm sure a few dollars could be taken as a resource tax.
The miners say they pay tax through employing people, however with automation, the jobs are reducing and the tonnage removed is increasing.
It is just dumb not to introduce a volume based tax system, profit based tax can always be avoided, volume based would be difficult to avoid.IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> It is just dumb not to introduce a volume based tax system, profit based tax can always be avoided, volume based would be difficult to avoid.IMO



We're on the same page, my only concern's about the detail of measuring the volume but I'm sure that could be worked out as you say.

Taking it one step further, tax reductions or exemptions could be given for certain uses.

Eg no tax on iron ore or coking coal that goes into a steelworks located anywhere in Australia since having that industry is itself of benefit.


----------



## IFocus (20 May 2019)

Gents there will never be an increase in mining tax or revenue remember the state nat from the NW that ran on a $5 a tonne increase?

Money / wealth is power we will never be in Norways league for returning a counties resources for its own benefit.

Poor fella Australia, rich fella corporations.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Taking it one step further, tax reductions or exemptions could be given for certain uses.




Maybe any minerals tax should be in the form of an export tax, anything that is used internally is exempt.

That will give the "leveraging" effect you mentioned before and give a competitive advantage to our own industries.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> That will give the "leveraging" effect you mentioned before and give a competitive advantage to our own industries.



The way I'm looking at it's fairly straightforward.

Dig something up and load it onto a ship. Relatively few jobs and to make any real money requires rapid depletion of non-renewable resources.

Take the same minerals and turn them into something of value and now it's worth ~20 times as much (that's roughly the ratio for some non-ferrous metals) and there's an order of magnitude more economic activity, employment etc created.

Some years ago Tasmania was exporting 6 million tonnes of woodchips a year but it was the Norske Skog paper mill processing 0.4 million tonnes of that which was accounting for most of the economic benefits of it all. That says it all.

Same with any resource. Exporting iron ore and gas from places not far apart in WA is crazy really when we could instead be putting to them to far better use either locally or at least somewhere else within Australia.

Instead of selling ores and fuels of all kinds we'd be far better off selling half the volume at an order of magnitude higher price by doing the processing here. That way we get greater benefits and the resources last longer since whilst they're not scare they will run out someday that's a given.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 May 2019)

There's also backdoor ways of doing this if the idea of a direct tax is politically problematic.

Eg instead just pass a law that only government can own and operate shipping ports since they're deemed to be strategic national assets.

Then jack up the price for loading ships with unprocessed minerals = defacto mining tax.

The issue of taxes though is just detail. What we need is a government that stands up for Australia's national interests and drives a seriously hard bargain.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

The ridiculous situation is highlighted by Lynas rare earths, rather than process it here they built the plant in Malaysia, they have had nothing but trouble with the Malaysian Government.
Now they are going to build a second plant in the U.S, why havent they built a plant here?
We get sod all for the raw material, there is no jobs and the material is being removed, weird logic.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 May 2019)

Jim Chalmers put up a creditable performance on Q&A tonight.

Looks like he could be in the running for Labor leader.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Jim Chalmers put up a creditable performance on Q&A tonight.
> 
> Looks like he could be in the running for Labor leader.



Never heard of him, but a completely new face really is needed, too much baggage with most of the rest.IMO
McGowan in W.A came from a Navy background, not a union background and seems to be doing really well. Having said that, the opposition in W.A is just about non existent, without Barnett.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Now they are going to build a second plant in the U.S, why havent they built a plant here? We get sod all for the raw material, there is no jobs and the material is being removed, weird logic.



We need to become a competitive place in which to do such business and beyond that, either process it here or leave it in the ground.

I don't know much about that specific case but considering the nature of the activity I'll take a damn good guess that it's yet another negative consequence of the energy debacle we have in this country. A debacle that should never have occurred in a country with abundant wind, solar, coal, uranium, thorium and natural gas and not insignificant biomass, hydro and oil resources. 

Energy is a problem Australia just shouldn't have. To anyone looking from outside, well it's somewhat incredible really to think that it has ended up this way.


----------



## sptrawler (20 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> We need to become a competitive place in which to do such business and beyond that, either process it here or leave it in the ground.
> 
> I don't know much about that specific case but considering the nature of the activity I'll take a damn good guess that it's yet another negative consequence of the energy debacle we have in this country. A debacle that should never have occurred in a country with abundant wind, solar, coal, uranium, thorium and natural gas and not insignificant biomass, hydro and oil resources.
> 
> Energy is a problem Australia just shouldn't have. To anyone looking from outside, well it's somewhat incredible really to think that it has ended up this way.



Especially when the mineral is mined in W.A, plenty of gas and power.


----------



## jbocker (21 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The ridiculous situation is highlighted by Lynas rare earths, rather than process it here they built the plant in Malaysia, they have had nothing but trouble with the Malaysian Government.
> Now they are going to build a second plant in the U.S, why havent they built a plant here?
> We get sod all for the raw material, there is no jobs and the material is being removed, weird logic.



Why isn't the plant built here? There must be some clear reasoning for it. Then we need to do something about those reasons. Seems  horribly weird we can make money mining but not in refining. What is that really about?


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 May 2019)

jbocker said:


> What is that really about?



If they don't want to do it in Australia but are looking at the USA well then the answer that comes to mind is energy.


----------



## qldfrog (21 May 2019)

And regulations, bureaucracy
Time it takes to build anything here, the discovery of a secret site and an endangered butterfly the minute you do a building application, etc etc
And then if you run the business, the tax rate on it
I mean seriously, why would anyone build a business in Australia if you can build it elsewhere?
It was a no go for me even to consider opening an it branch here for our international,startup and i need zip infrastructure, can find people here and power is not an issue
No surprise we only have captured audience business here:
 duopoly woolies coles, westfield shopping center, a few construction companies, wheat cattle,mining as big companies here
But labour solutions is  more taxes....


----------



## qldfrog (21 May 2019)

We need a full reboot here or we head the Argentina way, with a chinese master instead of a US one
Think again about the above in 20y
In the meantime, half the population concern is about our australian contribution to global warming ..zip and the other half on MAFS latest drama


----------



## qldfrog (21 May 2019)

And about resource tax, yes obviously a bit more subtle than tonsof earth moved, but a volumetric based tax should be included
Do we really want to even see mining at all if we destroy enormous area for token minimal profit, and with taxpayer footing the bill for rehabilitations?


----------



## rederob (21 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> But labour solutions is  more taxes....



At what point will you work out there has been a Coalition government for the past 6 years, and as a result of last Saturday, 3 more to come!
Maybe, however, you were as well informed as everyone else about their specific policies for fixing the ills you mention, and which have persisted.
Maybe you can remind us what they were, and why they got returned to power to do so much good.


----------



## Junior (21 May 2019)

* Self-funded retirees (fully or partially self-funded).
* Members of self-managed super funds.
* Property investors.
* Small business owners.
* Anyone earning $100k+ per annum.

All of the above were targeted by Labor policies, and identified as individuals who will need to pay more tax.  Why is this inappropriate, and why didn't it work?  A few thoughts:

* We do not have a budget emergency, we are almost in surplus.  Far-reaching tax increases are not required, and will only serve to weaken the economy.
* The language used to support these policies was appalling.  Trying to turn one group of voters against another.... YOU deserve a tax cut, whilst YOU are not paying enough.  I thought Labor were about inclusiveness?  How are retirees supposed to find the extra cash?  Go back to work??
* Many of these individuals pay (and have paid) a LOT of tax, and employ people who pay a lot of tax.

Thankfully the approach didn't work.  I'm not saying the Coalition are an attractive option, but at least they will get out of the way for a while, and not impose tax hikes with a scatter-gun approach.

As for climate change....well I don't think either side had great policy in this area, and I'm not holding my breath whilst the Coalition still have the ''conservative'' faction dictating policy decisions.


----------



## qldfrog (21 May 2019)

As for climate change, let's use figure and not emotion , we can not even dent the actual emissions.should CO2 be the cause which i do not believe.. consequence but not cause
So let's get australia ready
City orotection border protection etc
As opposed to tge glivalist left, i i believe a government needs to put its citizen first
In Australia that means remediation and infrastructure strengthening


----------



## PZ99 (21 May 2019)

New Zealand has reported a huge spike in the number of Australians considering a move across the ditch since the federal election was called.

Immigration New Zealand said the number of visits to the New Zealand Now site surged tenfold on Sunday as Aussies woke to the news of a Coalition victory.

The website received more than 8500 visits from Australia on Sunday — about ten times the usual number — and 512 of those visitors registered interest in a Kiwi visa. That’s compared to just 20 people a week earlier, on May 12.

https://www.news.com.au/travel/worl...n/news-story/8f97c4756bc67ddc9e485634922f9da0

Bit extreme? I didn't vote for the Coalition but it's not all bad. They won't have the senate.
We have a few minor tax cuts coming as well as some much needed surpluses. 

And if we do have a recession we can blame the Liberals for once instead of the default position of blaming Labor every time they get in. 

Life's good!


----------



## HelloU (21 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> New Zealand has reported a huge spike in the number of Australians considering a move across the ditch since the federal election was called.
> 
> Immigration New Zealand said the number of visits to the New Zealand Now site surged tenfold on Sunday as Aussies woke to the news of a Coalition victory.
> 
> ...



hey, any thoughts on that ....cos my head struggles with that. what i mean is who is suddenly thinking about going to nz after a lnp win?

logic says it is the peeps that are now going to be worse off in aussie under lnp and see the grass greener in nz - and i am failing to work out who that really is that suddenly want out.

(nz wages growth or something i am not familiar with?)


----------



## sptrawler (21 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> New Zealand has reported a huge spike in the number of Australians considering a move across the ditch since the federal election was called.
> 
> Immigration New Zealand said the number of visits to the New Zealand Now site surged tenfold on Sunday as Aussies woke to the news of a Coalition victory.
> 
> ...



Maybe we could start a go fund me page for them.


----------



## sptrawler (21 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> hey, any thoughts on that ....cos my head struggles with that. what i mean is who is suddenly thinking about going to nz after a lnp win?
> 
> logic says it is the peeps that are now going to be worse off in aussie under lnp and see the grass greener in nz - and i am failing to work out who that really is that suddenly want out.
> 
> (nz wages growth or something i am not familiar with?)



Last time I was there everyone had three jobs, to make ends meet, that's why so many live here.lol


----------



## sptrawler (21 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The ridiculous situation is highlighted by Lynas rare earths, rather than process it here they built the plant in Malaysia, they have had nothing but trouble with the Malaysian Government.
> Now they are going to build a second plant in the U.S, why havent they built a plant here?
> We get sod all for the raw material, there is no jobs and the material is being removed, weird logic.



I just saw this in the paper, Lynas is going to add downstream processing here, to remove the radioactive component from the raw material, before it is sent to Malaysia and the U.S for upstream processing.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...l-no-clarity-on-malaysia-20190521-p51pic.html

Yep, the clever country.


----------



## PZ99 (21 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> hey, any thoughts on that ....cos my head struggles with that. what i mean is who is suddenly thinking about going to nz after a lnp win?
> 
> logic says it is the peeps that are now going to be worse off in aussie under lnp and see the grass greener in nz - and i am failing to work out who that really is that suddenly want out.
> 
> (nz wages growth or something i am not familiar with?)



NZ wages are worse than here. I have plenty of Kiwi's arriving at my work for the better money.

Maybe it's an ethnicity thing ?

Either that or half the GetUp! crew have a new assignment there LOL


----------



## HelloU (21 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I just saw this in the paper, Lynas is going to add downstream processing here, to remove the radioactive component from the raw material, before it is sent to Malaysia and the U.S for upstream processing.
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...l-no-clarity-on-malaysia-20190521-p51pic.html
> 
> Yep, the clever country.



i logged back in so i could give a like to that ..... i feel ur pain ....... i am gunna buy some sth oz desert land just in case they need somewhere to put those 44's  (half glass full sorta bloke is me)


----------



## Miss Hale (21 May 2019)

So Plybersek is not running for the Labor leadership after all citing ye olde family reasons as the excuse. I'm surprised as I thought she would have jumped at the chance, plus the Labor voters I spoke to like her. Not to mention she is female, surely Labor aren't going to elect another old white male as their next leader


----------



## PZ99 (21 May 2019)

Miss Hale said:


> So Plybersek is not running for the Labor leadership after all citing ye olde family reasons as the excuse. I'm surprised as I thought she would have jumped at the chance, plus the Labor voters I spoke to like her. Not to mention she is female, surely Labor aren't going to elect another old white male as their next leader



If Youtube have a video of her initial speech in parliament it'll be quite easy why she can't run.
Tanya Plibersek is a classic example of how real beliefs get eroded away by the party line.

She's not half the Greenie she used to be


----------



## jbocker (21 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> And regulations, bureaucracy
> Time it takes to build anything here, the discovery of a secret site and an endangered butterfly the minute you do a building application, etc etc
> And then if you run the business, the tax rate on it
> I mean seriously, why would anyone build a business in Australia if you can build it elsewhere?
> ...




If we use the same site as the mine for manufacturing then a lot of land issues go away. I know all your points are valid and real, but we need leadership that turns our thinking and culture around for the better, across as many aspects as possible.


----------



## gartley (21 May 2019)

It's interesting how our dollar has behaved since the coalition took charge back in 2013. It's lost 30% in that time!!!
Probably not related so much because other factors such USD strength and interest rates but still interesting nonetheless...
Totally flies in the face if Morrison's stable economy under their watch.
Is the market right in this instance?In the Labor era preceding 2008 till 2013 it rose from 60c to $1.11


----------



## sptrawler (21 May 2019)

gartley said:


> It's interesting how our dollar has behaved since the coalition took charge back in 2013. It's lost 30% in that time!!!
> Probably not related so much because other factors such USD strength and interest rates but still interesting nonetheless...
> Totally flies in the face if Morrison's stable economy under their watch.
> Is the market right in this instance?In the Labor era preceding 2008 till 2013 it rose from 60c to $1.11



That is a good point as you say Trump and the $U.S, have got a lot stronger but we have gone no where, the Government has been hamstrung by a hostile Senate and nothing has been achieved in six years.
The thing that is really amazing, is the fact they have been returned, it really does show how on the nose Labor was.
Absolutely stunning, IMO, how Labor could have lost that one, truly amazing.


----------



## gartley (21 May 2019)

Yes it certainly was a shock to many.  But actually could turn out to be a blessing in disguise for them.
Last time they got it in 2008 it was just before the GFC. A difficult period for all and didn't make their job easier. 
If another crisis eventuates, then it will be the coalition under the pump.


----------



## PZ99 (21 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> That is a good point as you say Trump and the $U.S, have got a lot stronger but we have gone no where, the Government has been hamstrung by a hostile Senate and nothing has been achieved in six years.
> The thing that is really amazing, is the fact they have been returned, it really does show how on the nose Labor was.
> Absolutely stunning, IMO, how Labor could have lost that one, truly amazing.



I should've stuck to my original prediction that this result would be analogous to 2004.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/994979/

But as they say at Bathurst - there's always next time


----------



## wayneL (21 May 2019)

I've just started a new company,  offering bulk deals for sore losers to emigrate to NZ. Jobs available are production of quaffable chardonay,  stormtroopers in Jacinta's Ministry of Information and Gaol wardens  for all the conservatives they are working on fitting up as Nazis.

I hear there is a burgeoning industry for Hijabs and prayer mats also.


----------



## HelloU (21 May 2019)

jbocker said:


> If we use the same site as the mine for manufacturing then a lot of land issues go away. I know all your points are valid and real, but we need leadership that turns our thinking and culture around for the better, across as many aspects as possible.



not sure if u were talking radioactive waste here, but i found that comment very thought provoking. the logic is flawless, but could it possibly be allowed? just sprinkle the waste over the pit it came out of. 

(kinda reminds me of the abandoned baby whale conundrum in NSW - if national parks fed the poor thing it may have an allergic reaction and die. so they did not take the risk, and it starved to death. as sad as that is, the bit that sticks in my mind is that the whole time the calf was flopping about in the shallows starving to death, the 'authorites' kept a close eye on it from their massive boat with twin 250hp outboards, keeping the trouble makers away who may have tried to feed the thing)


----------



## sptrawler (21 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> not sure if u were talking radioactive waste here, but i found that comment very thought provoking. the logic is flawless, but could it possibly be allowed? just sprinkle the waste over the pit it came out of.
> 
> (kinda reminds me of the abandoned baby whale conundrum in NSW - if national parks fed the poor thing it may have an allergic reaction and die. so they did not take the risk, and it starved to death. as sad as that is, the bit that sticks in my mind is that the whole time the calf was flopping about in the shallows starving to death, the 'authorites' kept a close eye on it from their massive boat with twin 250hp outboards, keeping the trouble makers away who may have tried to feed the thing)




Then they probably used tractors to haul it onto land and took it to the tip, so that it wouldn't attract hungry sharks, they could go and look for food at a surf beach instead.


----------



## HelloU (21 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Then they probably used tractors to haul it onto land and took it to the tip, so that it wouldn't attract hungry sharks, they could go and look for food at a surf beach instead.



reckon u used one too many words in that post. remove 'probably' and i reckon u would be spot on.

back pats and beers all round after that job was 'successfully' completed.

the whole thing is in the dictionary under 'irony'.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 May 2019)

Biggest problem with Labor so far as I’m concerned is their buying into and adding to manufactured conflict.

Age wars, gender wars and so on.

Leave that crap to those in the business of limiting the news and focus on the real issues faced by the country and ordinary people. Same goes for all sides of politics.


----------



## PZ99 (21 May 2019)

The above post is a nice lead-in to this article. A good read if you've got 5 minutes...
_
‘The PM was talking about my migrant parents when he spoke about the ‘quiet’ Australians’_

_https://www.news.com.au/national/fe...s/news-story/16a98c781beaa7870eece610d3c9c889_


----------



## Bill M (21 May 2019)

It's a point many writers here have been saying all along about the "quite Australians". As mentioned before I use to live in Tony Abbott's electorate but I too moved out of Sydney. I ended up in an electorate that I never heard of and it is what they call a "bellwether" seat. It was held by 1.1% by the Liberal Candidate. This area is a place a lot of Sydney retirees come to live. I was not surprised that the Liberals picked up much more votes this time around, call it the retiree factor.

Tonight on the news, I heard Bowen saying that the Labor Party's Franking Credits policy was probably wrong and was prepared to let it go. Then he said something along the lines of "but it wasn't the reason as to why they lost the election". Well maybe not totally but it certainly meant a lot to enough voters in this area and many other retiree areas to vote against them. The point I'm trying make here is that they are still in denial, just own it, you people stuffed up!  

I would not like to see Bowen take charge of the Labor Party, he was the one who said "if you don't like it you can vote against us". Well done champ, well done, what a wonderful guy you are, NOT!


----------



## sptrawler (21 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> The above post is a nice lead-in to this article. A good read if you've got 5 minutes...
> _
> ‘The PM was talking about my migrant parents when he spoke about the ‘quiet’ Australians’_
> 
> _https://www.news.com.au/national/fe...s/news-story/16a98c781beaa7870eece610d3c9c889_



That pretty well nailed it PZ99.
If you ask my kids what holidays were like, they would tell you it was travelling across Australia in a Mitsubishi Express and living in a tent.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Biggest problem with Labor so far as I’m concerned is their buying into and adding to manufactured conflict.
> 
> Age wars, gender wars and so on.
> 
> Leave that crap to those in the business of limiting the news and focus on the real issues faced by the country and ordinary people. Same goes for all sides of politics.




Which is why they need a candidate from the Right of their Party which would be about the Centre of the population. 

Shorten tried to pander to too many groups, it made the majority wonder if he was on the anti Anglo Saxon campaign of the far Lefties.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 May 2019)

The first crack in the Coalition's meagre policy agenda.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...or-first-home-buyers-risky-economist/11134020


----------



## jbocker (21 May 2019)

Hmmm not sure about that I think this was the first crack...
https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...edes-delay-to-parliament-20190521-p51pgs.html

Cant get it through this  financial year so it gets delayed 12 months. Plenty of time to thwart that promise.

Cmon ScoMo get parliament in place and put it through. Let the voting public experience the miracle, Reward the vote we have given you.


----------



## Tink (22 May 2019)

*Coalition victory in Melbourne seat of Chisholm hands Morrison majority government*

_The Liberal Party has retained the eastern Melbourne seat of Chisholm with the electoral authority calling the result on Tuesday afternoon to hand a clear majority to Scott Morrison’s re-elected Coalition government.

