The ScoMo Government
- Thread starter sptrawler
- Start date
-
- Tags
- government scott morrison
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,628
- Reactions
- 24,511
Just get rid of negative gearing and franking credits IMO.
The self funded get the dividend and no franking credit, the income earners get the dividend added to their taxable income and no franking credit easy, all super funds lose the franking credit, everyone gets the same.
The ATO makes a killing, all Australians gain, magic and fair.
I think on new builds under the median price is a win winJust get rid of negative gearing and franking credits IMO.
The self funded get the dividend and no franking credit, the income earners get the dividend added to their taxable income and no franking credit easy, all super funds lose the franking credit, everyone gets the same.
The ATO makes a killing, all Australians gain, magic and fair.
Gamble on the price increase
As I type im reminded its all ponzi
You are right get rid of it
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,628
- Reactions
- 24,511
Unless an investment property purchase or new build makes sense financially on its own merits, people shouldnt be getting taxpayers money to subsidies it IMO.
Like I said earlier, if you are going to subsidise anything, subsidies PPR for young people to buy their first property, because that is what will give them a better retirement, owning their own home.
Just my opiniom.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,628
- Reactions
- 24,511
Way too many career politicians and public servants in the Canberra bubble, that have no idea of how real life works and they all have a self serving agenda which revolves around keeping their ar$es in their well paid jobs with perks and sod all to do with helping hard working Aussies IMO.
CSL will reach a million COVID vaccines a week soon: Murphy
The national vaccine rollout was always going to depend on how quickly Australia's local production of the AstraZeneca vaccine could ramp up.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,289
- Reactions
- 17,503
I do my own calculations to check political claims thanks.
Long story short is that with a job it would cost me not one cent.
Be unemployed and then I was up for the tax hit.
That's the single most regressive policy I can recall seeing from any side of politics in a very long time.
It could apply to anyone but there's a "class" element in that it's blue collar and other non-profession workers who tend to end up on the scrapheap through no fault of their own. They're the ones who know they need investments outside super and may well be living on that for a decade or more. The smart ones have generally worked that out at a pretty young age.
Suffice to say if you go and talk to those workers well rather a lot of them understood the implications. It was a direct attack on their "Plan B" strategy of investing lest they end up like so many others and thrown on the scrapheap circa age 50.
Therein lies part of the problem. Those who've only ever worked in white collar professions are likely somewhat baffled to realise that workers are indeed "thrown on the scrap heap" and that retirement is very often something that happens suddenly without warning and that's it, it's over. Won't likely happen if you're an academic or a Director of something but for many others it's a very real prospect.
As I said - if you think it's wrong, there shouldn't be refunds, then why not take them off employees too?
Franking credit refunds are claimed to cost approximately $6 billion a year and as you point out, a large portion of that's being claimed by the wealthy thus meaning the cost for those on lower incomes is indeed fairly low.
Meanwhile the Tax Free Threshold costs somewhere around $70 billion* in lost revenue compared to a 30% minimum tax on all income.
*I couldn't find an actual figure but apparently there's 13.5 million payers of Income Tax and I've assumed the majority would earn at least $18.2k a year.
Now I'd fully support stopping rorts of this system just as I support stopping any other tax rorts of which there's quite a few. Between the various rorts that would save many $ billions most definitely.
Imposing a 30% minimum tax rate on a minority of taxpayers however, just because of their income source, is a pretty nasty way of going about it and hits only two groups: (1) those rorting the system (2) those who find themselves out of work who become collateral damage in the pursuit of the former.
The whole thing's symptomatic of politicians out of touch with the community. To be blunt, there's far too many in parliament who followed a pathway that was basically school > university > profession. They've never had a full time manual labour job or indeed any job where "Age Pension age is 67" sounds like a lame attempt at comedy until you realise it's actually a real law and not a joke.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,289
- Reactions
- 17,503
No argument there.
It's the early retirees, usually involuntary, I and many others are worried about. Nobody's defending rorts and so on.
RegressiveI do my own calculations to check political claims thanks.
Long story short is that with a job it would cost me not one cent.
Be unemployed and then I was up for the tax hit.
That's the single most regressive policy I can recall seeing from any side of politics in a very long time.
It could apply to anyone but there's a "class" element in that it's blue collar and other non-profession workers who tend to end up on the scrapheap through no fault of their own. They're the ones who know they need investments outside super and may well be living on that for a decade or more. The smart ones have generally worked that out at a pretty young age.
Suffice to say if you go and talk to those workers well rather a lot of them understood the implications. It was a direct attack on their "Plan B" strategy of investing lest they end up like so many others and thrown on the scrapheap circa age 50.
Therein lies part of the problem. Those who've only ever worked in white collar professions are likely somewhat baffled to realise that workers are indeed "thrown on the scrap heap" and that retirement is very often something that happens suddenly without warning and that's it, it's over. Won't likely happen if you're an academic or a Director of something but for many others it's a very real prospect.
As I said - if you think it's wrong, there shouldn't be refunds, then why not take them off employees too?
Franking credit refunds are claimed to cost approximately $6 billion a year and as you point out, a large portion of that's being claimed by the wealthy thus meaning the cost for those on lower incomes is indeed fairly low.
Meanwhile the Tax Free Threshold costs somewhere around $70 billion* in lost revenue compared to a 30% minimum tax on all income.
*I couldn't find an actual figure but apparently there's 13.5 million payers of Income Tax and I've assumed the majority would earn at least $18.2k a year.
Now I'd fully support stopping rorts of this system just as I support stopping any other tax rorts of which there's quite a few. Between the various rorts that would save many $ billions most definitely.
Imposing a 30% minimum tax rate on a minority of taxpayers however, just because of their income source, is a pretty nasty way of going about it and hits only two groups: (1) those rorting the system (2) those who find themselves out of work who become collateral damage in the pursuit of the former.
The whole thing's symptomatic of politicians out of touch with the community. To be blunt, there's far too many in parliament who followed a pathway that was basically school > university > profession. They've never had a full time manual labour job or indeed any job where "Age Pension age is 67" sounds like a lame attempt at comedy until you realise it's actually a real law and not a joke.
i
The pathways to getting ahead in this country are already drying up. I'm not sure I'd be wanting to give the government anymore to spend on wasteful sht. Looking at either the Labor or liberal clowns I'm not exactly confident with either of their abilities to get value for money.
Hey humid how much of that $250k a year you keep?
Is it in any tax minimising schemes?
Hey humid how much of that $250k a year you keep?
Is it in any tax minimising schemes?
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,646
- Reactions
- 4,718
Penalty rates?
I havnt earnt that much for a while I enjoy too much time off but when I was I would max out super but beyond that pay the taxman
