The ScoMo Government

[moXJO]

Please name something, anything, world class that Morrison put in place to fight covid. For that matter, what shingle apart from good luck, can he claim?

Umm the lack of covid cases.
Lack of business collapse.

We are 149th for deaths/mill. And lets face it, that was because it got out of control in one state. Good old 'belt and road' province.

 

[Humid]

Seems to be 2 different sets of rules with slomo

 

[Humid]

Umm the lack of covid cases.
Lack of business collapse.

We are 149th for deaths/mill. And lets face it, that was because it got out of control in one state. Good old 'belt and road' province.

Harvey Norman for example

 

[moXJO]

Harvey Norman for example

Go Harvey go Harvey.

Wonder if he played that jingle on his wedding night?

 

[rederob]

Probably the best thing he did was establish a National Cabinet with the State Premiers to bring together a united front to the issue.

They failed on on covid arrangements as no consistency was ever achieved.

The Government also respected the medical advice that said go quick and go hard on closures to minimise the spread and get on top quickly.

Closures were carried out by States.

Scorecard:

• Pandemic preparedness = fail
• Nationally agreed restriction levels = fail
• Mask mandate = fail
• Rapid antigen testing for domestic travel = fail
• Covid app = fail
• National QR code = what?
• Repatriation of overseas citizen = fail
• Aged care = fail
• Vaccine production = fail
• Safest vaccine = fail
• Vaccine rollout = fail
• Vaccine passport = fail
• National information/communication campaign = fail

The above took me 3 minutes, so there are probably more factors where Morrison's scorecard would not measure up.
On the economic front Australia has been propped up by China trade, despite several product bans or tariff barriers. Morrison on China is a dead loss. We are lucky China is going gangbusters and cannot source some essential raw materials and foodstuffs elsewhere, in the quantity they need it.
While Jobkeeper propped up many businesses it failed miserably in terms of generating a productivity return. In other words the money added nothing to infrastructure, nor did it add any social housing.
The Homebuilder program has been a huge bonus to well off Australians despite covid having no impact on private dwelling approvals.

 

[rederob]

Umm the lack of covid cases.
Lack of business collapse.

JobSeeker, JobKeeper, assistance to small and medium sized businesses, plus a few ancillary economic response measures will cost somewhere around $185 billion. Have a look around your council area or State to see what that generated or built.

We are 149th for deaths/mill.

Wow. You mean we have twice the death rate of Madagascar, three times the death rate of Togo, four times the death rate of Tajikistan, five times the death rate of Uganda, and...ten times the death rate of China. Well done Scomo!

 

[IFocus]

The states have done all the heavy lifting as far as COVID goes taking on federal responsibilities such as quarantine and in some cases age care.
In amongst this they have been attacked by the federal government for closing borders while the feds bar you from even leaving Australia while stopping Australians from entering Australia while letting their mates out / back in, not a good look.

Note the federal government have continued to play politics with COVID, blame shifting, Queensland election a good example and potato heads comments recently re Queensland.

Also note even Bali is ahead of Australia on vaccination rates, in Australia's case mired in blame shifting continuing changing stories re supply. Why they keep saying how great they are while being so far behind just baffles bit like electric cars are going to steal your utes.

I think Hunt deservers some credit but continue to think Morrisons PMship has run its course.

 

[IFocus]

Single largest issue I've heard mentioned about the last election, by far, was the franking credits.

I think policy wise it was handled poorly failing to nuance the situation and failing to back the horse called self interest and as a result lost plenty of votes.

Franking credits was brought in to address double taxation in other words it was a tax policy.

Once it was changed so credits were handed out with no tax paid it became a benefit nothing to do with tax policy as its a net drain on treasury.

Now that its a benefit it should be argued what its purpose is.

 

[Smurf1976]

Once it was changed so credits were handed out with no tax paid it became a benefit nothing to do with tax policy as its a net drain on treasury.

Where the problem arises is best explained by looking at the actual Income Tax rates at the bottom end:

Up to $18,200 = 0%

$18,201 - $45,000 = 19%

Now I don't hear any side of politics running around saying that either of those ought to be raised to a 30% tax rate or that anyone whose employer deducted too much tax, for whatever reason, should not receive a refund of the excess amount.