The Prime Minister now has 76 seats in Parliament’s lower house, and his party is leading the count in two other seats Bass in Tasmania and Macquarie in NSW, putting a total of 78 seats well in sight._

_https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...lear-majority-government-20190521-p51pp7.html_


----------



## sptrawler (22 May 2019)

jbocker said:


> Hmmm not sure about that I think this was the first crack...
> https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...edes-delay-to-parliament-20190521-p51pgs.html
> 
> Cant get it through this  financial year so it gets delayed 12 months. Plenty of time to thwart that promise.
> ...



Sounds as though they heard your wish JB.

https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...8-billion-income-tax-cut-20190521-p51pq8.html


----------



## Junior (22 May 2019)

jbocker said:


> Hmmm not sure about that I think this was the first crack...
> https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...edes-delay-to-parliament-20190521-p51pgs.html
> 
> Cant get it through this  financial year so it gets delayed 12 months. Plenty of time to thwart that promise.
> ...




They will definitely get those immediate offsets through, one way or the other.  It just won't be by 1st July.


----------



## drsmith (22 May 2019)

The following SMH article is best read with a light rendition of Solidarity Forever playing in the background.


> Queensland king prawns, salted caramel espresso martinis, massages at their desk - the Labor high command were in a mood for celebrating on election eve.




https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...per-before-crushing-loss-20190520-p51p6z.html


----------



## trading_rookie (22 May 2019)

*Tonight on the news, I heard Bowen saying that the Labor Party's Franking Credits policy was probably wrong and was 
prepared to let it go.*

Never trust a pollie. Howard said the same about GST while shadow leader...


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2019)

Well you can't say voters aren't passionate.
From a Margaret River councillor.

https://thewest.com.au/politics/fed...s-by-fk-you-liberal-voter-post-ng-b881208720z


----------



## PZ99 (23 May 2019)

Someone who can't accept the result of a vote is who doesn't understand the democracy that was bought, fought and paid for by our diggers. ScoMo worked his arse off and won. It's a good thing!


----------



## SirRumpole (23 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Someone who can't accept the result of a vote is who doesn't understand the democracy that was bought, fought and paid for by our diggers. ScoMo worked his arse off and won. It's a good thing!




Yep, it's great that this election has rewarded small minded sloganeering scare campaigns with virtually nil policy developement.

If that's what people want then they got what they deserved.


----------



## PZ99 (23 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yep, it's great that this election has rewarded small minded sloganeering scare campaigns with virtually nil policy developement.
> 
> If that's what people want then they got what they deserved.



Hence the appealingly low primary vote for both major parties. QLD being the perfect example.


----------



## rederob (23 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Hence the appealingly low primary vote for both major parties. QLD being the perfect example.



As a West Australian I can confirm that Queensland is renown for setting a low bar when it comes to politics .
As Clive Palmer said, it's was the only way he got over the hurdles that led to a seat in the Reps.
Or was that Pauline in the Senate?
Fraser Anning?
Help.....................


----------



## macca (23 May 2019)

On many of the Labor / Green rants posted after the election I keep reading about the "fear campaign" by the Liberals, it seems the old saying of "you see your own faults in others" still rings true.

For the past three years all of Australia has been smothered in a fear campaign from the Left / Green alliance that "we are all going to die"

I would suggest that the suggested fear of death is rather more threatening than anything the Libs put out there.

Because of this blizzard of BS, Many of the inexperienced, younger generation truly believe the world will end before 2030, nothing the Libs mentioned comes even close to this disgraceful act by the climate alarmists.

I believe that the silent majority who live and work outside the echo chamber look around and can't see any changes so they dismiss the whole Labor package


----------



## HelloU (23 May 2019)

the alternate view is ...... what if it is true?

i do not know (and still struggle with bringing the woolly mammoth back to life), but think that every person owing 5 petrol powered cars each to go to the shops to buy a litre of milk, and every single consumed item being wrapped inside 7 layers of plastic, and fresh strawberries being flown around the planet every day, well, i think that cannot really be a great thing for nature for the long term.

the promised land is hopefully in the middle somewhere .........


----------



## moXJO (23 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yep, it's great that this election has rewarded small minded sloganeering scare campaigns with virtually nil policy developement.



Thats how bad labor policy was. 

The great "lib fear campaign" is just the Australian lefties version of "Russian collusion".
Labor sucked a lot more than libs,  failed to sell their message and insulted numerous groups. Not to mention a leader with as much appeal as stepping in dog sht.
Various media personalities are now trying to say labor went ok. Delusional stuff.


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2019)

I think, labor saying a scare campaign cost them the election, just shows how out of touch they are.


----------



## rederob (23 May 2019)

macca said:


> Because of this blizzard of BS, Many of the inexperienced, younger generation truly believe the world will end before 2030, nothing the Libs mentioned comes even close to this disgraceful act by the climate alarmists



No.
The younger generation are better informed.
There are instead many who attribute BS claims like yours to them, because they just don't get the science.


----------



## moXJO (23 May 2019)

rederob said:


> No.
> The younger generation are better informed.
> There are instead many who attribute BS claims like yours to them, because they just don't get the science.



I'm not sure if they are better informed. They just lean to protecting the environment. Most couldn't sprout figures or data,  only parrot twitter,  celebrities or action groups.


----------



## HelloU (23 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I think, labor saying a scare campaign cost them the election, just shows how out of touch they are.



i would like to compliment u on that terrific "i" statement. It helped me add to the picture i have of u.

speaking of pictures ...... do u have any naughty pictures of ur significant other? (do u know the rest of that one?)

edit: u too moxjo


----------



## macca (23 May 2019)

rederob said:


> No.
> The younger generation are better informed.
> There are instead many who attribute BS claims like yours to them, because they just don't get the science.




I have to disagree, all they have is a head full of mush put there by the left leaning anti Liberal teachers union.

As has been clearly demonstrated by various Universities around OZ if you publish research that disagrees with the leftist line you may be vilified, sacked and lambasted on social media.

Now, that is a real scare campaign straight out of the Leftist/ Union playbook. Every union member I know says that you vote how the leaders want you to vote or bear the consequences


----------



## moXJO (23 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> edit: u too moxjo



Hey.
"I" don't like posts that include me as an afterthought. 

Plus your post is a little cryptic. I'm not sure how to feel about it.


----------



## HelloU (23 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> Hey.
> "I" don't like posts that include me as an afterthought.
> 
> Plus your post is a little cryptic. I'm not sure how to feel about it.



(that capital i is a little confronting ......)

all good, is a good thing.
wrote it for spt and before i could post u had already posted. so the edit was more about me recognising that u had also done an "i" post and so i made the effort to edit my post to recognise ur work. (i am tired now after all this effort that i have gone to)

(unless u mean u do not understand the "i" thing ...... another thread has details of that - not sure which one - but a today thing intended to calm the farm)


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> i would like to compliment u on that terrific "i" statement. It helped me add to the picture i have of u.



One would hope it is flattering.



HelloU said:


> speaking of pictures ...... do u have any naughty pictures of ur significant other? (do u know the rest of that one?)



I've already posted a picture of the significant other, wouldn't say it was naughty, but it does depend on your personal bent.


----------



## moXJO (23 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> (that capital i is a little confronting ......)
> 
> all good, is a good thing.
> wrote it for spt and before i could post u had already posted. so the edit was more about me recognising that u had also done an "i" post and so i made the effort to edit my post to recognise ur work. (i am tired now after all this effort that i have gone to)
> ...



I'm just stirring


----------



## HelloU (23 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> One would hope it is flattering.
> 
> 
> I've already posted a picture of the significant other, wouldn't say it was naughty, but it does depend on your personal bent.



ummm ...... the rest of it goes ....... then do u want some? 
seems a little not so hilarious now but whatevs.


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> ummm ...... the rest of it goes ....... then do u want some?
> seems a little not so hilarious now but whatevs.



Yes, it probably should have been posted in the joke thread, but I guess everyone's already heard it.


----------



## HelloU (23 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Yes, it probably should have been posted in the joke thread, but I guess everyone's already heard it.



cos that is where the not funny stuff goes? (prolly not what u meant)
cheers


----------



## wayneL (23 May 2019)

Scare campaigns? 

I think much of Labor's agenda was terrifying without the Libs saying a word.

Just Sayin'


----------



## rederob (23 May 2019)

macca said:


> I have to disagree, all they have is a head full of mush put there by the left leaning anti Liberal teachers union.



Claims without evidence don't wash with me.


macca said:


> As has been clearly demonstrated by various Universities around OZ if you publish research that disagrees with the leftist line you may be vilified, sacked and lambasted on social media.



See comment above.
The best research is that which is novel, not mainstream.
Academics who publish rubbish, or make rubbish claims, get called out and sometimes tossed out.
People who are clueless make equally rubbish claims on a regular basis.


----------



## overhang (23 May 2019)

I have to laugh at the irony of some on here who complain that Labor were going to run a welfare state while at the same time being relieved that their franking credits aren't going to be taken away.  You do realize that franking credits are a form of welfare?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Scare campaigns?
> 
> I think much of Labor's agenda was terrifying without the Libs saying a word.
> 
> Just Sayin'




Yep, really scary providing cheaper child care or more help for cancer patients or even pensioners teeth.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 May 2019)

overhang said:


> I have to laugh at the irony of some on here who complain that Labor were going to run a welfare state while at the same time being relieved that their franking credits aren't going to be taken away.  You do realize that franking credits are a form of welfare?




+20


----------



## wayneL (23 May 2019)

overhang said:


> I have to laugh at the irony of some on here who complain that Labor were going to run a welfare state while at the same time being relieved that their franking credits aren't going to be taken away.  You do realize that franking credits are a form of welfare?



Franking credits are not welfare, it's essentially the same as wage earners getting a tax refund. It's a refund of company tax already paid.


----------



## wayneL (23 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yep, really scary providing cheaper child care or more help for cancer patients or even pensioners teeth.



Ugghhh... I did say "much of" now didn't I Hroace?


----------



## overhang (23 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Franking credits are not welfare, it's essentially the same as wage earners getting a tax refund. It's a refund of company tax already paid.




That tax the company paid is owed to the government revenue pool, that refund is taken from government revenue and given to individuals.  It's welfare, just because the beneficiaries don't have to lineup down at centrelink like the other poor plebs doesn't change that.


----------



## wayneL (23 May 2019)

overhang said:


> That tax the company paid is owed to the government revenue pool, that refund is taken from government revenue and given to individuals.  It's welfare, just because the beneficiaries don't have to lineup down at centrelink like the other poor plebs doesn't change that.



You are *effectively* advocating double taxation.


----------



## overhang (23 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> You are *effectively* advocating double taxation.




No, I'm just not advocating no taxation which is what this proposal was all about, not the complete removal of dividend imputation.  If a company pays tax, then that company pays out a dividend out of the retained earning after tax and if that dividend is paid to an individual who pay's no income tax then that individual is entitled to a refund equal to the tax the company paid.  In this situation the government has earned no revenue from that proportion of the company tax paid, all at the benefit of an individual.  So forget double taxation this is zero taxation.

I'm not sure how one can't agree that this is a form of welfare, the government has received no tax from company profits because that taxed proportion of the company profits have been refunded to an individual.


----------



## rederob (23 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Franking credits are not welfare, it's essentially the same as wage earners getting a tax refund. It's a refund of company tax already paid.



In the case of wage earners the franking credit *normalises *the dividend as tax was paid by the company.
In the case of retirees funded via an SMSF, no tax is payable by the fund.  Therefore that component of the received dividend which was taxed now turns into a credit, which the ATO refunds to the SMSF.
It also means that this reduces the revenue the ATO would ordinarily have received had the SMSF still been in "accumulation" phase.
So it's very different to what you claim.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 May 2019)

The biggest problem we've got in Australia is too much division, ignorance and point scoring.

Most of the rest is just detail flowing from that.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 May 2019)

overhang said:


> I'm not sure how one can't agree that this is a form of welfare, the government has received no tax from a company profits because that taxed proportion of the company profits have been refunded to an individual.



The issue is that lots of other people get, in practice, the same arrangement of paying no tax on their income and that Labor proposed to remove it only for a small portion of the population.

If their argument is that it needs to go well then get rid of it for everyone. I don't agree that should be done but it should'd be something that sets up a false divide of one group versus another.


----------



## rederob (23 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The issue is that lots of other people get, in practice, the same arrangement of paying no tax on their income and that Labor proposed to remove it only for a small portion of the population.



I cannot work out what this means.
Help please.


----------



## overhang (23 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The issue is that lots of other people get, in practice, the same arrangement of paying no tax on their income and that Labor proposed to remove it only for a small portion of the population.
> 
> If their argument is that it needs to go well then get rid of it for everyone. I don't agree that should be done but it should'd be something that sets up a false divide of one group versus another.




The difference is though while some people are able to use incentives etc to get their taxable income down to zero they aren't paid a negative tax like these SMSF retirees.  It's one thing to pay no tax, it's another to be paid tax aka welfare.


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2019)

rederob said:


> In the case of retirees funded via an SMSF, no tax is payable by the fund.  Therefore that component of the received dividend which was taxed now turns into a credit, which the ATO refunds to the SMSF.
> *It also means that this reduces the revenue the ATO would ordinarily have received had the SMSF still been in "accumulation" phase*.
> So it's very different to what you claim.




If the changes had been enacted, from my understanding the following would have happened:
Just for example purposes, round figures.
If the SMSF was in pension phase and received say $1,000 dividend, this also had a franking of $300, so the fund received $1,300. With the proposed changes the $300 would stay with the ATO.
If the SMSF was in accumulation phase, then the franking credit could be used to offset tax due, so instead of the fund receiving $1,150 and the ATO keeping $150, the ATO keep the $300.
*So really whether in accumulation or pension, the earnings are the same $1,000*.
That is my understanding and was why they stated, that if you had enough people in accumulation phase, they could absorb the excess franking credits.
The problem is, when they introduced super, they didn't say the first X amount was tax free, they said in pension phase it was a tax free vehicle.
In reality what they are saying is in accumulation you get the franking credit, in pension phase you don't.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 May 2019)

rederob said:


> I cannot work out what this means.
> Help please.



The Tax Free Threshold of $18,200 provides a 0% rate of income tax for everyone, even people earning $ millions a year don't pay a cent of tax on their first $18,200.

Between $18,201 and $37,000 the Income Tax rate is 19%.

It thus seems entirely fair that if someone has an income from any source, including franked dividends, which is _genuinely_ in this range then they should be paying these rates of tax.

Since the Company Tax rate is 30%, for someone with franked dividends as their only source of income, as could plausibly be the case for a self-funded retiree or otherwise not working person, they would thus need to be receiving a refund from their franking credits in order to pay the same rate of tax as anyone else earning these amounts by whatever means (bank interest, part time work, whatever).

Note that I'm referring to _genuine_ income here not any elaborate loopholes etc. So that's for example someone who's worked a normal job paying roughly average wages, saved and invested outside superannuation, and who finds themselves retired in their 50's. I don't mean someone with $ millions who's hidden it wherever etc so as to avoid tax.

If Labor wants to go after people rorting the system to avoid paying tax then they have my full support in doing so. But in doing so, don't harm (for example) a bricklayer who's hands are stuffed after 35 years laying bricks and who's now living from his investments genuinely earning a modest amount. He's not claiming welfare, it's his money he earned and saved, so let him have the Tax Free Threshold and the 19% rate same as everyone else with the same level of income gets. Sure he's not paying tax but then nor is anyone else on a low income and he's saving the taxpayers money by having kept himself off welfare so that's enough surely.

Using my bricklayer example, well if he hadn't saved and invested then he'd now be on the dole wasting everyone's time applying for jobs he's got zero chance of getting. He's already paid tax, likely at a rate of 32.5% on the profits of his investments whilst he was still working and he's not claiming welfare so don't hit him with a 30% tax on his dividends. He ain't the big end of town that's for sure.

For those who are doing creative accounting to turn $10 million into $10K and pay now tax, sure close those loopholes and stop them doing it. Just don't hurt the genuine low income investor in doing so.


----------



## Macquack (23 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Franking credits are not welfare, it's essentially the same as wage earners getting a tax refund. It's a refund of company tax already paid.



I am surprised that the gold entitlement to get a refund of company tax paid does not extent to demanding a refund of the GST component paid by same company. Poor dears in retirement are still paying GST, what an injustice.

It is only a rort if you are not in on it.


----------



## Bill M (23 May 2019)

The franking credits policy Labor wanted to bring in was discriminatory and unfair and it was a major reason why it lost the election.

Here is a working example (one of many) of why it was so wrong.

To get any sort of part pension you would need to have assets of less than 567k approx.

Person 1, has a 550k share portfolio and receives franking credits because they get $10 a week of part pension. These franking credits total approx 6k.

Person 2, has a 580k share portfolio but does not receive any pension because he is over the assets limit. He does not receive his franking credits because Labor thinks he is rich.

In this example they both currently get refunded around 6k in credits. Why should person 1 get a 6k windfall and person 2 can not? How on earth is this fair? Just a dumb, unfair cash grab on those that are fractionally better off.


----------



## moXJO (23 May 2019)

overhang said:


> I have to laugh at the irony of some on here who complain that Labor were going to run a welfare state while at the same time being relieved that their franking credits aren't going to be taken away.  You do realize that franking credits are a form of welfare?



dividends are not payed by government last time I checked. Governments leach off various things then claim its their money.


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2019)

Let's be honest, three elections ago labor were calling for the family home to be included in the asset test, it was dropped.
last election, they were going to tax superannuation earnings above $100,000 at 15%, it was dropped.
This election they were going to tax superannuation by removing franking credits.
They were going to increase CGT from the current 50% to 75%.
They were only going to allow those who could afford to build a new house, to negative gear.
Really is there any wonder, they increased their vote in wealthy areas and had a swing against them in poorer areas.
The only ones who would be happy, would be the wealthy that hold mega bucks through a company structure and those on some form of public service superannuation pension that is indexed to cpi.


----------



## sptrawler (23 May 2019)

overhang said:


> The difference is though while some people are able to use incentives etc to get their taxable income down to zero they aren't paid a negative tax like these SMSF retirees.  It's one thing to pay no tax, it's another to be paid tax aka welfare.



Well to use your example, if a married couple of pension age get their savings down from $1m to $150k, it would cost the Government $40k/annum as opposed to $6k in franking credits.
That is dumb, not only are you paying them a franking credit, you are giving them $36k in welfare as well.


----------



## qldfrog (24 May 2019)

But 


sptrawler said:


> Well to use your example, if a married couple of pension age get their savings down from $1m to $150k, it would cost the Government $40k/annum as opposed to $6k in franking credits.
> That is dumb, not only are you paying them a franking credit, you are giving them $36k in welfare as well.



Having people on welfare is the ultimate aim of socialism
SirRumpole and other may deny it and see it as foolish
France who has been under socialism or similar since 1980 is reaching 43pc of population receiving some welfare, and that does not count one of the higher percentage of public servants in the world
Fool yourself if you think our Labour and australia would be different
Remove private money, get to an omnipotent state is the so called progressive agenda..
look at answers above...
History does not seem to teach us anything


----------



## PZ99 (24 May 2019)

Bill M said:


> The franking credits policy Labor wanted to bring in was discriminatory and unfair and it was a major reason why it lost the election.
> 
> Here is a working example (one of many) of why it was so wrong.
> 
> ...



Yep - there's the rub. 30k of assets is the difference between getting two payments (pension + credits) and getting nothing. Labor need to redesign it rather than just say take it or leave it.

If the policy was supposed to cut welfare it fails because it's a disincentive for a retiree to grow their assets and get off that welfare. People would merely put their $30K under the bed.

Don't put it in the ground or you might cop the mining tax that was equally self defeating


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> If the SMSF was in pension phase and received say $1,000 dividend, this also had a franking of $300, so the fund received $1,300. With the proposed changes the $300 would stay with the ATO.
> If the SMSF was in accumulation phase, then the franking credit could be used to offset tax due, so instead of the fund receiving $1,150 and the ATO keeping $150, the ATO keep the $300.
> *So really whether in accumulation or pension, the earnings are the same $1,000*.



If the fund is fully in accumulation phase, and has a marginal tax rate of 15%, this $1,000 of income would be deemed to have a tax liability of $150 and the $150 already paid by the company would be refunded.   *So in accumulation the earnings are $1,150 and not $1000*.
Concessional tax treatment is a reason some people have SMSFs.
In my SMSF a portion has been allocated to accumulation and another to pension, so it's not simple.
WayneL's claim related to wage earners who have very different tax arrangements.


----------



## overhang (24 May 2019)

moXJO said:


> dividends are not payed by government last time I checked. Governments leach off various things then claim its their money.




No one is touching the dividend, they are touching the company tax component of that dividend, company tax that is owed to the government.  Your basically advocating no company tax with this policy.


