The ScoMo Government

[qldfrog]

Here's one for the "true believers".

Earn less than $90k and you'll be paying more tax.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09...-secret-heart-federal-budget-surplus/11554990

Well when middle class is decimated, you need to get the money somewhere, and whatever bs you read on Labour manifesto, you will can not get it from the few uber rich
The slow decent to the Argentinian model
They are still electing socialists and taxing the rich there
Definition of a rich bastard to be taxed?
Anyone having more money than 50% of voters.
a race to the bottom

 

[sptrawler]

Here's one for the "true believers".

Earn less than $90k and you'll be paying more tax.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09...-secret-heart-federal-budget-surplus/11554990

Just to keep the theme balanced, here is one for the delusional "true believers".

https://www.afr.com/politics/former...-income-tax-rate-way-too-high-20180805-h13kk0

 

[SirRumpole]

Just to keep the theme balanced, here is one for the delusional "true believers".

https://www.afr.com/politics/former...-income-tax-rate-way-too-high-20180805-h13kk0

He's right.

Get the personal tax rates down , but also do away with the perks like negative gearing and superannuation tax benefits to balance the system.

 

[qldfrog]

Negative gearing is a basic taxation principle but get overused in property here due to endless RE market growth
The issue will disappear after a few years of flat market, it is a consequence, not a cause of economic imbalance favouring RE
It also needs to be taken into account if you want to keep things like depreciation etc otherwise, you need to allow immediate deduction for repairs etc
Think about it...

 

[sptrawler]

He's right.

Get the personal tax rates down , but also do away with the perks like negative gearing and superannuation tax benefits to balance the system.

Easier just to bring on a death tax, why tax the crap out of people earning and inve sting, why not just tax what is passed on?
You want to encourage endeavour and let people enjoy the the proceeds, but that shouldnt mean the next generation should be able to do sod all because they inherit.

 

[Tink]

 

[PZ99]

Negative gearing amounts to taxpayers funding excessive debt - which is one of the things stalling the economy, it also distorts the price of housing - putting it out of range of first home buyers and it's a gravy train where money is siphoned from the have-nots to the haves.

It's one of the reasons we have to tax the crap out of people for the sake of little or no return.

 

[sptrawler]

Negative gearing amounts to taxpayers funding excessive debt - which is one of the things stalling the economy, it also distorts the price of housing - putting it out of range of first home buyers and it's a gravy train where money is siphoned from the have-nots to the haves.

It's one of the reasons we have to tax the crap out of people for the sake of little or no return.

Well then get rid of it completely, not just make it for the rich.

 

[PZ99]

Absolutely get rid of it completely. Should've been done years ago.

 

[sptrawler]

Absolutely get rid of it completely. Should've been done years ago.

What was done in the U.K years ago was, first home buyers could claim their home interest as a tax deduction, not investors. Which isnt a bad idea.

 

[PZ99]

What was done in the U.K years ago was, first home buyers could claim their home interest as a tax deduction, not investors. Which isnt a bad idea.

Not a bad idea because it mitigates debt - so the return is a lesser burden on the state.

 

[sptrawler]

Not a bad idea because it mitigates debt - so the return is a lesser burden on the state.

The other godd thing with it is, it still encourages endeavour and reward, in Australia we are too preoccupied with punishing endeavour and rewarding complacency. IMO
It is very difficult to produce a motivated population with that agenda, as has been proven by some Countries in Europe.

 

[macca]

If we want to curb negative gearing on multiple properties the RBA could simply mandate that all residential investment loans must have an unencumbered deposit of 15%.

If you do the tax maths it really kills the milking of the system by the rich

Or first one can be borrowed, which would encourage the average joe public to think about investing for their old age, then all others need 20% deposit.

 

[SirRumpole]

Easier just to bring on a death tax, why tax the crap out of people earning and inve sting, why not just tax what is passed on?
You want to encourage endeavour and let people enjoy the the proceeds, but that shouldnt mean the next generation should be able to do sod all because they inherit.

You may want to mention that to the LNP.

 

[bi-polar]

Taxes? The US has too much revenue and just spends it on planes and walls. Australia is eyeing off the United States' tightly guarded fuel reserve as it seeks to overcome having less than a third of the stocks it should. Why can't US do Australia's budgets?

 

[sptrawler]

You may want to mention that to the LNP.

Im sure it will be looked at in the review, as the population ages and the super system matures, there will be on going changes for the next 20 to 30 years IMO.
As long as it is all done in well thought out way, it will be fine, if it is done in a half arsed back of the napkin way, it will end up a dogs ear.
Time will tell, but there hasnt been any knee jerk brain farts yet, so that is a good sign.
Again just my opinion.

 

[Knobby22]

I think the Government will just stop or slow down the increase in contributions planned.
It doesn't look good when wage growth is 2% and the next rise is 0.5%, especially when the economy is in trouble.
They will also look at trying to hobble the Industry Funds for no good reason.

I think they will mainly avoid any hard decisions and kick the can down the road, but then again I am a huge fan of Rob Sitch's Utopia.

 

[chiff]

I think the Government will just stop or slow down the increase in contributions planned.
It doesn't look good when wage growth is 2% and the next rise is 0.5%, especially when the economy is in trouble.
They will also look at trying to hobble the Industry Funds for no good reason.

I think they will mainly avoid any hard decisions and kick the can down the road, but then again I am a huge fan of Rob Sitch's Utopia.

Yes ,Dutton Cash et al were bragging how they were going to expose or bring down Industry super funds...that was before the banking royal commission discredited their own preferred funds.Now they are trying another way to get into industry funds..As an old man told me 'there are more ways to skin a cat than stuffing a pound of warm butter up its rear end'

 

[sptrawler]

I think the Government will just stop or slow down the increase in contributions planned.
It doesn't look good when wage growth is 2% and the next rise is 0.5%, especially when the economy is in trouble.
They will also look at trying to hobble the Industry Funds for no good reason.

I think they will mainly avoid any hard decisions and kick the can down the road, but then again I am a huge fan of Rob Sitch's Utopia.

That is true knobby, in a lot of ways there is no point in low income earners living on the bread line, while they have money stuffed away, so they can have enough when they retire to reduce or replace their pension. To me that seems a bit cruel.

 

[basilio]

That is true knobby, in a lot of ways there is no point in low income earners living on the bread line, while they have money stuffed away, so they can have enough when they retire to reduce or replace their pension. To me that seems a bit cruel.

Hmm. I believe the idea behind the compulsory super contribution was that this was savings made by employers on behalf of workers. If it all went well (super payments made, super company investing well, reasonable fees) in 30-40 years time there would be a sizable fund to help retirement.

But if the extra super guarantee is not given will that mean employers add another 2-3% to wages in compensation ?

The problems I see in super for low income workers has been the the issues I raised in the brackets above. In that sense what would make excellent sense would be a government run/guaranteed super fund which ensured it received workers entitlements, had minimal fees and offered a guaranteed 3% real return.

All fine of course but it wouldn't suit the super industry would it ?