I think many are forgetting that a franking credit by its very nature arises due to tax having been paid. Even a refund of the whole lot only takes that to zero, it's not a welfare payment.

Employee situation: Employer deducts PAYG Income Tax from the employee's pay. At the end of the financial year, if too much was deducted as per the Income Tax scales, the ATO issues a refund.

Dividend situation: Company deducts 30% tax from the shareholder's dividends prior to payment. At the end of the financial year, if too much was deducted as per the Income Tax scales, the ATO issues a refund.

In both cases money was taken from the individual's income and handed to the ATO.

In both cases a refund will be issued if too much tax was paid and an additional payment will be required by the ATO if the amount paid was insufficient.

Both are calculated using the exact same Income Tax rates.

If we're going to get rid refunds of excess tax paid in the case of investors then it's only fair to do the same with workers and to require that all employers deduct tax at a minimum rate of 30%. I don't advocate that, but at least it would be consistent and not favouring one group over another.

Politically well the 50 year old manual worker who's been tossed on the scrapheap is the exact person Labor was supposedly looking after but has seemingly abandoned. Hence the Coalition keeps winning elections - there's an awful lot of people who are either in that situation themselves, know they could well end up in it, or have friends / family who are.

 

[sptrawler]

The State and Federal home building incentives are definitely helping stimulate first home buyers, but with the lack of dividends and low interest on term deposits, investors are also piling into property.

First home buyers spend $10,000 more in a single month | Savings.com.au

The latest data shows a 9.3% monthly increase in first home buyer loans in December 2020, now at its highest level since June 2009.

www.savings.com.au

Property dreams over for young Aussies

The dream of owning a home could be even further out of reach for young Aussies as investors flood back into the market and property prices skyrocket to eye-watering levels.

www.news.com.au

 

[sptrawler]

Once it was changed so credits were handed out with no tax paid it became a benefit nothing to do with tax policy as its a net drain on treasury.

Now that its a benefit it should be argued what its purpose is.

Any franking credit is a net drain on treasury, whether it is a refund to a SF retired person, or a reduction in tax payable by Twiggy Forrest.
They are both the same loss of tax paid by business to treasury.
If the low income earner loses the 30c tax return from the ATO, everyone else should lose the reduction in tax offset for franking credits.
Just do away with franking credits full stop. Easy
Why should super funds have kept them and self managed super funds lost them?
The whole thing was either a scam, or a massive brain fart, thankfully most people were smart enough to realise what a joke it was.
Anyway, I'm sure labor will get another shot in the big chair next election, unless they come out with ridiculous policies as they did last time.
It is their election to lose again, people are over the Libs, as Humid said they had done very little other than tread water, until the covid issue came along.
So it was time to flip them anyway IMO, if Shorten hadn't stuffed up so badly, they would already be in office.

 

[Humid]

Fair you

say

 

[Smurf1976]

Fair you View attachment 122480 say

If they wish to go down a “tax the rich” approach then that’s one thing.

What caused the upset is that someone at the bottom end of the scale was going to be collateral damage and there’s quite a few such people.

We’re taking about bricklayers and truck drivers here, not CEO’s and the like and we’re talking about money being invested that they’ve already paid tax on when they earned it.

 

[sptrawler]

Fair you

Like I said, just stop franking credits, don't just pick and choose who should and shouldn't get them.
Same as negative gearing, just stop it, don't pick and choose who can have it.
This is what causes all the friction in Australia.
Why should someone who is under retirement age and is self funded on savings and shares, be less entitled to a tax offset, than someone who has shares and earns $3m a year?
Why should someone who owns their own house and can afford to build a new house, for the purpose of renting it, be able to negative gear it.
When a tradie working away, who doesn't own a house wants to buy a property to rent out to build a nets egg, can't negative gear it?
Just weird $hit.
Hopefully Albo doesn't get the same dickheads in his ear that Shorten did, if he keeps his head down, he is a shoe in.