----------



## overhang (24 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well to use your example, if a married couple of pension age get their savings down from $1m to $150k, it would cost the Government $40k/annum as opposed to $6k in franking credits.
> That is dumb, not only are you paying them a franking credit, you are giving them $36k in welfare as well.




How did this couple get their savings down from 1 million to 150k?  Is part of those savings counting their tax free super?  Of that savings it sounds like only about 300k or so was invested in shares.

The policy was not without it's flaws, it should have been means tested and it should have been grandfathered in and slowly phased out.  I would sympathize with those who have planned their whole retirement based on the franking credits as an income stream only to have the rug pulled out from under them.

But I would still like to point out it is a form of welfare, it's removed tax owed to the government by the way of company tax and given it to an individual, tax payers are subsidising these individuals.  So like I said it's quite ironic that there are many on here with the nerve to attack a welfare state while simultaneously enjoying a retirement that is part paid by the tax payers purse.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 May 2019)

Labor handled the franking credits changes very badly in my opinion.

I appreciate the intent of the scheme, but they should have said something like

_"if you want to claim franking refunds, then tell us your real income (inclusive of payments such as tax free super which are not required to be shown on tax returns), and if your total income is less than (say) the median wage, then you can keep your rebates, otherwise it is reduced dollar for dollar above that amount"._

That would have softened the impact of the scheme, assuming that the great Australian public were bright enough to understand.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

overhang said:


> No one is touching the dividend, they are touching the company tax component of that dividend, company tax that is owed to the government.  Your basically advocating no company tax with this policy.



True.
But as Bill M and others point out, there are transitioning consequences at the margin.
I wrote to Bill Shorten before the election and pointed out the problem that Bill M mentioned above.  I suggested that to avoid it they add a "sweetener" for SMSFs which were marginal (ie, allow a relatively small quantum of imputation credits to be returned).  I actually suggested the simplest treatment would be a cutoff after $18,200 (which is the tax free threshold - and is along smurf's post at #909).  Thus, I proposed that SMSFs in the retirement phase allow all dividend income, plus up to an extra $18,200 being returned via imputation credits, which I reckon is pretty generous.
That's now history.


----------



## overhang (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> True.
> But as Bill M and others point out, there are transitioning consequences at the margin.
> I wrote to Bill Shorten before the election and pointed out the problem that Bill M mentioned above.  I suggested that to avoid it they add a "sweetener" for SMSFs which were marginal (ie, allow a relatively small quantum of imputation credits to be returned).  I actually suggested the simplest treatment would be a cutoff after $18,200 (which is the tax free threshold - and is along smurf's post at #909).  Thus, I proposed that SMSFs in the retirement phase allow all dividend income, plus up to an extra $18,200 being returned via imputation credits, which I reckon is pretty generous.
> That's now history.




It's probably a good starting point, I think the goal should have been to gradually phase out the tax credits.  It's not a sustainable policy, currently costing us $5 billion annually and to be $8 billion soon, admittedly this figure does not account for those on the fringe who will move onto a partial pension or full pension.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (24 May 2019)

Gee 5 billion a year from people who worked and built the country. Take it from the welfare expenditure at 170Billion

How much was Rudds wife getting in Gov money for trying to get people a job, or doing useless training.

It backfired, was beautiful to watch.Every campaign Labor just want to pinch your money.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

overhang said:


> It's probably a good starting point, I think the goal should have been to gradually phase out the tax credits.  It's not a sustainable policy, currently costing us $5 billion annually and to be $8 billion soon, admittedly this figure does not account for those on the fringe who will move onto a partial pension or full pension.



In part.
The goal should be to get as many off pensions as possible *and keep them off*.
Labor's policy would have led to many smaller SMSFs quickly running out of money and falling back to the safety net of a government pension.
That's not fiscally clever.
And that's apart from Labor failing to do anything about the Bill M issue.
I definitely agree that a phasing out of the credit would have been a better way to go, providing it could be tweaked so that it remained advantageous for people to keep their SMSFs as their primary means of retirement income.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Gee 5 billion a year from people who worked and built the country. Take it from the welfare expenditure at 170Billion



Just be aware that the majority is from very wealthy people who used their money to make money, and not their labour.
But keep posting please, as it shows us why sensible tax reform is difficult when so many cannot work out how it all fits together.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

tricky rob, cos welfare goes to peeps who have not used any labour ....... to attribute a "value" to money (in a tax view) based on the "effort" involved is a big thinking change for oz.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

i tend to think the opposite ....
i reckon everyone should get the pension (non means tested) and all other income just gets taxed at individual rates (no super). That does not solve the franking credit refund question but it gets rid of a fair bit of the "problem".

issues to sort with that though ...


----------



## overhang (24 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Gee 5 billion a year from people who worked and built the country. Take it from the welfare expenditure at 170Billion
> 
> How much was Rudds wife getting in Gov money for trying to get people a job, or doing useless training.
> 
> It backfired, was beautiful to watch.Every campaign Labor just want to pinch your money.




Well over 50 billion of that already goes to those that worked and built the country.  I don't see that those who receive that 6 billion have worked harder than the others, certainly smarter.  But I look at a work colleague who has worked his ass off his whole life and at 60 could only dream of a nest egg that would net him a welfare bonus from the taxpayer that would allow him to retire early. 

I noticed you missed Dutton wife in your little rant who receives gov money to run childcare centers.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

overhang said:


> How did this couple get their savings down from 1 million to 150k?  Is part of those savings counting their tax free super?  Of that savings it sounds like only about 300k or so was invested in shares.
> 
> The policy was not without it's flaws, it should have been means tested and it should have been grandfathered in and slowly phased out.  I would sympathize with those who have planned their whole retirement based on the franking credits as an income stream only to have the rug pulled out from under them.
> 
> But I would still like to point out it is a form of welfare, it's removed tax owed to the government by the way of company tax and given it to an individual, tax payers are subsidising these individuals.  So like I said it's quite ironic that there are many on here with the nerve to attack a welfare state while simultaneously enjoying a retirement that is part paid by the tax payers purse.



hey
to me, ur argument of govt's keeping company tax is valid and logical ...... but the idea that all individuals use the same tax scales consistently is also valid and logical (conundrum)

a broad question for you (not a trap),
the aussie govt gets a certain amount of net tax income right now.
should this level of total tax be increased?, or if the govt was to suddenly get more tax income should they lower the taxes somewhere else to maintain current tax take levels?
(easy answer is to pay off debt - not what i am trying to find out - i am more interested in the thought process of "too much tax is never enough" versus "1cent tax is too much" type of thinking)

the franking credit debate does NOT involve peeps talking about how companies transfer franking credits between themselves to negate further taxation on "profits"......  I also wonder how the discussion would change if the top individual tax rate was less than the company rate. take that as a comment.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> hey
> to me, ur argument of govt's keeping company tax is valid and logical ...... but the idea that all individuals use the same tax scales consistently is also valid and logical (conundrum)



That would be logical if gross income was taxed.
But net income is taxed.
So someone earning $500k might be paying less tax than someone earning $50k because they are using other features of the tax system to reduce their taxable income, like negative gearing.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> That would be logical if gross income was taxed.
> But net income is taxed.
> So someone earning $500k might be paying less tax than someone earning $50k because they are using other features of the tax system to reduce their taxable income, like negative gearing.



with a little fear of a derail to the discussion ....... ur point is entirely valid but i will make the point that companies also pay tax on net (profits) and not on gross (turnover) ....... so the treatment of income for individuals is consistent with that for the income of companies by using a net figure. Not sayin there are not loopholes, just sayin the approach is the same.

comment: will also say, it is not unusual for a company to make a loss (so pay no company tax on profits) but then pay a dividend (sometimes increased) to owners and that dividend comes with credits attached (fully franked). that is how the franking system works. i reckon the tax system needs a higher level review, and all this stuff being discussed is "deck chairs on the titanic" type talk. (example, How come some can get an immediate $20K tax deduction and others have to dribble the deduction over 3 years for the exact same capital items).


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> That would be logical if gross income was taxed.
> But net income is taxed.
> So someone earning $500k might be paying less tax than someone earning $50k because they are using other features of the tax system to reduce their taxable income, like negative gearing.



not sure if this will help but to clarify some of my post ......
the current system allows the transfer of credits between tax entities (imputation).

i think if this transfer is allowed then ALL tax entities should get equal access to the same transfer entitlement (i do not like complicated if/then/but/else type systems).

if the government does not want franking credits to transfer to other tax entities then they should just stop the ability to transfer. this basically means do not allow companies to transfer credits between themselves and do not include credits as part of the assessable income for individuals or super accounts. that is, treat all tax entities as separate tax paying entities that have their own tax owing on their own "profits".

(for those about to talk double taxation - if the company retains its profits and further grows the company then the company owners have an increased asset value and they have NOT paid any individual tax - so no double taxation - always choices to be made by directors and owners)


----------



## Logique (24 May 2019)

Why would we have elected a shadow PM & Treasurer who either:
- didn't understand imputation credits, or
- weren't telling the truth about them

I think low-salary earning PAYE workers realized they were next in line to be denied their withholding tax. "..You're not paying any tax, why should we give you a tax refund" ..they'd have been told.

Labor's proposed franking credit policy was regressive and dishonestly presented. Worst of all it would have hit poorer people the most.

We dodged the bullet of '_Chris Bowen-omics_', and the relief was palpable. Away from the Ultimo latte cafes that is (_they_'d all have gotten franking credits)


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> If the fund is fully in accumulation phase, and has a marginal tax rate of 15%, this $1,000 of income would be deemed to have a tax liability of $150 and the $150 already paid by the company would be refunded.   *So in accumulation the earnings are $1,150 and not $1000*.
> Concessional tax treatment is a reason some people have SMSFs.
> In my SMSF a portion has been allocated to accumulation and another to pension, so it's not simple.
> WayneL's claim related to wage earners who have very different tax arrangements.



If I use your example, the the situation is actually sillier, because in pension phase you were going to lose the franking credit, therefore:
*In accumulation the earnings are $1150.
In pension phase the earnings are $1,000.*


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> If I use your example, the the situation is actually sillier, because in pension phase you were going to lose the franking credit, therefore:
> *In accumulation the earnings are $1150.
> In pension phase the earnings are $1,000.*



not going back thru the posts/maths but my head says that in both those cases the end result would have been (under labor) the same end balance for the 2 funds. ($1K fund balance increase)  


(if all that 300 was credits)        ???? but my head hurts


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

overhang said:


> How did this couple get their savings down from 1 million to 150k?  Is part of those savings counting their tax free super?  Of that savings it sounds like only about 300k or so was invested in shares.



They could simply get it down, by removing $850 and upgrading their house, which is probably how they got it to $1m in the first place, I know I did.


overhang said:


> The policy was not without it's flaws, it should have been means tested and it should have been grandfathered in and slowly phased out.  I would sympathize with those who have planned their whole retirement based on the franking credits as an income stream only to have the rug pulled out from under them.



Most people I know, including myself has done this, with interest rates at 2% how else can a reasonable income be achieved?



overhang said:


> But I would still like to point out it is a form of welfare, it's removed tax owed to the government by the way of company tax and given it to an individual, tax payers are subsidising these individuals.  So like I said it's quite ironic that there are many on here with the nerve to attack a welfare state while simultaneously enjoying a retirement that is part paid by the tax payers purse.



I would like to point out as I did earlier, it is better to give partial assistance, than to carry the whole burden.
With the Governments plan, a smsf pension couple with say $500k in term deposit and $500k in shares, they would earn $10k from term dep and $21k at 4.2% dividend return = $31k.

On a full pension with $200k in shares earning 4.2%, they would earn $36.6k pension + $8.4k div + $2.5k franking = $47.5k

All ball park figures, just to show the ludicrous effect, absolutely dumb politics. Unless you want everyone on welfare.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 May 2019)

Logique said:


> I think low-salary earning PAYE workers realized they were next in line to be denied their withholding tax. "..You're not paying any tax, why should we give you a tax refund" ..they'd have been told.




Is that the latest social media lie after the "death tax" ?


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> not going back thru the posts/maths but my head says that in both those cases the end result would have been (under labor) the same end balance for the 2 funds. ($1K fund balance increase)
> 
> 
> (if all that 300 was credits)        ???? but my head hurts




As I stated in post #908 and rederob seemed to disagree with.


----------



## PZ99 (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Is that the latest social media lie after the "death tax" ?



Death tax versus Mediscare. I'd call that a draw


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Is that the latest social media lie after the "death tax" ?



Actually Rumpy, the death tax came from the ACTU, from memory. When Labor announced the new policies, the ACTU suggested a death tax would a better way of addressing the issue.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Actually Rumpy, the death tax came from the ACTU, from memory. When Labor announced the new policies, the ACTU suggested a death tax would a better way of addressing the issue.




Did the ACTU run any candidates in the election ?

Death tax was never Labor policy.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

Logique said:


> Why would we have elected a shadow PM & Treasurer who either:
> - didn't understand imputation credits, or
> - weren't telling the truth about them
> 
> ...



I think you need to brush up on tax law.
Your ideas do not wash.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 May 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Death tax versus Mediscare. I'd call that a draw




Nuh, Mediscare didn't win an election.

But it seems that scare campaigns hit home with the electorate and we are going to get bags of them from now on from all sides.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Is that the latest social media lie after the "death tax" ?



hey
old mate may be slightly off track but what he says may still have merit.

labor said (for the first time in 20 years and so the first time a lot of peeps have heard this type of thinking from any potential australian government)

under labor u will do a tax return - or u will go to jail
under labor u will include credits as income and we will hold them as pre-paid tax in your name - even though u have never seen this money - or u will go to jail
under labor if we do the calculations of the tax u owe and we find you have paid too much tax for the income u earnt, then we are going to keep that excess tax money - and we will not go to jail.

i am being flippant, but that is still the message they gave.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Did the ACTU run any candidates in the election ?
> 
> Death tax was never Labor policy.



A lot of them are ex ACTU, and believe it or not, there is a perception the ACTU have a lot of say in the Labor Party.
Somewhat like everyone has a perception, big business has a big say in the Liberal Party and assume they influence them.
It's probably time to move on and regroup for the next election.


----------



## PZ99 (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Nuh, Mediscare didn't win an election.
> 
> But it seems that scare campaigns hit home with the electorate and we are going to get bags of them from now on from all sides.



Mediscare cost seats, diminished Turnbull's authority and ultimately brought us a minority Govt.
But yeah, the Coalition were going to make that sort of thing illegal. 
I guess they just didn't get around to it before the election


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2019)

overhang said:


> How did this couple get their savings down from 1 million to 150k?  Is part of those savings counting their tax free super?  Of that savings it sounds like only about 300k or so was invested in shares.
> 
> The policy was not without it's flaws, it should have been means tested and it should have been grandfathered in and slowly phased out.  I would sympathize with those who have planned their whole retirement based on the franking credits as an income stream only to have the rug pulled out from under them.
> 
> But I would still like to point out it is a form of welfare, it's removed tax owed to the government by the way of company tax and given it to an individual, tax payers are subsidising these individuals.  So like I said it's quite ironic that there are many on here with the nerve to attack a welfare state while simultaneously enjoying a retirement that is part paid by the tax payers purse.



It's. 
Not. 
Welfare. 

It's taxation policy. 

By your logic,  any sort of tax credit or refund is therefore welfare. 

Lets suppose someone earns 50k on a wage and is taxed accordingly...12k or whatever it is,  taken from your wages. 

Then let's suppose that person starts a business on the side, with every intention of making a profit,  but actually loses 40k in the same financial year. 

That person's gross income therefore becomes 10k and subject to a 0% marginal tax rate and is due a refund of that 12k from the ATO. 

Is that 12k cheque,  therefore welfare?


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Nuh, Mediscare didn't win an election.
> 
> But it seems that scare campaigns hit home with the electorate and we are going to get bags of them from now on from all sides.



Neither did the death duties scare, the whole tax package was on the nose, with middle class Australians.

https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...uburbs-back-the-liberals-20190523-p51qhn.html


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> As I stated in post #908 and rederob seemed to disagree with.



I pointed out that different rules apply to accumulation and pension phases.  I am actually in both, which is allowable, curiously.
Generally those in accumulation would have been exempted by Labor's proposal, so the $1,150 would have remained (having been taxed at the concessional rate).
What am I missing?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> It's.
> Not.
> Welfare.
> 
> ...




Slightly different matter.

The small business person owns the company and is personally responsible for the debts of that business so the 12k cheque could be said to be a compensation for risk. A shareholder in a company has limited liability and can't be come after by debtors for company debts so maybe taxation should take that into account.


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Slightly different matter.
> 
> The small business person owns the company and is personally responsible for the debts of that business so the 12k cheque could be said to be a compensation for risk. A shareholder in a company has limited liability and can't be come after by debtors for company debts so maybe taxation should take that into account.



Yes it is slightly differently in function,  but not form. It is about what is considered gross taxable income and consideration of tax already paid.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> I pointed out that different rules apply to accumulation and pension phases.  I am actually in both, which is allowable, curiously.
> Generally those in accumulation would have been exempted by Labor's proposal, so the $1,150 would have remained (having been taxed at the concessional rate).
> What am I missing?



The labor Party said, you would only receive money back if your tax was over 30%. 
Up to 30% it could be used to offset tax liability.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> By your logic, any sort of tax credit or refund is therefore welfare.



Really?
The example related to how an SMSF in retirement phase presently has all its franking credits returned by the ATO.  This return negates the payment of company tax.
Example:
Company *XXZ *is wholly owned by retirees who have SMSFs. 
*XYZ *pays franked dividends.
As all franking credits are returned to the SMSFs, no taxes attributable to *XYZ *end up as government revenue. ​You might need to brush up on your logic.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The labor Party said, you would only receive money back if your tax was over 30%.
> Up to 30% it could be used to offset tax liability.



Nope!


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Nope!



In the dr surgery lol, will continue later.lol


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> I pointed out that different rules apply to accumulation and pension phases.  I am actually in both, which is allowable, curiously.
> Generally those in accumulation would have been exempted by Labor's proposal, so the $1,150 would have remained (having been taxed at the concessional rate).
> What am I missing?



hey
not my understanding of that
the proposed change was a change to taxation law, not to superannuation law. so the upshot is that the tax law would be changed to say that any tax entity could NOT get a refund if that refund was derived from imputation.

Accum accounts:  the accum trust is a tax paying entity at 15% so they would have been able to offset credits against other taxable income like bank interest or rent etc, but if they had credits left over after doing that then they would have lost them under labor (no refunds for any tax entity that originate from imputation).

Industry funds:  the offset for other tax on income is why the big funds (industry and retail) would be less challenged by all of that proposal - nothing to do with them being exempt or similar - and why smsf in shares would be stuffed (both accum and pension). 

comment: companies at present cannot get a cash refund of excess credits, but they are able to roll forward the credits to future tax years. Individuals, and super funds, at present get a cash refund. (not sucking eggs just pointing out different tax entities get treated differently for refunds)

that is my understanding of the mechanism.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> hey
> not my understanding of that
> the proposed change was a change to taxation law, not to superannuation law. so the upshot is that the tax law would be changed to say that any tax entity could NOT get a refund if that refund was derived from imputation.
> 
> ...



Australia is the only country in the world with a *fully refundable* imputation system. Labor’s dividend imputation was to remain, but cash payments would no longer be made to people who managed to reduce their tax rate to zero or have paid no income tax.

Tax on company profits would continue to be paid only once in keeping with the intent of the original dividend imputation system brought in by Keating.

Labor’s reforms to excess dividend imputation credits proposed to remove a fiscally unsustainable tax arrangement seeing billions of dollars in lost revenue. Dividend imputation worked well between 1987 and 2000 when cash refunds were not sent to people who did not pay income tax.  Labor proposed to reintroduce that system.


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Really?
> The example related to how an SMSF in retirement phase presently has all its franking credits returned by the ATO.  This return negates the payment of company tax.
> Example:
> Company *XXZ *is wholly owned by retirees who have SMSFs.
> ...



Robeee just make your point without the ad hom, is that possible?

I would point out the distinction between tax paid on retained company profits and those paid out as dividends to shareholders.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

all above my pay grade, i was explaining how it would work under labor.

i like things to be simple, so here is the logic bit i struggle with about not giving a refund - if a govt is happy that a company has paid tax at the rate of 30% (and so will not refund any of that money to a low income earner) then why does that same government want more than that 30% from other tax-payers. I mean if 30% is the agreed amount of tax, then why should the tax be more than 30% for some. 

i struggle with that logic. 

(other countries do not include dividend income as part of the income of individual tax-payers .... for another day)


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (24 May 2019)

Hope they take it to next election along with NG and capital gains policies


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

i like "i" statements, they are less confronting.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Robeee just make your point without the ad hom, is that possible?
> 
> I would point out the distinction between tax paid on retained company profits and those paid out as dividends to shareholders.



Please learn what an _ad hominem_ is because like your logic, it's faulty thinking.  *I comment on what people write.*

Your point on company tax is obviously relevant to company tax arrangements, but we are here discussing how the taxed portion of their dividend is treated, where the company actually declares a dividend *and *where some or all of it was taxed.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Labor’s reforms to excess dividend imputation credits proposed to remove a fiscally unsustainable tax arrangement seeing billions of dollars in lost revenue. .



Except for those, who were already getting non taxed money, from the Government.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

The analysis is starting to come in.lol

https://thewest.com.au/politics/fed...lue-collar-workers-and-parents-ng-b881208364z


----------



## SirRumpole (24 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The analysis is starting to come in.lol
> 
> https://thewest.com.au/politics/fed...lue-collar-workers-and-parents-ng-b881208364z




Loos like religion is still a factor in politics, like it or not.

Does Albo go to church ?

If not , he'd better start going and pray for a miracle.


----------



## PZ99 (24 May 2019)

I reckon the Libs will be very relieved the SSM postal vote went through as a yes. I said at the time - that had that vote not occurred - this election would've been a referendum on SSM and practically nothing else and the outcome might've been vastly different


----------



## moXJO (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Loos like religion is still a factor in politics, like it or not.
> 
> Does Albo go to church ?
> 
> If not , he'd better start going and pray for a miracle.



Albo should have been in the last 3 years or the prior. I doubt he has a chance now. He left it too late. 
Why they picked Shorten only the union knows.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Is that the latest social media lie after the "death tax" ?



It would be irrational if that wasn't the case.

If the 0% and 19% tax rates are removed for one source of income then why would you keep them for a different source of income?

Or to put that another way, if it's a 30% minimum rate of tax from one source then why would you allow someone else to pay 0%?

The inconsistency, rather than any particular tax rate per se, is the problem with all this since there's no rational explanation for that inconsistency which doesn't involve arguments of either "class warfare" or "who's next?" and both are political poison.

If Labor's argument is that we shouldn't have a 0% tax rate up to $18,200 well then scrap it for everyone. Under their proposal someone earning $ millions a year from one source would have kept it whilst someone earning $20K from a different source would have lost it. That ain't fair by any reasonable definition. 

I don't mind many of Labor's policies but they need to start seeing welfare as something we should definitely have as a last resort when all else fails. Of course we should have the Age Pension and of course we should have Newstart, I'd even go as far as saying the payment rate for the latter should probably be increased, but nobody should ever find themselves being effectively punished for taking steps to keep themselves off welfare and a higher rate of tax fits into the "punishment" category pretty clearly at least in terms of perceptions which is what matters in this context. 

Have a safety net most definitely but reward effort, or at least take a neutral view of it, don't ever punish it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Australia is the only country in the world with a *fully refundable* imputation system.




It is but the rate of those taxes in Australia is also high by world standards.

Labor forgot to include reducing the tax rates as part of their proposal.



> Labor’s dividend imputation was to remain, but cash payments would no longer be made to people who managed to reduce their tax rate to zero or have paid no income tax.




Which means that a barrister or TV presenter earning serious $ from work keeps the imputation credits but some unemployed person in their 50's loses them.

If they were going to discriminate it should have been the other way around - make it only for people with lower incomes not only for people with higher incomes.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 May 2019)

smurf1976 said:
			
		

> If they were going to discriminate it should have been the other way around - make it only for people with lower incomes not only for people with higher incomes.




I completely agree, the whole franking credit thing was mismanaged.

I doubt if it was the complete cause for Labor's defeat though, the vast majority of people have never heard of franking credits, I certainly had not before the election. The negative gearing policy had a lot more thought put in and I thought it was quite reasonable.

There is also no doubt that the franking credit rebates are a huge drag on the budget as are other forms of "welfare" like family tax benefits. These will have to be addressed by any government, but I think changes will in future be done after a Party has got into government, they will never be taken to an election.

People should have learned from John Hewson, the GST was supported by Keating until someone else adopted it, and John Howards "never ever" GST, the biggest lie in our political history imv.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

for the sake of completeness:
Howard went to the 1998 election promising a GST and the people voted on that policy, he won. He then introduced a GST.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

the rebates are said to be $5B   (?) you would need to trawl thru tax documents to find this statistic - i have never done that. no idea if this quoted figure is from the times BEFORE the $1.6M cap was put on super or not (cos tax data is already a couple of years old when it is actually published and that cap has not been around for all that long in a tax sense)

from the budget papers for 2018/19, welfare spend is $172B  (or $175B or something - i have quoted the source in earlier posts but this is a government figure and not hard to find)

i am able to identify which of those figures (5 or 175) is the bigger number when analyzing where the government spends it tax take (which means why the government has to collect tax money from people/companies that work/invest in the first place).


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

i really dislike the promises made during elections by potential governments.  "Oh, you will get a new hospital or road if u vote for us" 

surely the job of a government is to identify where the next hospital or road or whatevs is needed and then provide it. 

i mean, was the hospital needed because there was an election?, or was it needed cos a hospital was needed?


----------



## SirRumpole (24 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> surely the job of a government is to identify where the next hospital or road or whatevs is needed and then provide it.




It's actually the job of Infrastructure Australia if the politicians stop interfering with it and doing the pork barrel routine instead.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> It's actually the job of Infrastructure Australia if the politicians stop interfering with it and doing the pork barrel routine instead.




pretty sure it is called Nation Building Authority. saw it on abc. lol


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

↑
It is but the rate of those taxes in Australia is also high by world standards.
We are not even close to being in the race. In any event, disposal income is not the whole story when it comes to living costs in other countries. 
↑
Labor forgot to include reducing the tax rates as part of their proposal.
Quite deliberately so, because it had a range of policies, like $1000 dental credits for pensioners, which relied on a stable tax base. 
↑
Which means that a barrister or TV presenter earning serious $ from work keeps the imputation credits but some unemployed person in their 50's loses them.
Not sure of the level of detail that Labor went into, so I will instead give an easy to follow example for a person who lost a job during the tax year, had some shares, and also received Newstart:
Newstart + wages income    = $20,000
Dividend paid                     =  $1,000
Franking credit                   =    $300
Assessable income              = $21,300​
*Gross tax payable on $21,300 is $590* (equal to difference between assessable income and tax free threshold, which is $3,100, multiplied by the tax rate of 19%).
However, the franking credit rebate needs to be applied:
Gross tax         = $590
Franked rebate  = $300
*Tax payable    = $290
*​So in this example the imputation credit is not lost.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> We are not even close to being in the race.



Which countries which could reasonably be considered as economic or lifestyle competitors to Australia have a company tax rate significantly higher than 30%?

France is a bit higher but not hugely so and the global average is considerably lower.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Not sure of the level of detail that Labor went into, so I will instead give an easy to follow example for a person who lost a job during the tax year, had some shares, and also received Newstart:



If someone in their 50’s needs Newstart then either they’ve had incredibly bad luck or they’ve failed to save and invest for themselves.

Now, assuming no welfare and that the person is self funded how much tax do they pay?

If the answer is more than someone who’s failed to plan and is on welfare, well that’s what those in the middle have had enough of and a big part of why they’ve rejected Labor.

If two people do the same job, one invests and the other doesn’t, and both become unemployed age 55 then no way should the one who has sensibly saved and invested be paying a special tax for having done so. All that does is encourage reliance on welfare as the default plan.

Welfare for those who suffer genuine misfortune sure but it shouldn’t be something that’s actively encouraged for everyone. 

Who’s going to bother working more, investing or running a business if they’re punished for doing so?


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Which countries which could reasonably be considered as economic or lifestyle competitors to Australia have a company tax rate significantly higher than 30%?
> 
> France is a bit higher but not hugely so and the global average is considerably lower.



Did you not view the embedded link?
There were many others, but those 15 linked were all above 47%.


----------



## overhang (24 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> It's.
> Not.
> Welfare.
> 
> ...




This is not comparing apples with apples.  In your example the individual is receiving that 12k cheque because they made such a loss that puts them into the tax free threshold, who exactly is put out in this situation, the individual is no better off from losing 40k and ultimately tax payers aren't affected because if that 40k had turned into 80k then this individual would owe more than just the 12k.  

But with franking credits a company pays the 30% tax rate because a profit has been made. When individuals are able to receive a cheque from the tax office for that 30% we have a situation where zero tax has been paid on the dollar for that company profit.  This is a welfare payment, there is profit that should be taxed, that should go into the government revenue stream but is instead paid to individuals.  This is a tax payer funded handout.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2019)

overhang said:


> This is a welfare payment, there is profit that should be taxed, that should go into the government revenue stream but is instead paid to individuals.  This is a tax payer funded handout.



It is but it’s exactly the same as allowing just about everyone, even those earning $ millions a year, to pay no tax on their first $18,200 of income.

Shareholders are only wanting the exact same deal that everyone else is getting so that hardly seems unreasonable. That deal being 0% tax up to $18,200 then 19% up to $37,000. Even an actual billionaire gets that so it seems extremely harsh to say that someone who’s retired etc shouldn’t.

If the argument is that people shouldn’t have any income untaxed well then change that - for everyone not just a few.

Inconsistency is the problem. If there’s a valid reason to tax you at 30% on a low income then there’s a valid reason to also tax at 30% anyone else on the same income. That Labor wanted to exempt all but a few is what prompts the “class warfare” claim and it’s hard to see it any other way.

Same as people would be screaming if some were exempt from the road rules or any other law.

Same rule for all. Doing otherwise is just stirring up conflict for the sake of conflict.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Did you not view the embedded link?
> There were many others, but those 15 linked were all above 47%.



That’s referring to total tax collected from the population not specifically the subject of the franking credits issue.

Now at the extreme, well if someone pays 30% on their income and is also paying GST on just about everything, they’re paying car rego and so on well that’s certainly getting up there in % terms.

That’s the extreme yes but it’s of relevance when it happens to be those towards the bottom of the income scale who would cop it.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

will just make the point that all tax collected is then returned to individuals (or companies) ..... that is the whole point of collecting tax.

it should not be seen as a handout that tax money was returned, unused, to the people that paid it (to preempt: and if they did not pay that tax why does it appear on their tax return as income?).

to preempt another thought train (i have never seen a hospital where cash was put inside the concrete, or a road laid over gold bullion) be careful if u think the tax money is somehow "inside" the hospital

what i mean is, if the tax to be collected on company profits is 30%, then why is that exact same profit taxed at 47% in the hands of some tax entities?


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Now, assuming no welfare and that the person is self funded how much tax do they pay?
> 
> If the answer is more than someone who’s failed to plan and is on welfare, well that’s what those in the middle have had enough of and a big part of why they’ve rejected Labor.



There are many factors that impact on what someone gets, and how they are taxed.
Without knowing specific details you cannot make comparisons.
You seem to have become judge, jury and executioner before charges are even laid!


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> You seem to have become judge, jury and executioner before charges are even laid!



I just looked into how it was to work, found that the practical effect was to introduce a minimum 30% tax rate for some low income earners, and concluded that Labor was now the party for the rich and no longer represents ordinary workers trying to improve their circumstances.

Judging by the election results many reached the same conclusion. Labor’s focusing far too much on the rich and has forgotten the working class.

They are of course entitled to focus on the rich and those who are in the middle are entitled to take Labor’s advice on the subject and vote for someone else.

I say that as someone who most certainly isn’t a fan of the Coalition but it’s a strange world where a plumber or carpenter is better represented by the Liberals than Labor.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I just looked into how it was to work, found that the practical effect was to introduce a minimum 30% tax rate for some low income earners, and concluded that Labor was now the party for the rich and no longer represents ordinary workers trying to improve their circumstances.
> 
> Judging by the election results many reached the same conclusion. Labor’s focusing far too much on the rich and has forgotten the working class.
> 
> ...



I looked at how it was proposed and cannot for the life of me follow your arguments.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> I looked at how it was proposed and cannot for the life of me follow your arguments.



i understood what was posted and it is broadly truthful, can i help with any clarification?    (genuine offer)


----------



## SirRumpole (24 May 2019)

Whatever the debate about franking credits , the country has much bigger problems, including the price of electricity, one of the highest in the world which is shutting down industries, making us globally uncompetitive and putting people out of jobs.

Unless Scomo solves this problem as a priority, we are in a much worse position than we should be if the economy goes sour.

https://www.power-technology.com/features/australia-energy-prices/


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Whatever the debate about franking credits , the country has much bigger problems, including the price of electricity, one of the highest in the world which is shutting down industries, making us globally uncompetitive and putting people out of jobs.
> Unless Scomo solves this problem as a priority, we are in a much worse position than we should be if the economy goes sour.
> https://www.power-technology.com/features/australia-energy-prices/



True, and there is a thread for that.
Here, I am trying to understand how people drew the conclusions they did regarding Labor's election policy on franking credits.
I remain confused.
The principles were easy to follow, and it may not have been to everyone's liking (including mine), but these other ideas seem to come from left field (or the right wing ).


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> True, and there is a thread for that.
> Here, I am trying to understand how people drew the conclusions they did regarding Labor's election policy on franking credits.
> I remain confused.
> The principles were easy to follow, and it may not have been to everyone's liking (including mine), but these other ideas seem to come from left field (or the right wing ).



can i ask what is ur response to my previous explanation about how the franking proposal would have impacted upon accumulation phase super accounts (did that get sorted out?)


----------



## SirRumpole (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> I remain confused.




I think that was the general problem in the electorate.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> can i ask what is ur response to my previous explanation about how the franking proposal would have impacted upon accumulation phase super accounts (did that get sorted out?)



There was no change to the accumulation phase.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (24 May 2019)

Smurf has summed it up well for a many months. What was confusing about it or that you don't understand?

Australia can have whatever tax policy it chooses.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> There was no change to the accumulation phase.



ummm .... under labor the accumulation accounts also would have lost franking refunds from the ATO. There were no changes to the funds but the tax treatment under labor would have certainly changed. The changes were going to be to the tax laws not the super laws.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> ummm .... under labor the accumulation accounts also would have lost franking refunds from the ATO.



Nope.  They are treated concessionally within SMSFs.
The other points you made lack clarity.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Nope.  They are treated concessionally within SMSFs.
> The other points you made lack clarity.



can i just clarify your position:

are you saying that under the labor proposal, if an accumulation fund had an excess of imputation credits (ie, an amount above the total fund tax liabilities owing) then you are saying that they would still get the refund of those credits from the ATO.

have i got your understanding correct?


----------



## overhang (24 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> It is but it’s exactly the same as allowing just about everyone, even those earning $ millions a year, to pay no tax on their first $18,200 of income.
> 
> Shareholders are only wanting the exact same deal that everyone else is getting so that hardly seems unreasonable. That deal being 0% tax up to $18,200 then 19% up to $37,000. Even an actual billionaire gets that so it seems extremely harsh to say that someone who’s retired etc shouldn’t.




I can see the similarities you point out but I feel like there is an important distinction, the shareholders rebate comes from a different income stream (company taxes), you are being paid an income by the government to which a company has paid.  I feel this is quite different from either not paying tax on money you as an individual have earnt or being refunded tax that you have paid.  It's bad enough we have a difficult time getting company tax from these companies with their numerous methods of tax avoidance and then when they do finally pay tax it's given straight to an individual and again the government receives zero tax to that dollar. 

Ultimately Labor's policy was poorly thought out but it was a shitty policy to begin with that should have never been implemented, it was just another middle class welfare policy the Howard government was renowned for.  Is it even in the countries best interest to have SMSF retirees retiring from the workforce early? It's often a skillset that has left the workforce, it's another income tax that is no longer contributing to government coffers, it's on the back of a government handout in the way of untaxed company profits.  And the earlier these SMSF retirees begin drawing down on their super the sooner in some cases they run out of self funding and require the pension at a later time.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

will make the point that the age at which peeps can access their super does NOT vary with where that account is being held. Smsf, industry, retail ...it is all the same age for access.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

overhang, if the problem is the imputation of tax, then why not just get rid of imputation.

i mean, why have a system where the exact same company profit can be taxed at 0%, 30%, or 33%, or 47% depending where it went. this is what we have now.

right now franking is included as assessable income. some peeps want to treat it differently to income and tax derived from manual effort. this, to me, is very dangerous.


----------



## rederob (24 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> can i just clarify your position:
> 
> are you saying that under the labor proposal, if an accumulation fund had an excess of imputation credits (ie, an amount above the total fund tax liabilities owing) then you are saying that they would still get the refund of those credits from the ATO.
> 
> have i got your understanding correct?



Nothing changes, nor was proposed to change to SMSFs in accumulation.
Where did it say different?


----------



## Miss Hale (24 May 2019)

overhang said:


> I have to laugh at the irony of some on here who complain that Labor were going to run a welfare state while at the same time being relieved that their franking credits aren't going to be taken away.  You do realize that franking credits are a form of welfare?




Nope. You get the credits because the tax has already been paid. Not to mention people who have managed to accumulate some shares are taking it upon themselves to ensure they are financially secure in their retirement and not relying on welfare. This is the sort of thing that should be encouraged not discouraged, people taking responsibility for their lives. Unless the left have another agenda of course.


----------



## chiff (24 May 2019)

Miss Hale said:


> Nope. You get the credits because the tax has already been paid. Not to mention people who have managed to accumulate some shares are taking it upon themselves to ensure they are financially secure in their retirement and not relying on welfare. This is the sort of thing that should be encouraged not discouraged, people taking responsibility for their lives. Unless the left have another agenda of course.



As I have said before ,I receive franking credit,but there are other ways to save for your retirement without franking credits.Beware the share market crash and what would be the opinion then?Will watch Power and Hawks closely tomorrow...though a Crows supporter.Depends which game Hawthorn bring-I would favour them though.


----------



## overhang (24 May 2019)

Miss Hale said:


> Nope. You get the credits because the tax has already been paid. Not to mention people who have managed to accumulate some shares are taking it upon themselves to ensure they are financially secure in their retirement and not relying on welfare. This is the sort of thing that should be encouraged not discouraged, people taking responsibility for their lives. Unless the left have another agenda of course.



But then the tax isn't paid..... meaning that proportion of company tax has resulted in zero tax.  Whilst this would never happen it is possible under the current system that company tax could basically be reduced to zero on profits if the franking credits were all paid to those meeting the income criteria for the rebate.  That's a terrible policy that can allow that to be possible.

As for the self sufficient retirees, I have spoken to several people recently in their late 50's that are trying to budget so that they can retire at 60 or early 60s, draw down on their super to get them through until they are eligible for the pension.  With an aging population this isn't exactly assisting the economy.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2019)

Responding to various recent comments:

My primary concern is for those with investments outside of superannuation. That is, investments made using money earned from working, which has already been taxed, and where income and any capital gains will also have been taxed whilst that person is working.

Then that person reaches say age 56 and is made redundant. In reality for many that's it, that's the end of their working career since the odds of anyone employing them at that point are fairly slim.

In saying that I'll note the first of the class distinctions. If you're a white collar professional earning big $ then very likely someone will employ you yes. On the other hand, if you're a blue collar worker with no qualifications beyond a few tickets to use machinery etc well then you're stuffed and for practical purposes unemployable and there's a huge number of such people who've ended up in that situation over the years. Age discrimination is technically illegal but it's rife in practice - experience ends up being a liability not an asset. To be polite, those living in the inner suburbs and who wear a suit to work are plausibly living in a bubble in that regard and won't see the problem.

For anyone who's seen others go through that, and I've seen plenty, there's a rather strong motivation to invest outside superannuation so as to be self reliant. I can imagine nothing worse, both from an an economic perspective and in terms of mental health, than ending up on Newstart and having to jump through the ludicrous hoops and deal with Centrelink to receive a pittance. God help anyone in that situation.

It must also be said that life is for living. For a lot of people their health isn't great by their early-mid 70's so this idea of having people work until age 67 or 70 when they're close to being stuffed is missing the point of life I think. 

Now about those dividends, the objection I raise is about the double standards.

*Whilst I have a job, both sides of politics agree that dividends are my personal income and I need to pay the relevant rate of Income Tax on them.

*Should I become unemployed, Labor says no sorry but now you'll have to pay Company Tax instead.

That's a very "heads I win, tails you lose" sort of an argument and it hardly seems just that someone who loses their job then gets hit with a special high rate of tax because they've planned ahead, saved and won't be claiming Newstart or the Age Pension. The same person if they hadn't saved wouldn't pay a cent in tax and would be on Newstart or the Pension - that's a huge "tax refund" for someone paying no tax.