 

[SirRumpole]

Like I said, just stop franking credits, don't just pick and choose who should and shouldn't get them.
Same as negative gearing, just stop it, don't pick and choose who can have it.
This is what causes all the friction in Australia.
Why should someone who is under retirement age and is self funded on savings and shares, be less entitled to a tax offset, than someone who has shares and earns $3m a year?
Why should someone who owns their own house and can afford to build a new house, for the purpose of renting it, be able to negative gear it.
When a tradie working away, who doesn't own a house wants to buy a property to rent out to build a nets egg, can't negative gear it?
Just weird $hit.
Hopefully Albo doesn't get the same dickheads in his ear that Shorten did, if he keeps his head down, he is a shoe in.

Just put a means test on franking credits.

People have to declare ALL their income including tax free super and if it's bigger than the median wage then reduce franking credits dollar for dollar over that amount.

 

[sptrawler]

Just put a means test on franking credits.

People have to declare ALL their income including tax free super and if it's bigger than the median wage then reduce franking credits dollar for dollar over that amount.

Same with negative gearing make it upto a $ amount, simple, why try and pick winners and losers.
Reward endeavour, investment and risk taking but reduce rorts, anyone negative gearing multiple properties is taking the pi$$, same as anyone getting $m of franking credits.
People should be encouraged to invest in companies and real estate, but it shouldn't become a taxpayer funded gravy train for anyone, it should help those who are trying to become principal home owners and self funded pensioners.
I would rather see negative gearing applied to first home buyers up to a certain amount, to offset their interest payments and franking credits as you say stopped after a certain amount, not as ar$e about as was suggested.
You want mums and dads to buy a house, build a nest egg and reduce the reliance on the pension later in life, not punish them for it.
It really has nothing to do with political parties, just what is fair and reasonable for hard working Australians, you have to give encouragement for effort otherwise people wont try.
The other thing that needs addressing is the tax paid by those on public service pensions.

 

[macca]

Same with negative gearing make it upto a $ amount, simple, why try and pick winners and losers.
Reward endeavour, investment and risk taking but reduce rorts, anyone negative gearing multiple properties is taking the pi$$, same as anyone getting $m of franking credits.
People should be encouraged to invest in companies and real estate, but it shouldn't become a taxpayer funded gravy train for anyone, it should help those who are trying to become principal home owners and self funded pensioners.
I would rather see negative gearing applied to first home buyers up to a certain amount, to offset their interest payments and franking credits as you say stopped after a certain amount, not as ar$e about as was suggested.
You want mums and dads to buy a house, build a nest egg and reduce the reliance on the pension later in life, not punish them for it.

If the RBA wants to put out the fire in RE prices, all they need do is demand that all investment loans have an unencumbered deposit of 10% minimum

In most cases it makes negative gearing "not worth the effort"

 

[sptrawler]

If the RBA wants to put out the fire in RE prices, all they need do is demand that all investment loans have an unencumbered deposit of 10% minimum

In most cases it makes negative gearing "not worth the effort"

If a real estate investment doesn't stack up without a tax offset, it really shouldn't be allowed, at the end of the day negative gearing was designed to assist an investment until it became positive geared.
If it is just there to support an investment until there is a capital gain, it is just aiding a ponzi scheme, which is nonsense.
All studies have shown that the best way to a comfortable retirement is to own your home, so let first home buyers claim their interest as a tax deduction, up to a certain value.
With investment property, if the business plan doesn't show a likely hood of ever becoming positive geared, over a certain period of time, don't allow it. Also cap the amount that can be negative geared.

 

[Humid]

Its been done to death...just leave it for new builds

 

[Humid]

If they wish to go down a “tax the rich” approach then that’s one thing.

What caused the upset is that someone at the bottom end of the scale was going to be collateral damage and there’s quite a few such people.

We’re taking about bricklayers and truck drivers here, not CEO’s and the like and we’re talking about money being invested that they’ve already paid tax on when they earned it.

If you want to believe the negative media at the time was aimed at bricklayers and truck drivers good onya.
They were used by the big end of town to keep the status quo just like mining taxes

WAKE UP