If the argument is that there shouldn't be a 0% Income Tax rate up to $18,200 well then get rid of it for everyone. Not that I'm advocating that but it would be better than singling out one group.

What's not reasonable is having a special high tax rate just for someone who's only income is from franked dividends. That's ridiculously pedantic and it's akin to, for example, putting a special tax on red lawnmowers or on peanuts sold in 375g bags. All of a sudden no manufacturer will be selling mowers painted red and peanuts will be sold in any size bag so long as it's not 375g. End result is it collects no tax but distorts the market.

My concerns aren't based on personal circumstances, the policy has no impact on me at least now, but on the principle of fairness. Personally well I've done blue collar work and I've done white collar work and for the record I'm a member of a union but that doesn't mean I agree with Labor on this or everything.

If I was running Labor then I'd be looking to move very much away from the sort of thing that interests wealthy people in the inner suburbs and instead focus on the practical concerns of the masses. Get out there, go and talk to people working on farms or in mines or run of the mill office workers, listen to what they've got to say and actually do something about it.


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

rederob said:


> Nothing changes, nor was proposed to change to SMSFs in accumulation.
> Where did it say different?



hey

"A Shorten Labor Government will close down the concession created by Howard and Costello, and return to the arrangement first introduced by Hawke and Keating – so that imputation credits can be used to reduce tax, but not for cash refunds."
"The top one per cent of self-managed superannuation funds received an average cash refund of more than $80,000 in 2014-15."
"Charities and not-for-profit institutions, such as universities, are exempt from these changes." edit: welfare recipients were added to this exemption list.

those 3 quotes are straight from the ALP website. the credit refunds are currently done through tax laws (not super laws). the labor proposal was to change the tax laws so that no tax entity was able to get a cash refund from franking credits (except welfare recipients, charities and not-for profits. Accumulation funds are trusts that are taxable entities (which is why they have tax liabilities at the associated legislated tax rate of 15%). They were NOT exempt from the ending of credit refunds.

I will just say that the labor intention was that any tax entity (other than the 3 nominated exemptions) would not get a cash credit refund - that is how super trusts got caught up in this and that includes both pension and accumulation trusts (refunds currently exist for any fund that has more credits than tax liabilities cos any entity NOT a company gets a cash refund - companies do NOT get a cash refund but roll forward unused credits).

As explanation: do u remember everyone saying how smsf's in pension phase may be better off transferring into an industry fund to get some franking benefits? or how smsf accum funds needed more unfranked income via bonds or overseas investments etc or more members joining the fund? The proof of my position is in the explanation as to why those things were being suggested (and noting that industry funds are NOT part of the exempted 3).

not sure if i have convinced u but anyway - it is the truth...........
cheers


----------



## HelloU (24 May 2019)

for brevity:

*"A Shorten Labor Government will close down the concession ... so that imputation credits can be used to reduce tax, but not for cash refunds."  *(ALP policy website)

if you have a super account in accumulation phase that has more imputation credits than tax liabilities (at legislated 15% tax on combined income and concessional contributions) then the ALP was NOT going to give you a cash refund for the excess credits.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> for brevity:
> 
> *"A Shorten Labor Government will close down the concession ... so that imputation credits can be used to reduce tax, but not for cash refunds."  *(ALP policy website)
> 
> if you have a super account in accumulation phase that has more imputation credits than tax liabilities (at legislated 15% tax on combined income and concessional contributions) then the ALP was NOT going to give you a cash refund for the excess credits.



Succintly put.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Whatever the debate about franking credits , the country has much bigger problems, including the price of electricity, one of the highest in the world which is shutting down industries, making us globally uncompetitive and putting people out of jobs.
> 
> Unless Scomo solves this problem as a priority, we are in a much worse position than we should be if the economy goes sour.



Agreed.

At the wholesale level the excess cost is over $1 billion a month and it's more once you add in networks and retail.

Gas costs have gone up ~$3.5 billion a year separate to electricity costs (so not including gas used in power stations).

It's killing our economic competitiveness that's for sure. There are some industries where closure is now pretty much locked in, they've failed to undertake necessary investments since it just wasn't viable and are now running the plant into the ground, and for others the issue is pretty much guaranteed to come up during this term of government.

Then there's the physical supply side of it all. A near miss over there, an incident somewhere else. Dwindling reserves of all kinds too. Odds are it'll end in tears all of a sudden at some point.

Politically well neither side seems keen on doing what's needed so it'll need a proper crisis to force it.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> At the wholesale level the excess cost is over $1 billion a month and it's more once you add in networks and retail.
> 
> ...



What I like is the different ways, you explain the problem and all that seems to happen, is people respond with the same rubbish.
When the $hit hits the fan, they will have the perfect excuse, ignorance.
Non are so blind, as those who don't wish to see.
The only non technical person, who has seemed to grasp the issue, is Rumpy.IMO


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> They could simply get it down, by removing $850 and upgrading their house, which is probably how they got it to $1m in the first place, I know I did.
> 
> Most people I know, including myself has done this, with interest rates at 2% how else can a reasonable income be achieved?
> 
> ...



Hey overhang, you seemed to have missed responding to my answer, to your points? Post 936 about 5 pages back


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> What I like is the different ways, you explain the problem and all that seems to happen, is people respond with the same rubbish



I'll keep out of any debates concerning individuals and just note that the big problem with all this is that many have a focus on one aspect of the detail and a reluctance to see and understand the overall picture.

That applies to many things in life, investing included.


----------



## overhang (24 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Hey overhang, you seemed to have missed responding to my answer, to your points? Post 936 about 5 pages back




I had a few replies and was struggling to keep up with all, don't take it personally.




> They could simply get it down, by removing $850 and upgrading their house, which is probably how they got it to $1m in the first place, I know I did.




This seems considerable expense to go to just to lower ones assets, not everyone needs to upgrade their house.



> Most people I know, including myself has done this, with interest rates at 2% how else can a reasonable income be achieved?




If it were me I would invest in some property from regional towns, it's quite easy to pick up houses for $200-250k that have a 7-8% or greater yield.  These houses won't see capital gains but that doesn't really matter for retirement purposes, hell it's a lot more stable than stocks in the current environment.



> I would like to point out as I did earlier, it is better to give partial assistance, than to carry the whole burden.
> With the Governments plan, a smsf pension couple with say $500k in term deposit and $500k in shares, they would earn $10k from term dep and $21k at 4.2% dividend return = $31k.




I did point out that the policy wasn't without it's flaws, it's the bricklayer type with the stuffed back that has setup their early retirement based on franking credits I really would be concerned for.   It is a poor policy when there are these types caught up in the cross hairs but lets not pretend that a large proportion of those affected by the change are wealthy retirees.  None of this at the end of the day changes the fact that the current arrangement is a welfare subsidy, it's funny some of the very people on here who over the years have commented on how difficult it is to take welfare entitlements away from the recipients, welfare state and all that and then they kick up a stink when their own tax payer funded cash cow is targeted.  Just shows that most people are self serving.


----------



## sptrawler (24 May 2019)

overhang said:


> I had a few replies and was struggling to keep up with all, don't take it personally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the honest answers, I understand where you are coming from, I've worked from the ground up and you do go through phases in life.
If I had my time over, I would pay for my house and then have a whale of a time, I wouldn't save.
You may say that is a selfish attitude, but as you point out I have saved and skrimped all my life, and I'm now seen as selfish because I want to enjoy the retirement I've saved for.
When in reality I could have enjoyed  spending my income through life, and would be held in higher regard, plus would generate a much higher income from welfare.
So I would suggest you think carefully, before you go the self funded route, it may end in tears for you. IMO

The election result proved the poor still aspire to do better, and the rich love to vote to appease their conscience, while smugly looking on. Just my opinion.


----------



## Bill M (25 May 2019)

overhang said:


> it's funny some of the very people on here who over the years have commented on how difficult it is to take welfare entitlements away from the recipients, welfare state and all that and then they kick up a stink when their own tax payer funded cash cow is targeted. Just shows that most people are self serving.



Incorrect, I am happy with people getting dole payments, some for sure just can not get a job for a variety of reasons. I know that if these people did not get this support then buckle down because then they will be breaking into your house or beating you up and stealing from you, they have to eat. I know I would do anything to survive, the welfare is suppose to stop all of that so it should be there.

What I don't like is working my ar$e off all my life, doing O/T and 2 jobs to save and invest my money as we were told to all our working career and then having the rules changed once you retire. 30 years ago when I first started getting Super from my employers we had seminars from our providers. Put in more, you get more points and thus increasing your final payout. It was a big deal sacrificing your salary into Super when you still got a mortgage hanging over your head but at the same time I didn't want to work until 60 let alone 70. It was just work hard and get this mortgage paid for.

As time went on advisers were telling us shares was the best investments you could make because not only did you get dividends but the franking credits were refunded to if had an excess of them. It was a strategy we were encouraged to take up and have been using the last 18 years. Then when we have retired, some half witted policy comes along and wants to take away a substantial portion of my income because their leader thinks I am rich which I am not.

When implementing a policy you need to cover all basis. The people who have worked hardest and saved and invested should be looked after too. The "if you don't like it then don't vote for it" is not the way to treat an electorate, any wonder they lost.


----------



## overhang (25 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Thanks for the honest answers, I understand where you are coming from, I've worked from the ground up and you do go through phases in life.
> If I had my time over, I would pay for my house and then have a whale of a time, I wouldn't save.
> You may say that is a selfish attitude, but as you point out I have saved and skrimped all my life, and I'm now seen as selfish because I want to enjoy the retirement I've saved for.
> When in reality I could have enjoyed  spending my income through life, and would be held in higher regard, plus would generate a much higher income from welfare.
> ...




I have no doubt you and others are deserving of the franking credits, from what I can gather many on this site have worked bloody hard to get where they are, I don't think we have many born with a silver spoon types.  I know if I was one of those affected by this change based on that stage of my life there is no way I would be voting for Labor, it's one thing to vote against your own interests for less of a tax cut in your working life but it's another if it affects your financial independence in retirement age. 

The policy had it's merits but too many were targeted by the changes. yet another Labor policy that is a good concept and poorly implemented.


----------



## overhang (25 May 2019)

Bill M said:


> Incorrect, I am happy with people getting dole payments, some for sure just can not get a job for a variety of reasons. I know that if these people did not get this support then buckle down because then they will be breaking into your house or beating you up and stealing from you, they have to eat. I know I would do anything to survive, the welfare is suppose to stop all of that so it should be there.



Fair enough Bill, I guess it just frustrates me that a government who has targeted the most vulnerable over their time in government have been voted back in when all I read most election campaign was Labor's policies unfairly targeting more well off groups.  Again I'm not saying Labor had a great policy.  But robodebt was a disgrace, sending out automated debt notices where the burden of proof was on the recipient to prove the debt incorrect with many incorrectly targeted, that this debt collection was then outsourced to private companies.  

That my old neighbor in her late 50s at the time with emphysema and obesity, requires an oxygen bottle at home, yet her disability pension was cut because under the Abbott government changes she was deemed suitable for employment because she did her grocery shopping without someone holding her hand, ffs this lady is unemployable, lives in a home worth about 180k and drives a 20 year old car and yet somehow she deemed to be taking the tax payer for a ride.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (25 May 2019)

No, it wasn't a good concept mismanaged.

It was pure theft from hard working Australians. It was dealt with accordingly in the end.


----------



## overhang (25 May 2019)

A policy that results in zero company tax paid to the dollar isn’t a good policy regardless of how hard those worked for it. It’s middle class wellfare at its finest


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2019)

Go figure this:-

_J*ust as coal towns of the Appalachian Mountains ditched the Democrats, Labor suffered a backlash in Australian mining districts, haemorrhaging votes to minor parties such as Clive Palmer's United Australia Party and One Nation.*_
*
In sharp contrast, wealthy electorates with higher incomes swung Labor's way.

Labor enjoyed the biggest swings towards it in electorates with a highest level of franking credits — a broad proxy for share ownership.

In seats such as McNamara, Higgins and Curtin, where high-income earners make up about four in 10 or more of the voters, the Coalition suffered huge swings against it and Labor made big inroads.
*
_https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-24/scott-morrisons-trump-like-election-victory/11145406_


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (25 May 2019)

It has nothing to no with company tax. The policy is about thieving from people.


----------



## overhang (25 May 2019)

The only people it’s thieving from is all other tax payers, company tax is a pivotal part of any economy, giving this away is inept.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (25 May 2019)

Just like the welfare expenditure.

And your obese neighbour, who ate her way to 200kgs probably then expects everybody to pay hospital fees, maxicabs, crane to lift her, thief


----------



## overhang (25 May 2019)

Toyota Lexcen said:


> Just like the welfare expenditure.
> 
> And your obese neighbour, who ate her way to 200kgs probably then expects everybody to pay hospital fees, maxicabs, crane to lift her, thief



You sound like such a loving sole, no doubt you would have employed her to save the tax payer a burden.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (25 May 2019)

Yes i am.

I engage new immigrants for my work. Others wont work, or turn up, have an excuse, carry-on. They can because the system allows it. Hopefully the Libs can turn the screws on the rorting  more.


----------



## overhang (25 May 2019)

Nothing like that cheap foreign labor from workers who have no idea of their entitlements. I too hope the Libs can look at the the negative gearing rorts and the franking credits rorts


----------



## HelloU (25 May 2019)

overhang said:


> A policy that results in zero company tax paid to the dollar isn’t a good policy regardless of how hard those worked for it. It’s middle class wellfare at its finest



question:
should that company profit be taxed at a rate higher than 30% ?  i mean, if it is paid to a high income earner presently then that exact same profit ends up taxed at 47%. Should it only be taxed at 30% because it is a company profit?


----------



## HelloU (25 May 2019)

what i am trying to ask is (and no responses are being offered)  if refunds to peeps on less than 30% is considered "thieving" from other taxpayers,  then what is the rationale for taking more than 30% from other taxpayers for the same dividend ?

same as before, if 30% is the good amount for tax to be paid on dividends, then what is the reason some pay more than 30% ?


----------



## HelloU (25 May 2019)

there are 2 ways to come at tax

1.  every single cent of income should go as tax, and peeps need to justify why they need some of that money back, and 

2.  no tax is paid, and every single service is user pays. Only the services that are wanted will be paid for.

we are somewhere in the middle. 

when peeps say more tax should be paid i always ask "at what point will you say that we have paid enough tax? ".   for many of those people they cannot tell you how much tax is enough, so they do not have a point at which enough tax has been paid, so they will always want more tax. That is not a logical position to have.


----------



## overhang (25 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> question:
> should that company profit be taxed at a rate higher than 30% ?  i mean, if it is paid to a high income earner presently then that exact same profit ends up taxed at 47%. Should it only be taxed at 30% because it is a company profit?




For consistency there is merit to what you are asking.  There are two things at play here though, 1 is company tax and the other is personal income tax.  I personally think two checkboxes need to be ticked here, the 1st is that company tax was paid on the profit, the 2nd is any additional income tax paid on earnings above and beyond the level of company tax paid.


----------



## moXJO (25 May 2019)

We really want to talk about welfare rorts,  lets talk about doctors and surgeons.


----------



## sptrawler (25 May 2019)

I see in today's AFR, the coalition is going to commission a review, into the retirement income system. Hooray at least it may prove to be better than back of the napkin policy making.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I see in today's AFR, the coalition is going to commission a review, into the retirement income system. Hooray at least it may prove to be better than back of the napkin policy making.




So if they come up with the recommendation to wind down franking credit rebates you would be happy ?


----------



## HelloU (25 May 2019)

overhang said:


> For consistency there is merit to what you are asking.  There are two things at play here though, 1 is company tax and the other is personal income tax.  I personally think two checkboxes need to be ticked here, the 1st is that company tax was paid on the profit, the 2nd is any additional income tax paid on earnings above and beyond the level of company tax paid.



cheers, yeah i had assumed that was ur thoughts .....
i will just say that our present system, 20 years old now and well understood, is that company retained profits are taxed at the legislated company rate because that money is kept inside the company (the profits went to the company itself), and that profits that are not retained within the company are taxed at the legislated rate of the tax entity that receives that profit (dividend), because that profit has been removed from the company (imputed) and the profit went to the owner of the company.

That is why the grossed up figure is used when the div is paid to another company or to an individual, and the associated company or individuals tax scales used to work out the tax owing on non-retained profits. That profit is no longer regarded to be the profit of the company, but has been imputed to be the profit of the recipient (profit = earnings - costs)

the alternate of taxing all company profits at the company rate is ok with me. i see nobody arguing for this to happen but to me this is the only other choice to the existing system. but i think it would then be unfair to add further taxes when that already taxed money is handed out to the owners. that would not be logical (and that is why we use the current system). eg, do peeps want a system where you bring home ur after tax weekly pay packet, and when u give $50 to the wife she has to pay tax on that $50 ...... that is what happens when peeps talk double taxation of pre-taxed coy divs that are distributed then again taxed)  we do not live in a system that places a tax on already taxed money that is transferred to another person. 

i am not sure if our current system is fair, but i do think it is logical. the profit was either made by the company and then taxed at company rate, or the profit was imputed to the owner and tax paid according to the tax scales that apply. at the what labor wanted to do was not logical under our current system, they wanted a bit from here, and a bit from there (but only on mondays when it was a full moon and the date had a 2 in it type thinking). they could not big picture an alternate system ... it was inequitable because it sometimes threw away the existing tax scales for only some people and only some of the time.


----------



## bellenuit (25 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Labor enjoyed the biggest swings towards it in electorates with a highest level of franking credits — a broad proxy for share ownership.
> 
> In seats such as McNamara, Higgins and Curtin, where high-income earners make up about four in 10 or more of the voters, the Coalition suffered huge swings against it and Labor made big inroads.




It would be difficult to assess the relevance of this without further breakdown of the income of those who voted in relation to whom they voted for. But for high income earners, franking credits are not an issue as they have other taxable income to apply the credits to.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (25 May 2019)

overhang said:


> Nothing like that cheap foreign labor from workers who have no idea of their entitlements. I too hope the Libs can look at the the negative gearing rorts and the franking credits rorts




I get quotes from companies and choose the most suitable. In my experience, "new" Australians deliver.


----------



## sptrawler (25 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> So if they come up with the recommendation to wind down franking credit rebates you would be happy ?



As long as it is done in a fair and equitable way, I wouldn't have a problem with it.


----------



## Toyota Lexcen (25 May 2019)

The system is not broken. It was packaged up by Labor into a 10yr saving of 50bil to make it look substantial.

They also highlighted 1 or 2 situations where it seemed like a rort, of which the presentation still doesn't make sense.

They have dumped it and released it cost them an election.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2019)

bellenuit said:


> It would be difficult to assess the relevance of this without further breakdown of the income of those who voted in relation to whom they voted for. But for high income earners, franking credits are not an issue as they have other taxable income to apply the credits to.




True, but I wonder how many on lower incomes have the money to buy shares anyway.


----------



## macca (25 May 2019)

When your taxable income is assessed in June, if you have paid too much tax you are entitled to a refund, full stop, end of discussion.

What Labor seems to miss repeatedly, is that if you change the rules people stop playing the game. The massive dollars they expected to retain by not giving people their tax refunds would quickly disappear because people would change their investment strategies.

Move from franked divis to unfranked divis and problem solved, Labor need someone who actually understands how working savers think.

Like Bill and SP we saved for retirement and the thousands of folks like us save OZ a lot of money every year. Discourage this by changing SF rules every budget and the next gen gives up and plans for the aged pension.


----------



## Ferret (25 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I see in today's AFR, the coalition is going to commission a review, into the retirement income system. Hooray at least it may prove to be better than back of the napkin policy making.




This worries me a little.  

One of the reasons I didn't want Labor to win was that they were going to fiddle with Super contribution rules again.  

I'm fed up with the moving goalposts and this review might lead to recommendations for more changes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 May 2019)

The problem with all this investment stuff is really about constant changing of the rules.

An entire generation had it drummed into them very thoroughly and that was by a Labor government at the time and subsequent Liberal governments did the same.

"To plan for your retirement think of superannuation"

Complete with saturation TV advertising that ran for years using those exact words, seminars in workplaces both government and private enterprise and so on. 

Plus whilst it was never said that the Age Pension would be outright abolished it was very strongly implied even in some of the official government promotion of superannuation, that you sure wouldn't want to be relying on the pension and that you really had to be investing.

Now most ordinary people have limited knowledge on any given subject and that goes for anything. How many people here can confidently assess the structure of a house, and the electrical wiring and plumbing, and do the conveyancing themselves, also have a pilot's licence and are good at playing drums? Not many - most people understand the basics of most things but they lack any detailed knowledge and it's the same with investing. 

Prior to all this the share market was primarily seen as something that interested rich people and if you'd asked the average Australian about shares, well they'd have known that you could buy shares in BHP and that's about it, that's about the only listed company most could have named with confidence off the top of their head indeed it's still among the first listed companies that most would think of today. 

Beyond that, well most of those with some money to invest had put it in term deposits, which used to pay pretty decent rates of interest. Or they'd done things like investing in bonds issued by the state-owned utilities on the basis that they couldn't possibly go broke, most of them had credit ratings better than government itself, plus it was the "right" thing to be doing by investing your money to build infrastructure the country needed wasn't it? 

All this idea of owning shares in companies that most had never heard of was a new thing for most. But backed with extensive government advertising, workplace seminars and assurances from the likes of banks, who were still held in reasonably high regard at the time, that this really was the right thing to be doing the masses went forth and did so. 

A few years later and we had the Treasurer proudly proclaiming that more than 50% of Australians now owned shares. This was all a good thing, right?

Now in considering all this it has to be remembered, and this was a point that frequently needed explaining to ordinary people, that superannuation is not itself an investment. It is for practical purposes a tax reduction on investing subject to various rules but it is not an investment of itself.

For those with investments outside of superannuation, well they've already foregone that tax reduction in order to also avoid the rules, primarily the rules about the preservation age which obviously fails those who want or especially need to retire earlier.

Considering that backdrop it's not hard to see why many will be outright furious about any changes in the rules which disadvantage them at this stage. If you go to great lengths to persuade people to do something, and then once they've done it change the rules to disadvantage them, well the term "scam" comes to mind and that tends to make people rather angry.

Which brings to mind another one of Labor's policies. Electric vehicles.

It's a great idea and you won't find too many people keener than me on the idea of electric transport. Or electric anything for that matter. 

Those who are old enough will be a tad wary however and they've seen this one before.

Heat your house with oil they said. OK, sounds good all nice and easy and pretty soon every new house was built with oil heating and lots of people installed an oil-fired heater into their existing fireplace with a 100 Gallon tank outside. Then they jacked the price of oil up, literally tripled it in one fell swoop, and lots of people were left shivering with heaters they couldn't afford to run.

LPG was another one. Lots of encouragement to convert cars to run on LPG and lots of investment in putting the pumps in at service stations and so on. Then they put a tax on it, put the price up and the industry's pretty much dead now. Those who converted, or worse still bought an LPG-only vehicle, are left with the problem.

More recently natural gas for household use has gone the same way. Relentlessly promoted by government, in Victoria to the point that it's rather difficult to legally build a new house without installing gas, then once most people are using it the price has been seriously jacked up.

Off-peak electricity in some states much the same. Heavily promoted, was cheap, then once people are using it the price went through the roof. 

Spotting a pattern here? Get people to change from one fuel to another and then make the new one seriously expensive. Been done a few times now so whilst I'm a supporter of EV's in principle I most certainly do understand why many are wary.

Go forward 5 years and "EV drivers aren't paying any tax!" the politicians will scream. Just like those investors not paying any tax or before them those with LPG cars who also also weren't paying tax because they did exactly what government encouraged them to do. This all sounds rather familiar.....

Which brings me to the real overall point - the masses have had enough of being duped by governments who don't appear to be acting in the best interests of the mainstream. That's where the real anger lies so far as I can tell. Too many "changing the rules" things like the examples I've given. Too much sitting back whilst factories close and put people out of work, wages fall behind living costs and so on and all we hear is lightweight stuff about looking into things or telling people to shop around for the best deal. 

The idea of governments actually working for the majority seems anathema to the current generation of politicians. Look at events overseas and the same frustration is becoming apparent - Americans who voted for Trump because they were sick of seeing the middle class falling behind and he was at least different to the status quo. Britons who wanted out of the EU which seems more worried about practically anything other than improving the lives or ordinary people. And so on, it's a trend not unique to Australia.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Go forward 5 years and "EV drivers aren't paying any tax!" the politicians will scream. Just like those investors not paying any tax or before them those with LPG cars who also also weren't paying tax because they did exactly what government encouraged them to do. This all sounds rather familiar.....




Yes, I've been saying for a while here that hybrids are a better deal in the medium term. Best of both worlds.

No doubt in 50 years most transport will be electric as oil runs out and the politicians will have to replace fuel excise somehow. I'm certainly suspicious about "free" charging stations, it's just a scheme to get people hooked, and when they are, the gloves come off and the price rockets.

One thing about electric cars, sunshine is free unlike petrol and I can see ev's with solar panels on the roof to charge during the day. That is going to make for some imaginative schemes to collect tax on ev's. I think they will all have to be fitted with tracking devices which report your mileage back to the ATO, and you get a tax bill every month depending on miles driven.


----------



## sptrawler (25 May 2019)

Ferret said:


> This worries me a little.
> 
> One of the reasons I didn't want Labor to win was that they were going to fiddle with Super contribution rules again.
> 
> I'm fed up with the moving goalposts and this review might lead to recommendations for more changes.



I agree with you, but super is evolving so will require tweaking.
However it was introduced to give people a better retirement, than could be provided by the pension, in reality it was never intended to have 10million dollars in an account.
This then falls into the tax avoidance realm, however the 1.6 million cap, has put a lid on that.
So know anyone with more than 1.6 is paying 15% tax on the earnings.
If the tax is progressive, they could quite easily nullify excessive franking credits, by increasing the tax to 30% at a certain level.
What Labor was suggesting was ludicrous and poorly thought out.


----------



## qldfrog (25 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I've been saying for a while here that hybrids are a better deal in the medium term. Best of both worlds.
> 
> No doubt in 50 years most transport will be electric as oil runs out and the politicians will have to replace fuel excise somehow. I'm certainly suspicious about "free" charging stations, it's just a scheme to get people hooked, and when they are, the gloves come off and the price rockets.
> 
> One thing about electric cars, sunshine is free unlike petrol and I can see ev's with solar panels on the roof to charge during the day. That is going to make for some imaginative schemes to collect tax on ev's. I think they will all have to be fitted with tracking devices which report your mileage back to the ATO, and you get a tax bill every month depending on miles driven.



France already has a tax on owning PV panels...
No need for imagination
How could you get free power whereas the battlers can not afford/renters can not install panels
This is unfair
TAX TAX for fairness
I thought this was your party?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I thought this was your party?




I didn't mention any party in that post but I don't have to agree with every single policy that a party I vote for has.

BUT, an electric car industry is an industry of the future that we need to embrace otherwise we just get everyone elses dregs.

People don't complain about fuel excise these days but it's about 30% of the price of fuel.

Going to write to ScoMo about that ?

We will get taxed either way.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> We will get taxed either way.



Agreed and of itself that's not unreasonable. 

It needs to be done in a fair manner though that doesn't leave one person paying no tax whilst someone else is living on baked beans because all their money's gone to the government. Etc.

It also should be done in a manner which doesn't have loopholes such that the tax is easily avoided, thus making it pointless from a revenue perspective, whilst producing some really silly outcomes that are bad for society overall.

Following is a real example, all I've done is remove the names since that seems appropriate.

During the Hawke era there was a tax on some petroleum products but not others. Diesel was taxed, fuel oil wasn't.

So a certain transport company came up with the clever idea to brew up their own fuel with which to run their substantial vehicle fleet. Instead of using diesel they were mixing up what I understand was #4 fuel oil and heating oil. The trucks ran just fine, there was no tax paid, and all was good so long as you ignore the cloud of brown smoke belching out the exhaust of every one of those trucks since whilst the fuel burned, it didn't burn very well in engines not designed for it.

So to fix that sort of thing the Keating government decided to put a tax on fuel oil and the ATO clamped down on anyone doing dodgy stuff with fuels.

It stopped the diesel substitution caper and helped clear the air in one place yes. In another place not too far away a vegetable processing company quickly worked out that they'd be paying a fortune in tax to run the boilers used to produce the hot water to process the vegetables. And so they ended up putting coal into shipping containers, since that was also a tax advantaged method, and switched the boilers over to coal. 

So the cloud of brown haze coming out of the trucks had stopped and now we had a cloud of smoke coming out of a vegetable processing factory instead. Beer and chocolate were also made using coal for the heat at that time too. Not the most efficient but it avoided the tax.

Suffice to say that Howard then removed the tax after having it drawn to his attention that it was leading to really silly outcomes like the above, wasn't raising much revenue anyway, and that a few households and farms mostly in rural areas without mains power or gas had ended up being caught up in it all and were now paying a fortune in tax to heat water for domestic use or run dairy operations. 

So that's a classic example of distorting the market. A tax on one way of doing something, but not a tax on other ways of doing it, leads to the loophole of changing the method being exploited. Whilst the new method may be less efficient and in other ways inferior to the original method, if the tax is significant enough then it will be done.

The franking credits proposal fell into that category for the simple reason that there were so many means of avoiding it as to make it largely pointless. Simply invest in anything other than Australian shares paying franked dividends or claim any form of welfare and you'd be right. That left not a lot of people to actually pay the tax but they'd all incur the cost of avoiding it.

The same would apply if, for example, income tax only applied to certain jobs. Let's say bus drivers and lawyers for example. All of a sudden there will be nobody employed as either a bus driver or lawyer. Plenty of "public transport operators" and plenty of "legal advisors" but no "bus driver" or "lawyer" to be found. That's the problem with narrowly defined taxes - there's always some way around them.


----------



## HelloU (25 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I agree with you, but super is evolving so will require tweaking.
> However it was introduced to give people a better retirement, than could be provided by the pension, in reality it was never intended to have 10million dollars in an account.
> This then falls into the tax avoidance realm, however the 1.6 million cap, has put a lid on that.
> So know anyone with more than 1.6 is paying 15% tax on the earnings.
> ...



to help with what happens now ....
make the point that the ability to have more than the cap in super accounts will be very difficult to achieve in the future. It is a sorta one-off result for existing old peeps from a "path of least resistance" decision made when the cap was brought in.

(not exhaustive and for majority of peeps - age alters this)  super is at 9.5% of wage. everyone can then top this up to $25K in total per year. this is the concessional annual limit on contributions (pre-tax money, and all of that then gets taxed at 15% going in. if you used some already taxed money to do this top-up, like a Bpay, then u do a form and it gets sorted out at tax time and you get some of the tax back depending on your tax rate - that is for the peeps that do not work for a place that allows salary sacrifice into super)

thats it for pre-tax money (taxed at 15% ... unless u r special and u got hit at 30% here cos high income)

then, you can also add xtra out of your own pocket - $100K per year. (or roll-up 3 years $300K)

as u get closer to the $1,6M cap, the amount of xtra money u can add reduces until it is nil allowed ....

so end result is that generally peeps in the future will not have more than the cap ($1.6M) in super.

so, once u hit the cap then no more - except the 9.5% is still allowed to go in (and i mean it has to go in by law).


----------



## sptrawler (25 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> to help with what happens now ....
> make the point that the ability to have more than the cap in super accounts will be very difficult to achieve in the future. It is a sorta one-off result for existing old peeps from a "path of least resistance" decision made when the cap was brought in.
> 
> (not exhaustive and for majority of peeps - age alters this)  super is at 9.5% of wage. everyone can then top this up to $25K in total per year. this is the concessional annual limit on contributions (pre-tax money, and all of that then gets taxed at 15% going in. if you used some already taxed money to do this top-up, like a Bpay, then u do a form and it gets sorted out at tax time and you get some of the tax back depending on your tax rate - that is for the peeps that do not work for a place that allows salary sacrifice into super)
> ...



The really stupid thing was, Labor were using pre cap balances, to justify the savings made by the franking credit changes.
It was obviously a rushed policy, to appease the union's and industry funds, because the last minute exemptions for those on Government pensions then for those on welfare, showed it hadn't been tested for integrity.


----------



## Bill M (26 May 2019)

I just watched this interview with Clare O'Neil and "Ms O'Neil said Labor took the "wrong platform" to the election, saying the party got it "badly wrong" with an agenda that was "too crowded".

I really wonder why they (all sides of politics) don't come to a website like this and read through a thread like this with comments from all sorts of Aussie's? There has been hundreds of very interesting posts here and if any political party would read through them they would really understand what we are all about. It is probably the best free resource available. No need to pay Millions of $$$$$$ to consultants, just come here and see what real people are saying, wanting and needing. Just a thought?


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 May 2019)

Bill M said:


> I really wonder why they (all sides of politics) don't come to a website like this and read through a thread like this with comments from all sorts of Aussie's? There has been hundreds of very interesting posts here and if any political party would read through them they would really understand what we are all about.



Everyone lives in a bubble to some extent. We've all done it over something and it can work both ways. Either thinking that others care about what you care about when truth is it's a minor issue at most. Or alternatively assuming nobody's really interested then when you do decide to open the doors you're totally unprepared for the number of people who actually turn up.

Something I'll note though is this.

If you've got 10 engineers in the room and nobody else, and you're going to bring someone else in, then what sort of person should you add?

The worst possible person to pick would be an engineer.

Best would be a tradesman, trades assistant, operator or other "hands on" person with experience relevant to the subject at hand who'll spot any practical difficulties with implementation.

Failing that then you're better off getting some random person from wherever who'll at least give you cause to explain everything in layman's terms which may reveal any flaws in thinking but whatever you do, don't get yet another engineer when you've already got a room full of them.

Why? It comes down to group think, echo chambers and perspective. If you've already got 10 people with the same skills then you'll gain far more from introducing a completely different perspective than you will from at most a marginal improvement on the skill set you've already got by adding another one the same as the rest.

Same concept with anything. If the politicians want to know more about ordinary people well then you don't achieve that by talking to anyone involved with politics in any capacity or who is some sort of academic, wealthy elite, media personality or otherwise lives a life that bears no resemblance to the other 99%.

Instead find out what's on the mind of ordinary people from a diverse range of backgrounds. Online forums would be one place to start with that. Not the only one but certainly a worthwhile one yes.

Main thing is get out of their own echo chamber.


----------



## qldfrog (27 May 2019)

Could be the problem with our democracy, how many it professional, office manager, retail assistant ir mechanics in our liberal labour parties
Lawyers, trade unionists as a profession..lets not pretend they are workers please
Lets get more Paulines..and i am not kidding
Then they can get professional advice experts on various subject if need be
Maybe we should reduce MP allocations


----------



## rederob (27 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Lets get more Paulines..and i am not kidding



That figures .


qldfrog said:


> Then they can get professional advice experts on various subject if need be



So it's ok for bigots and the poorly educated to get expert advice but not for those better educated and with a functional value system?

Half the reason we are where we are is because the "experts" are regularly consulted and equally regularly ignored.

We have re-elected the most secretive government in the nation's history.  A government which refused to cooperate with a State Government Royal Commission into the Murray Darling System, while at the same time lying about how well it had managed the waterways.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Instead find out what's on the mind of ordinary people from a diverse range of backgrounds. Online forums would be one place to start with that. Not the only one but certainly a worthwhile one yes.




Apparently the only guy who picked the election result did it by analysing social media.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...ditional-pollsters-got-it-so-wrong/ar-AABzKF7


----------



## sptrawler (27 May 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Apparently the only guy who picked the election result did it by analysing social media.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...ditional-pollsters-got-it-so-wrong/ar-AABzKF7



This is what I was saying in an earlier post, our generation accepts what the media has to say, which in reality is only the opinion of highly paid yuppie presenters.
When I talk to my four kids in their 30's and their friends, I find they don't watch the news or read newspapers, their ideas and beliefs are being formed by bouncing them around on social media.


----------



## Logique (27 May 2019)

qldfrog said:


> France already has a tax on owning PV panels...
> No need for imagination
> How could you get free power whereas the battlers can not afford/renters can not install panels
> This is unfair
> ...



Election 2019: thank goodness for Queensland!


----------



## sptrawler (27 May 2019)

Nick Bruining's take on the election.
https://thewest.com.au/business/you...shorten-cooked-up-over-a-lunch-ng-b881208764z


----------



## Junior (27 May 2019)




----------



## Logique (27 May 2019)

Labor once represented the Homer Simpsons, but sneers at him now.


----------



## sptrawler (27 May 2019)

rederob said:


> That figures .
> So it's ok for bigots and the poorly educated to get expert advice but not for those better educated and with a functional value system?
> 
> Half the reason we are where we are is because the "experts" are regularly consulted and equally regularly ignored.
> ...



You're from W.A Rob, this might interest you.

https://thewest.com.au/opinion/gare...wan-shows-us-why-labor-lost-it-ng-b881211445z


----------



## IFocus (27 May 2019)

So tax cuts promised in July not happening...tick

Environment minister dropped......tick

Review into pensions and Superannuation.......tick, bend over SP your heroes are going to shaft you.

$40 bil black hole funding about to get filled by cuts to seniors who would have guessed.......thanks Queensland.


----------



## IFocus (27 May 2019)

Oh forgot another one

The surplus that Morrison has made (next year this year....clear?) gone already......tick

$600 bil double again in three years anyone.....tick

Thanks Queensland.....that line will be very useful for the next three years.


----------



## sptrawler (27 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> So tax cuts promised in July not happening...tick
> 
> Environment minister dropped......tick
> 
> ...



At least they will have rhyme and reason, I'm not rich enough to vote for your mob.lol


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 May 2019)

rederob said:


> So it's ok for bigots and the poorly educated to get expert advice but not for those better educated and with a functional value system?
> 
> Half the reason we are where we are is because the "experts" are regularly consulted and equally regularly ignored.




Education of itself is a good thing. The problem is when it leads to hubris and that does seem to occur in some professions more than others. Under that situation no amount of advice from actual experts serves any purpose since it will be either dismissed as wrong or simply ignored.

A classic example of current relevance is the energy situation. Of all who've commented over the past quarter century of "reform" one thing stands out. Focusing purely on the economic aspects, so ignoring technical and environmental matters,  the one group who got it completely wrong was the economists. Unions, operators, tradesmen, engineers, people writing editorials in newspapers, environmentalists and so on were all at least somewhat closer to the truth on the economic aspects of what was being done than the economists were.

Half the value in education is knowing what you don't know and accepting that as being so.

Plenty of people could and did spot that the economic crowd and their political supporters were embedding huge inefficiencies and making wrong assumptions about things they knew little about but those calls fell on deaf ears. Now the community's left with a cost exceeding $1 billion a month not because of education or expertise but because of hubris.

Assuming they're not lacking in intelligence those with a lesser education have an advantage in that they're generally well aware that they don't know about certain things. They're also usually quick to spot ideology from practical information.


----------



## sptrawler (27 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> bend over SP your heroes are going to shaft you.
> .



Humid, another rusted on Labor voter, said exactly the same thing before the election. The only difference, it was going to be Bill that was going to do it to me.
This is the whole problem with you guys, as long as you are screwing the middle class, your happy. Well I certainly hope you maintain that belief, because Labor will never get in, while you do.
You must be pleased, your investment properties, are out of the spotlight now.


----------



## rederob (27 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Education of itself is a good thing. The problem is when it leads to hubris and that does seem to occur in some professions more than others. Under that situation no amount of advice from actual experts serves any purpose since it will be either dismissed as wrong or simply ignored.
> 
> A classic example of current relevance is the energy situation. Of all who've commented over the past quarter century of "reform" one thing stands out. Focusing purely on the economic aspects, so ignoring technical and environmental matters,  the one group who got it completely wrong was the economists. Unions, operators, tradesmen, engineers, people writing editorials in newspapers, environmentalists and so on were all at least somewhat closer to the truth on the economic aspects of what was being done than the economists were.
> 
> ...



I don't find that a compelling argument.
The NEM came about 20 years ago under Howard so power monopolies could be broken down and a "competitive market" result.
The NEM certainly needs some tweaking, but overall the "rules" are not too bad.  You have pointed out issues which are very technical but, as I see it, the outcome will be that poor performers fall by the wayside. 
The biggest problem with the NEM is its dominance by federal Energy Ministers who have been largely incompetent.
I am on the NEM's mailing list and market players are not backward presenting their ideas and explaining why things go wrong, and what needs to be done to fix things.  The fixing bit keeps getting thrown into the too hard basket.
Unfortunately the feds pandered to the easy fixed poles and wires issue, gold plating them, instead of paying attention to how the electrons got there in the first place.  If you want to know why we have amongst the highest electricity prices in the world, look out the window.
Shocking waste .


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2019)

rederob said:


> I don't find that a compelling argument.
> The NEM came about 20 years ago under Howard so power monopolies could be broken down and a "competitive market" result.
> The NEM certainly needs some tweaking, but overall the "rules" are not too bad.  You have pointed out issues which are very technical but, as I see it, the outcome will be that poor performers fall by the wayside.
> The biggest problem with the NEM is its dominance by federal Energy Ministers who have been largely incompetent.
> ...




Yeah, but when Elco's were owned by the States there was competition between the States to keep power prices low, and when they owned distribution and retailing they could cross subsidise to keep prices stable.

Of course, the electricity market was never going to stay the same, rooftop solar saw to that, but gold plating as you pointed out is a significant cause of price increases, and would not have happened if poles and wires were still in government hands.


----------



## wayneL (27 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> So tax cuts promised in July not happening...tick
> 
> Environment minister dropped......tick
> 
> ...



Well,  you can't blame me because I didn't vote for them (or any of the Komrades), but all I have to say is.... 

QUEENSLANDER! 

NB:  WA looks pretty blue too @IFocus


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 May 2019)

rederob said:


> I don't find that a compelling argument.
> The NEM came about 20 years ago under Howard so power monopolies could be broken down and a "competitive market" result.



The economists said that a competitive market would be cheaper.

Those on the other side pointed out that numerous inefficiencies were being embedded into everything from supplying demineralised water and auxiliary fuels through to networks and metering and that the total cost of all that was bigger than any likely saving from competition.

End result is prices went up as those in the second group expected they would.

My point there is not about the energy industry, that's just an example, but that there's no point seeking expert advice if it's just going to be dismissed because it doesn't suit whatever ideas someone else is determined to go ahead with anyway. 

There are many things like that. Eg it would be pretty much pointless to obtain expert advice on anything relating to border security, immigration or CO2 emissions since politicians are simply too rusted on to their own ideas. At best they'll just keep bringing in more experts until they find one who agrees. 

The Liberals getting **** to write reports in a completely different industry that worked backward from the conclusion is another one. Saw that a long time ago - start with the conclusion, include in the report anything that's even remotely close to supporting it and simply omit anything that isn't. Then collect the consultancy fee.


----------



## HelloU (27 May 2019)

@Smurf1976 

don't they make their water? (vap it)


----------



## rederob (27 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The economists said that a competitive market would be cheaper.



It would be and should be, but power generation is not the whole story.
Below is what gold-plating poles and wires looks like:





The other side if this untold story is that States were competing with one another to attract industry, and energy prices were the carrot on their many sticks. This "market" inefficiency was removed by the NEM.
I am not an apologist for the NEM, but if you really want to see what's wrong with it, revisit last year's COAG Energy Council meeting and it gets a lot clearer.


----------



## IFocus (27 May 2019)

wayneL said:


> Well,  you can't blame me because I didn't vote for them (or any of the Komrades), but all I have to say is....
> 
> QUEENSLANDER!
> 
> NB:  WA looks pretty blue too @IFocus




Yep Labor took a flogging in WA as well but reading SP's comments Labor was attacking the middle class pretty well sums it up....... I think the Coalition actually will as they don't have the money.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 May 2019)

HelloU said:


> @Smurf1976
> 
> don't they make their water? (vap it)



Where the issue arose was with multiple plants in fairly close proximity who were sharing workshop facilities, equipment, spares and all sorts of other things.

Eg Plant A has sufficient demin water production on site for rouinte operations but the practice for a restart following a major outage was to truck more in from plant B just down the road which had much greater capacity. Or if that failed then could have got it from plant C not far away so there was a backup plan for everyone yes.

Then plant B and plant D were both depending on plant C for their auxiliary fuel supplies.

They were all sharing workshops and so on with the only one able to do some critical works on plant D being in-house at plant E.

Duplicating all that cost a fortune and some of it never was really sorted - to this day there's work that goes overseas.

My point there has nothing to do with the power industry though, I've only used that example since it's one I know about but my point is about there being no point calling upon expert advice if you're not going to listen to it.

When I got an arborist to check the trees on my property I did so because I wanted to know if they're safe or not. I didn't tell them I wanted them to be safe or unsafe, I said I wanted to know the facts and paid them to tell me.

Which brings up another point that's of some relevance to the way politicians and those close to them think and that's about a concept known as "self-regulation". That's another one where there's a divide between the working class and the upper class (for want of better terms).

Those at the coal face will admit that it's not a great system since money talks and if you want a certain outcome then just find someone who'll do it. Those at the other end of the scale pretend with a perfect poker face that this isn't how things work and it's all above board and so on. As if......


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> Yep Labor took a flogging in WA as well but reading SP's comments Labor was attacking the middle class pretty well sums it up....... I think the Coalition actually will as they don't have the money.




If everyone on the bus needs to pay an extra $1 per trip to keep the service running then fair enough we'l all pay another $.

Where Labor went wrong was singling out one passenger who the driver didn't really like and demanding they pay an extra $50 or be thrown off the bus and left in the middle of nowhere.

That's schoolyard bully tactics and people will vote for someone they don't necessarily like (ScoMo) but who seems reasonable as such over someone they don't trust (Shorten).


----------



## PZ99 (28 May 2019)

I take the view ScoMo might become a lot more liked in the next few polls after winning an unwinnable election in what this article describes as a one man band...

https://www.news.com.au/national/po...y/news-story/9f4b16b9c33795f9bc8eea0f9e52fe56


----------



## Junior (28 May 2019)

IFocus said:


> Oh forgot another one
> 
> The surplus that Morrison has made (next year this year....clear?) gone already......tick
> 
> ...




Surplus was highly unlikely to happen under ALP or Coalition's watch.  They've all been claiming future surpluses for the last 5 years.

The tax cuts for next year will happen, they will be late but they will happen.


----------



## macca (28 May 2019)

Junior said:


> Surplus was highly unlikely to happen under ALP or Coalition's watch.  They've all been claiming future surpluses for the last 5 years.
> 
> The tax cuts for next year will happen, they will be late but they will happen.




Assuming they get through the Senate, they will happen and be back dated 

The forecast surplus had better be there or some of the gloss will tarnish


----------



## HelloU (28 May 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Where the issue arose was with multiple plants in fairly close proximity who were sharing workshop facilities, equipment, spares and all sorts of other things.
> 
> Eg Plant A has sufficient demin water production on site for rouinte operations but the practice for a restart following a major outage was to truck more in from plant B just down the road which had much greater capacity. Or if that failed then could have got it from plant C not far away so there was a backup plan for everyone yes.
> 
> ...



off topic
(do want to get a reputation for derails)

thx, that puts my mind at ease re water but slapped my face about the economy of effort thing and experience exchange between sites (that was a timely reminder that i needed re big picture)

when everyone else going to big red is in a cruiser and carrying various spares, then u had better hope your dmax does not break down.


----------



## IFocus (28 May 2019)

Junior said:


> Surplus was highly unlikely to happen under ALP or Coalition's watch.  They've all been claiming future surpluses for the last 5 years.
> 
> The tax cuts for next year will happen, they will be late but they will happen.




Labor would have actually more wiggle room than the Coalitions promise based on over optimistically rosy Goldilocks  out look rather than revenue.

But also take your point every chance Labor would have missed it as well as the economy dives and a obstructionist Senate.

We will have to wait to see where the Coalition will get funding from my guess it will be from seniors some how (biggest cost in welfare) the current rate of increase is unsustainable.

Franking credits alone increase from currently $6 bill upwards to $9 to $11 bil.


----------



## HelloU (28 May 2019)

the old peeps bill is growing slowly ..... NDIS is the burner
No idea where all the NDIS money came from years ago but that is the current growth industry ....

"The biggest driver of growth in both welfare expenses and overall government payments is the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).... expenditure on disability services was $4.7 billion in 2015–16 but is expected to rise to $24.0 billion in 2019–20 when the NDIS roll-out is completed ....... The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates that real annual growth in expenditure on the NDIS will be 43.6 per cent between 2014–15 and 2025–26, rising from almost zero to 1.1 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ". (govnt quote)


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 May 2019)

So far as funding people in retirement is concerned, surely the sensible approach is to encourage people to fund themselves so long as it ends up being less of a drain on taxpayer funds than the pension.

If persuading people to be self-funded means giving them access to the Tax Free Threshold on their dividends and whatever the proper name is for the card that gets them concessions on things like public transport etc, well then that would seem to be an outright bargain compared to having them on the Age Pension.

Same with the unemployed. If someone's self-funded but still has access to whatever support to find a job and some concessions on bus fares or whatever well then that's a lot cheaper than paying them Newstart.


----------



## Humid (28 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Humid, another rusted on Labor voter, said exactly the same thing before the election. The only difference, it was going to be Bill that was going to do it to me.
> This is the whole problem with you guys, as long as you are screwing the middle class, your happy. Well I certainly hope you maintain that belief, because Labor will never get in, while you do.
> You must be pleased, your investment properties, are out of the spotlight now.




Your not middle class you would need a job for that
Your unemployed with too much money for new start


----------



## sptrawler (28 May 2019)

Humid said:


> Your not middle class you would need a job for that
> Your unemployed with too much money for new start



Hi Humid, haven't heard from you for a while, sounds like you will get your tax cut.
By the way, you don't have to have much money, to not qualify for newstart.
I qualified for disability, when I stopped work 7 years ago, but I chose to self fund so there you go. lol


----------



## Humid (29 May 2019)

https://thewest.com.au/business/mar...nesses-with-was-low-gas-prices-ng-b881078243z

You could always move to WA where a former Labor premier secured dom gas for us locals.
He was a ABC journalist as well......wouldn’t of been too well received here.


----------



## Humid (29 May 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Hi Humid, haven't heard from you for a while, sounds like you will get your tax cut.
> By the way, you don't have to have much money, to not qualify for newstart.
> I qualified for disability, when I stopped work 7 years ago, but I chose to self fund so there you go. lol




Yeah after you spend your redundancies and holiday money


----------



## PZ99 (30 May 2019)

These people must have been betting on a Labor win. LOL

https://www.news.com.au/national/po...d/news-story/71351b4d449eb4c28897ce65b4e6526a


----------



## jbocker (30 May 2019)

Humid said:


> https://thewest.com.au/business/mar...nesses-with-was-low-gas-prices-ng-b881078243z
> 
> You could always move to WA where a former Labor premier secured dom gas for us locals.
> He was a ABC journalist as well......wouldn’t of been too well received here.




Good article and an excellent proposition by McGowan. Add to his argument that WA has a HUGE  untapped resource of Gas to add, sustaining the manufacturing  businesses that require it.


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

This is how you win an election when you are a totally unscrupulous politician and a country doesn't have the capacity to call you to account. 
It's detailed and powerful story of how lies can be created and spread through the internet and influence the views and votes of tens of thousands of people.

*It felt like a big tide': how the death tax lie infected Australia's election campaign *
A trickle of misinformation about Labor policy became a torrent on Facebook as the campaign unfolded. A Guardian investigation has tracked the course of the death tax scare, revealing alarming implications for Australian democracy 


Lenore Taylor: It’s not 2007 any more. We need new tools to fight election lies
Katharine Murphy and Christopher Knaus

Fri 7 Jun 2019 21.00 BST   Last modified on Fri 7 Jun 2019 23.12 BST


    A Facebook post from the LNP MP George Christensen making the false claim that Labor planned to introduce a death tax if it won the Australian election. Photograph: FACEBO
Shares
430


----------



## moXJO (8 June 2019)

basilio said:


> This is how you win an election when you are a totally unscrupulous politician and a country doesn't have the capacity to call you to account.
> It's detailed and powerful story of how lies can be created and spread through the internet and influence the views and votes of tens of thousands of people.
> 
> *It felt like a big tide': how the death tax lie infected Australia's election campaign *
> ...



I'm sorry but that is a very very small part of why labor lost this election. These kind of bs articles to deflect blame is why labor will keep enjoying bring in opposition. 

Did this hack mention the  "Mediscare" campaign that was run by labor previously? 
And then she wants to what? 
Criminalize speech even more perhaps...

Labor made too many enemies with policy hits in a economy on the downturn. And shorten was as appealing as a sht pie.


----------



## bellenuit (8 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> I'm sorry but that is a very very small part of why labor lost this election.




I agree. I wasn't even aware that there were false claims being made regarding Labor introducing a Death Tax, so that couldn't have been wide spread propaganda. Additionally, none of the "letters to the editor" I have read since the election in any paper has had anyone even mention that claim as being an issue for them rejecting Labor.


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

Interesting isn't it ? In fact the article did mention Labours Mediscare campaign and did make a point of saying there weren't many clean hands.

And this "Death Tax" campaign  cannot be identified as the sole cause for Labours loss. Too many other things went wrong.

The interesting part was that this seemed to be a strictly Facebook campaign flicked around by George Christenson in particular and targeted at  the older generation who were made fearful of a giant new Death Tax. The points that were made were
1)  At what stage should governments or individual politicians be pulled up for such creative story telling ?
2) How /who monitors the sort of underground Facebook campaigns that were been used. These were particularly well targeted.  And George Christensen did very well thank you..


----------



## SirRumpole (8 June 2019)

basilio said:


> Interesting isn't it ? In fact the article did mention Labours Mediscare campaign and did make a point of saying there weren't many clean hands.
> 
> And this "Death Tax" campaign  cannot be identified as the sole cause for Labours loss. Too many other things went wrong.
> 
> ...




It's a bit hard to outlaw rumours I'm afraid.

Unfortunately the success of such tactics have set the tone for future campaigns.

No more big targets or carefully thought out policies, it will be negative scare tactics from now on.


----------



## wayneL (8 June 2019)

As it always has been.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> As it always has been.




Not always.

Labor said very little about the clear failures of the Morrison government on energy and the economy and focussed on themselves, which unfortunately is why they lost.


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a bit hard to outlaw rumours I'm afraid.
> 
> Unfortunately the success of such tactics have set the tone for future campaigns.
> 
> No more big targets or carefully thought out policies, it will be negative scare tactics from now on.





But these wern't "rumours " were they? The Facebook ads talked of a death tax. They put figures on it.  It was a calculated lie.

In the past parties have tried to smear opponents with lies and used secretive measures to avoid the consequences of being seen to make up stories that poison the well. For example in 2007 a Liberal Candidate  secretly produced and distributed a leaflet that associated the Labour Party with a (fake)  extremist Islamic group. The scam was discovered and caused a lot of grief to John Howard not to mention Jackie Kelly.

But in 2019 you don't need to use leaflets and get caught.  A targeted Facebook campaign can reach thousands more people. Where do we go from here ?
   _______________________________________________
The *Lindsay pamphlet scandal* was an Australian electoral scandal in which Liberal Party volunteers distributed fake election pamphlets, claiming to be from an Islamic organisation that was later found not to exist, that claimed the Labor Party candidate would support clemency for convicted terrorists and the construction of a mosque in the local area. The incident made national and even international headlines on 21 November 2007, three days before the 2007 Australian Federal election.[1]

The retiring Liberal member of parliament representing the federal Division of Lindsay, Jackie Kelly, was forced to explain why her husband, local orthodontist Gary Clark, was caught distributing the pamphlets with four other people.[2] The pamphlets, claiming to be from "The Islamic Australia Federation", thanked the Australian Labor Party (ALP) for supporting terrorists involved with the 2002 Bali bombings.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_pamphlet_scandal

* It's not 2007 any more. We need new tools to fight election lies *
Lenore Taylor
In the Howard era, spreading misinformation was laborious and there were consequences for getting caught. Now it is rampant and it seems no one cares

How the death tax lie infected Australia’s election campaign
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...007-any-more-new-tools-election-lies-facebook


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

This how the Liberals promoted the fake death tax story.

Liberal headquarters insists it played no role in the proliferating social sharing, and senior figures downplay the contribution of fake news to the election result, but the Morrison campaign was clearly happy to amplify the contentions. The Liberals paid for a series of ads running from multiple Facebook accounts from 13 May, all mirroring the death tax messaging.






A Facebook post outlining the supposed detail of Labor’s death tax. Photograph: Facebook
The ads featured a video titled “Why is Bill Shorten so defensive about an inheritance tax?”, which spliced together vision of multiple Labor candidates repeating the words “death tax” and “secret plan for a death tax”. This was the embodiment of Labor’s feared Catch 22: that they would stoke their own fake news problem.

Those ads, which Liberal insiders insist were a minuscule proportion of a campaign advertising buy doubtless running into millions of dollars, ran from the central Facebook accounts of the Liberal party and LNP, as well as from the pages of MPs Peter Dutton, Ross Vasta, Ken O’Dowd and Warren Entsch, among others.

To put the death tax intervention in context, in total the Liberal party posted about 200 videos from mid-April to campaign day on its Facebook page, and made more than 600 posts.

State-based MPs also began paying for Facebook ads to amplify the message. Colin Boyce, a Queensland state MP, used money from his own budget to boost an ad stating: “A Death Tax is a real possibility under a union controlled Labor Government. A families [sic] house in the city or a family’s rural property may have to be sold to pay a Labor Government 40% Death Tax.”

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tax-lie-infected-australias-election-campaign


----------



## Junior (9 June 2019)

I spoke with a friend of mine, a lawyer in Family Law.  She works for a major law firm in Melbourne.  She talked about the death tax and how she and her parents were shocked by it.....this was last week, they still believe it was an actual Labor policy!  I don't think for a second that it is the reason they lost, but it certainly wouldn't have helped.


----------



## sptrawler (9 June 2019)

From memory, the inheritance tax rumour started in mid 2018, it was reported in the West Australian that the ACTU had asked the opposition to consider it when considering the other tax changes.
I wasn't here for the pre election spiel, I guess it was used a lot in the campaign, I  personally think the negative gearing, CGT and franking issues would have had more impact.
I guess the rumour originated from this document.
https://www.fpwhitepaper.gov.au/sit...07-633-australian-council-of-trade-unions.pdf

From the document:
 Increase taxes on Australian and foreign corporations, and restore a fair level of wealth and inheritance tax on the wealthiest citizens who have reaped the advantages of income and wealth growth at the expense of the vast majority of citizens


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I wasn't here for the pre election spiel, I guess it was used a lot in the campaign, I  personally think the negative gearing, CGT and franking issues would have had more impact.



Go and talk to workers in traditionally strong Labor blue collar areas and I think you'll get pretty close to the crux of the problem.

They're still waiting for the "transition" and other things that successive governments of both persuasions have been promising for the last 30 or so years. It ain't happening and they and many others have given up. Given up not on Labor or Liberal but given up on the entire concept that any government is going to do something to help the mainstream. The idea of adding coal miners, retirees and others to the list sends shudders down their spine really.

Listen to Shorten's concession speech and it's more of the same. Lots of stuff about minorities, the odd good idea here and there, but a failure to focus on the mainstream and to fix what needs to be fixed.

There are still children growing up in poverty. There's 20%+ unemployment in some regions. There are still a lot of "real" issues affecting Aboriginal communities. There are people who won't be considered for work simply because they live near the farm or mine. Essential living costs are going up but ordinary workers' wages aren't. And so on. Focus on that sort of stuff, deliver on past promises, and stop worrying about things which appeal to wealthy inner city types.

That's not to say the others have ideas which are actually good but there's no point adding more to the list when there's already a huge backlog of things to be fixed. Last thing anyone needs is more promises. Instead just go back over the old ones and get them done, only once they're all delivered is it time for any "big agenda" type thinking. 

The Liberals didn't really have any good ideas but that's precisely the point. There's enough outstanding promises as it is without adding more to the list. Promising nothing whilst doing at least something is thus more credible than adding to the list of things not done.


----------



## sptrawler (9 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Go and talk to workers in traditionally strong Labor blue collar areas and I think you'll get pretty close to the crux of the problem.
> 
> They're still waiting for the "transition" and other things that successive governments of both persuasions have been promising for the last 30 or so years. It ain't happening and they and many others have given up. Given up not on Labor or Liberal but given up on the entire concept that any government is going to do something to help the mainstream. The idea of adding coal miners, retirees and others to the list sends shudders down their spine really.
> 
> ...



That is probably a very good point smurph.
Just adding more new taxes, to a population that is fed up of hearing we just need more and nothing getting fixed. Yep you may have hit the nail on the head.


----------



## sptrawler (10 June 2019)

Interesting evidence to support what we have been saying for years, polls are fixed to get the result they want.

https://www.watoday.com.au/politics...ed-labor-losing-election-20190604-p51u9v.html

From the article:
Mr Lonergan said it was possible a degree of "herding" had taken place – a phenomenon whereby pollsters "basically weight your data until you get a result which is in line with the result that you would like to publish, which is not out of step [with competitors]".


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Go and talk to workers in traditionally strong Labor blue collar areas and I think you'll get pretty close to the crux of the problem.
> 
> They're still waiting for the "transition" and other things that successive governments of both persuasions have been promising for the last 30 or so years. It ain't happening and they and many others have given up. Given up not on Labor or Liberal but given up on the entire concept that any government is going to do something to help the mainstream. The idea of adding coal miners, retirees and others to the list sends shudders down their spine really.
> 
> ...



Its what so many have noted in recent years,  and both major parties are guilty of it,  that is, forsaking their base,  trying to appeal to inner city yuppies. 

I do feel that it is Labor however that has diverged most strongly.  The Alphabet soup/ globalist agenda is most opposed to the interests of the average working schmuck. 

Vis a vis,  the saltiest of salty sour grapes,  comes from the postmodernists such as bas,  a fraternity far removed from your average tradie for whom the Labor party was formed.


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2019)

basilio said:


> This how the Liberals promoted the fake death tax story.
> 
> Liberal headquarters insists it played no role in the proliferating social sharing, and senior figures downplay the contribution of fake news to the election result, but the Morrison campaign was clearly happy to amplify the contentions. The Liberals paid for a series of ads running from multiple Facebook accounts from 13 May, all mirroring the death tax messaging.
> 
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (11 June 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> but a failure to focus on the mainstream and to fix what needs to be fixed.




That's the most salient point you mentioned, the mainstream.

Mums and Dads and their kids, jobs, opportunities and education.

Very little in Labor's spiel about that only uncertainty.

I still reckon the negative gearing reforms were a good idea, as were the franking credits except that they failed to take into account "collateral damage".

But after all that, the Libs had a one seat majority before the election and they still have the same after it, so it's hardly a resounding confirmation or rejection of either side.

Maybe most people just don't care.

Unfortunately I think the politician most likely to succeed in the near future will be a populist Trump clone, higher tariffs , Australians first, stuff everyone else, except we just don't have the economic clout to pull that off , but it will sound good to the electorate.


----------



## PZ99 (11 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> But after all that, the Libs had a one seat majority before the election and they still have the same after it, so it's hardly a resounding confirmation or rejection of either side.
> 
> Maybe most people just don't care.



There's more to it than that. 12 seats changed hands so there was a shift in the electorate.

There was a redistribution of seats which notionally put Labor at 72 before the election so they really lost a net of 4 seats. Even more tellingly, they've lost some of their senate reps as well.
Their primary vote is now the same as it was in 2013. Everything they've gained they've now lost.

Whichever way you look at it, the ALP copped a hammering. It was a repeat of 2004.

If you want to win an election on a platform of tax increases, you really gotta get your gear together. Bill Shorten was in reverse right from the start of the campaign.


----------



## IFocus (11 June 2019)

PZ99 said:


> There's more to it than that. 12 seats changed hands so there was a shift in the electorate.
> 
> There was a redistribution of seats which notionally put Labor at 72 before the election so they really lost a net of 4 seats. Even more tellingly, they've lost some of their senate reps as well.
> Their primary vote is now the same as it was in 2013. Everything they've gained they've now lost.
> ...




Correct Labor really got a flogging after 2 terms of Coalition turmoil.

With the polls showing a Labor win Labor felt embolden to take more aggressive reforms to the election.............wrong move in hindsight polling wasn't even close.

If Labor had stayed small target and high lighted what a mess the previous Coalition term was  the result would have been much closer not sure they would have got up against Morrison's "I am your best mate campaign " that most fell for.


----------



## Humid (11 June 2019)

You know your in bed with the loonies when even after an election defeat they still keep talking about you
How about focusing on your decisions


----------



## moXJO (12 June 2019)

Humid said:


> You know your in bed with the loonies when even after an election defeat they still keep talking about you
> How about focusing on your decisions



Yes we should be dealing with the victims grief after the election. Now where do I send those tissues hummer?


----------



## IFocus (12 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Yes we should be dealing with the victims grief after the election. Now where do I send those tissues hummer?




Haha the fight continues its all gods work 

As for victims unfortunately that will be the middle to lower income earners (punters) that will pay for the looming tax cut give away.


----------



## sptrawler (12 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> As for victims unfortunately that will be the middle to lower income earners (punters) that will pay for the looming tax cut give away.



Unfortunately that is always the case, whether it is tax cuts, welfare increases or cost of living increases, middle income earners are the engine room of the economy always have been always will be.
At least this time, they got together and gave the politicians the bird.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2019)

Sad to see that Derryn got dumped from the Senate.

He was one of the few "genuine" independent Senators around.


----------



## sptrawler (13 June 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Sad to see that Derryn got dumped from the Senate.
> 
> He was one of the few "genuine" independent Senators around.



Yes, a very polarising guy people either loved him or hated him, but he did stand firm on what he believed.


----------



## wayneL (13 June 2019)

I think Darryn tried to go too woke. 

Definitely did  some good things,  but the virtue signalling put people off big time,  IMHO


----------



## sptrawler (20 June 2019)

Well it seems like more of the same with the senate, it sounds as though the cross bench and labor are going to stop the tax cuts.


----------



## drsmith (21 June 2019)

The AFR (Fairfax) is giving Labor a lot of stick over its hesitation on the tax cuts.

Scott Morrison is I would suggest less amenable to bend than Malcolm Turnbull was as PM, especially after the Coalition's unexpected election victory. A divided Labor will buckle first.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 June 2019)

drsmith said:


> The AFR (Fairfax) is giving Labor a lot of stick over its hesitation on the tax cuts.
> 
> Scott Morrison is I would suggest less amenable to bend than Malcolm Turnbull was as PM, especially after the Coalition's unexpected election victory. A divided Labor will buckle first.




Yes, they probably will.

I don't see any point in Labor blocking the tax cuts when they could just repeal them in 5 years time if they happen to be in government.


----------



## sptrawler (21 June 2019)

drsmith said:


> The AFR (Fairfax) is giving Labor a lot of stick over its hesitation on the tax cuts.
> 
> Scott Morrison is I would suggest less amenable to bend than Malcolm Turnbull was as PM, especially after the Coalition's unexpected election victory. A divided Labor will buckle first.



If they don't they will further alienate, those that they have already lost, the only ones they are placating are the chardonnay green tea sippers in the mega mansions.
But having said that, if that is who they are trying to impress, they are doing a great job. lol
They don't pay tax anyway, so you might as well take a big stick and shake it, it looks impressive to the tribe.
The other thing that is obvious is, if Fairfax can see it is a no brainer, Labor had better take notice.
Because if there was anyway to hit the Government, over the tax cuts, Fairfax would have found it. IMO


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

Well nothing much has changed, the opposition tells the Government what to do, I wonder if it will stop the tax cuts altogether?

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ition-s-full-tax-package-20190624-p520ox.html

Why doesn't Labor just pass them and repeal them if they win the next election?
It could be argued that the third stage cuts, give a degree of certainty and confidence in the economy, if the economy turns down the cuts become unaffordable.
Then they are canned, all this pi$$ing competition stuff needs to be put aside, let the Government Govern and be held responsible for their decisions.
Looks like another 3 years of nonsense, coming up.


----------



## macca (24 June 2019)

Right now, all the working people can hear is Labor saying "NO Tax Cuts for you"

Talk about double down on a stuff up, the longer this goes on then the more street cred for ScoMo and less for Albanese


----------



## IFocus (24 June 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Well nothing much has changed, the opposition tells the Government what to do, I wonder if it will stop the tax cuts altogether?
> 
> https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...ition-s-full-tax-package-20190624-p520ox.html
> 
> ...




Giving people money then taking it off them is a sort election winner?

I am not convinced Australia can effort any tax cuts at the present time unless you accept its all going on the credit card


----------



## macca (24 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Giving people money then taking it off them is a sort election winner?
> 
> I am not convinced Australia can effort any tax cuts at the present time unless you accept its all going on the credit card




From a strictly economic big picture you are right but tax cuts were promised at the election by the Govt, they want to deliver to the masses, Labor are stopping it.

The pub test says Labor are stopping our tax cuts


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Giving people money then taking it off them is a sort election winner?
> 
> I am not convinced Australia can effort any tax cuts at the present time unless you accept its all going on the credit card



I think the thing is, the RBA says the economy needs people to start spending, the basic wage has been raised.
The only other way is either pay rises, which cost business and jobs, or tax cuts.
So in a way the economy is between a rock and a hard place, infrastructure spending doesn't get out into the economy straight away, the tax cuts do.
I think Labor will do self inflicted damage by not just waving them through, being pedantic about tax cuts in five years, just makes them appear to be looking for a way to stop the tax cuts being passed  on.


----------



## IFocus (24 June 2019)

Agree on all points SP

Ironically the Coalition tax cuts are a politic decision rather than economic based they were about  countering Labors election tax cuts.

Still don't think its great for debt.

Edit how was my spelling in that post


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> Agree on all points SP
> 
> Ironically the Coalition tax cuts are a politic decision rather than economic based they were about  countering Labors election tax cuts.
> 
> ...



Here is a good article, on the mess labor is getting itself into.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...on-on-tax-cuts-into-a-dogs-breakfast/11241538


----------



## Humid (25 June 2019)

Cutting penalty rates should get the economy ticking over
How’s the trickle down working out


----------



## Junior (25 June 2019)

I think there should be far more nuance in the way the tax cuts are costed.  The media constantly quotes the full cost of the tax cuts as an outright dollar number, and ignoring any economic benefits, which is very wrong.

For one, much of the cuts are simply addressing bracket creep.  Secondly, much of the cost of the cuts will be re-couped by Government.  Put more money in an individual's pocket, they have more to spend, higher disposable income, increased business confidence, and that money will be subject to other taxes.

If it ends up being too costly, the Government can do what it always does, leave bracket creep unaddressed for another 10 years, and keep taking in a sh!tload of immigrants to increase the base of taxpayers.

Setting aside all the above, I like the tax policy and the concept that the majority of Australian shouldn't give more than 30% of their wages to the Government.

If you are truly a high income earner, you will still pay a high Marginal Tax Rate for earnings over $200k, which I think is important to note.  These changes are still 5 years off, there will be a lot more individuals earning over $200k in 5 years and beyond, than there are today.


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

Junior said:


> I think there should be far more nuance in the way the tax cuts are costed.  The media constantly quotes the full cost of the tax cuts as an outright dollar number, and ignoring any economic benefits, which is very wrong.
> 
> For one, much of the cuts are simply addressing bracket creep.  Secondly, much of the cost of the cuts will be re-coupled by Government.  Put more money in an individual's pocket, they have more to spend, higher disposable income, increased business confidence, and that money will be subject to other taxes.
> 
> ...



Well put junior, the other thing is Labor acknowledge the economy is failing, but say we can't afford the high level tax cuts.
Where in reality, the low level tax cuts will not really stimulate the economy, as most will be used to pay down debt, the only ones who will spend are those that can afford to.
So as you say, the more people spend, the more tax the Government get, more money goes into circulation and the struggling retail sector in theory should pick up.
Labor are really pulling the trigger, before the gun has left the holster, so to speak.
If the tax cuts turn to manure, the Government wears the fall out, if Labor don't pass the tax cuts they get blamed for the economy falling into recession. It is really a no win situation that labor is pushing, Albo needs to get control, of the loony left.


----------



## PZ99 (25 June 2019)

@sptrawler  It will always be the sitting Govt that gets blamed for the recession / downturn.

We've had a hostile senate for 13 years and during the GFC it was apparently all Labor's fault for the increased unemployment at the time when in reality they couldn't stop it. History will repeat itself for this Govt.

Curiously, the chosen poison panacea was cash handouts (Rudd) versus tax cuts (Turnbull)

We got the cash handouts, no recession, large debt. Highly debatable result...

Now the alternative on the table: tax cuts and budget surpluses. Another debatable result 

It will pass the senate eventually with or without Labors' blessing.


----------



## Humid (25 June 2019)

Spent the entire campaign whining about Labor and losing losing your franking credits?
Win the election and whine about Labor?
Sound familiar gang?
Tax cuts aren’t going to fix this mess and I think interest rates are kept low to stop a massive default not stimulating the economy


----------



## sptrawler (25 June 2019)

I agree with what you say, but ATM the responses by Labor are front and centre in the peoples mind, and the policy handling of Albo will stay in people's minds.
Only my opinion and as you say, the cuts will get through, but a fumbling opposition at this time, is doing itself no favour's.
The difference this time opposed to last time, there is no Chinese mega boom going on.


----------



## Humid (25 June 2019)

Junior said:


> I think there should be far more nuance in the way the tax cuts are costed.  The media constantly quotes the full cost of the tax cuts as an outright dollar number, and ignoring any economic benefits, which is very wrong.
> 
> For one, much of the cuts are simply addressing bracket creep.  Secondly, much of the cost of the cuts will be re-couped by Government.  Put more money in an individual's pocket, they have more to spend, higher disposable income, increased business confidence, and that money will be subject to other taxes.
> 
> ...




I know it’s from the lefties Skynews but
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...und-to-give-most-to-workers-who-need-it-least


----------



## IFocus (25 June 2019)

The thing with this lot of tax cuts is they are political not economic and by that they are not part of an over all tax reform agenda just a dogs breakfast.

I understand the bracket creep issue but the other side is revenue that hasn't been addressed by the Coalition other than ridiculous forecasts of 3% plus growth well beyond what the states are forecasting.

The tax cuts are not really addressing the stimulus of the economy in full or at 100% efficiency as the majority of the money  is going to higher end of earners.

The lower end will spend pretty much in full into the economy higher end not so much.

The US Trump business tax cuts were used in share buy backs pretty much missing the economy on the ground meanwhile the CEO's are creaming it punters not so much.


----------



## sptrawler (2 July 2019)

This is what really worries the Government, IMO, people not spending the tax cuts.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/ban...te-cuts-make-him-worried-20190702-p523gr.html


----------



## macca (3 July 2019)

I consider that the RBA is still living in the past and have done a very poor job of managing our economy over the past 5 years or so.

Firstly, they should have required all investment properties to have at least 10% unencumbered deposit, this would have slowed the bubbles in Sydney and Melbourne and calmed the negative gearing mania that existed for a while.

Secondly, since there has been no major wars for 70 years people with a job have had the chance to accumulate assets. BB's are now living off those assets or living off the return on those assets. 

When interest rates are lowered two things happen, people living on interest from assets reduce their spending accordingly and people paying off loans use the reduced payments to get ahead on their repayments.

The world is a very different place now and the RBA has not worked out that lowering interest rates has a very different effect in todays world.

Do they really think that an interest rate of 1% rather than 2% is going to make any difference to a company considering expansion, get real !! But it does make a difference to those living on their savings.

I find rather annoying when people with Uni degrees are stuck in the era of their graduation, they seem to think that what was right 30 years could not possibly ever change.

If we look at Japan we can see that low interest rates are a simplistic approach to a complicated problem, so here in Oz when that does not work then the RBA is stumped.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 July 2019)

macca said:


> I consider that the RBA is still living in the past and have done a very poor job of managing our economy over the past 5 years or so.



The problems have been brewing for years now and have been discussed on this forum many times.

High housing costs combined with low wages growth mean that as each week passes, we have more first home buyers locked into a "cash poor" situation which won't resolve itself easily given the low wages growth.

High utility costs are a drag on the entire economy since practically every business and individual has at least some use of electricity, gas or other utilities.

Structural change in the economy has seen many medium to high wage jobs replaced by lower wage jobs. Those who were in the middle economically in industries such as manufacturing are now increasingly at the bottom in low value service industries, many of which not only pay low hourly rates but don't even offer full time hours with any certainty.

In the medium concern consumers have run up huge debt levels on average, having reached a point that is unlikely to go much further and which may well reverse as consumers become worried about the future.

Put all that together and it's not surprising to see new car sales and pretty much all retail struggling with various media reports suggesting that restaurants and similar things are now joining that trend. Consumers either don't have the money to spend on non-essentials or, if they do have it, they're worried that they might not have it for much longer and so a cash hoarding mentality and paying down debt is the natural response.

All that's missing so far as recessions go is for one or more some seriously big companies to go bust and lay off a huge number of staff and for unemployment to spike.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2019)

The RBA doesn't really have a lot in its arsenal, other than interest rates. The major issue is IMO, reducing interest rates is meant to cause a corresponding fall in the value of the currency, the problem is every Country is doing it so that negates that outcome.
So it is going to be up to the Government to stimulate the economy, one way or another.


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2019)

sptrawler said:


> The RBA doesn't really have a lot in its arsenal, other than interest rates. The major issue is IMO, reducing interest rates is meant to cause a corresponding fall in the value of the currency, the problem is every Country is doing it so that negates that outcome.
> So it is going to be up to the Government to stimulate the economy, one way or another.



 Well they haven't got very many bullets in the chamber there either.

The mining boom has run it's course, real estate is screwed for quite some time, the rampant immigration card has already been played. And I don't think there's very much in the kitty for massive infrastructure spend. No business in its right mind would set up any industry here 

I really think the can has been kicked along the road about as far as it can be kicked....


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 July 2019)

This man was a state premier not federal but he seems to be pretty much the very definition of arrogance:

https://www.news.com.au/national/ns...s/news-story/b9f053eb0bd99e20412a2b628133bb87

Arrogant crap like that is what Labor needs to rid itself of or in this case well and truly distance itself from. I can't be any blunter really.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> This man was a state premier not federal but he seems to be pretty much the very definition of arrogance:
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/national/ns...s/news-story/b9f053eb0bd99e20412a2b628133bb87
> 
> Arrogant crap like that is what Labor needs to rid itself of or in this case well and truly distance itself from. I can't be any blunter really.




Get over the fact that you can't buy a place to raise your kids because some foreign chap has bought and old place, torn it down , built a 6 bedroom mansion which one son or daughter lives in so they can go to school and when they have finished they rent it out to another son or daughter of a foreign family ?

It's a scandal , but is the current Federal government doing anything about it ?

Would be interesting to know.


----------



## basilio (6 July 2019)

The latest Honest government ad recognizing the miracles of modern politics


----------



## sptrawler (8 July 2019)

A good description of the state of play in politics, by a former Labor advisor. I love his description of Turnbull.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/sco...ng-to-change-the-country-20190707-p524up.html


----------



## Humid (9 July 2019)

Frydenberg says that fiscal stimulus would be a misreading of the governor’s calls for action, arguing Lowe was actually advocating for structural reforms to drive down unemployment. The government is instead pushing for IR reform, arguing this is the best way to boost growth.  

Growth in what?


----------



## Humid (9 July 2019)

Employers pockets?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 July 2019)

Union bashing again.

The rate of industrial disputes is at an all time low, and union membership is low so unions are much weaker now than previously, so why the need for IR "reform" ?

It seems the government is about to embark on Workchoices 2.0, much less publicity than last time, but probably just as damaging for employees.

We already have a gig economy with record underemployment, so it appears that the gov't is preparing to increase job insecurity to quell the voices of those who haven't had pay rises for years.


----------



## sptrawler (9 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Union bashing again.
> 
> The rate of industrial disputes is at an all time low, and union membership is low so unions are much weaker now than previously, so why the need for IR "reform" ?
> 
> ...



Have you got a link to the info Rumpy?


----------



## SirRumpole (9 July 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Have you got a link to the info Rumpy?




What info would you like sp ?

Industrial disputes

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6321.0.55.001

Union membership

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...entary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1819/UnionMembership

Underemployment

https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6202.0main+features10September 2018


----------



## Humid (9 July 2019)

Screw him .....he’s blocked me lol


----------



## sptrawler (9 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> What info would you like sp ?



I was wondering about the re introduction of workchoices, that would be political suicide, I was wondering if you had any links to it?
I would have thought Morrison, would be dead against anything, as controversial as that bunny.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 July 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I was wondering about the re introduction of workchoices, that would be political suicide, I was wondering if you had any links to it?
> I would have thought Morrison, would be dead against anything, as controversial as that bunny.




I was really referring to "Workchoices by stealth", ie doing it on the quiet with various changes to regulations, maybe a bit of innocent looking legislation here and there which all add up to the intent of the original Workchoices being achieved without the political odium that the last one generated.


----------



## sptrawler (9 July 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I was really referring to "Workchoices by stealth", ie doing it on the quiet with various changes to regulations, maybe a bit of innocent looking legislation here and there which all add up to the intent of the original Workchoices being achieved without the political odium that the last one generated.



Oh, right.
With regard union membership, a lot of the fall off in numbers has been because of the loss of large employers, that is why they are now only strong in public sector jobs they are the only employers of a large work force.
Also as the higher paying jobs disappear, people can find it difficult to find the money, to pay union dues.
Another problem for the unions is, with the advent of social media younger people chat a lot, and politics isn't their strong point. But the unions make it very clear, that they are very politically driven, this no doubt has an adverse effect on the younger generation.
The other point worth mentioning, in your link it said unions are very strong in nursing and teaching, my wife was an RN and from memory it was compulsory to be in the nurses union for registration.
Just my opinion, and I was always a union member, from 15- 55 years of age.


----------

