Australian Federal Election - 2022

[IFocus]

I haven't seen a specific list of positive achievements for the last 9 years, lots of long negative ones and grand over aching claims of brilliance but to be honest, really the states have continually done the heavy lifting and that extends across party lines where as the Coalition federally have had some shockers giving $40 bil (debt) to profitable company's has to top the list.

Still it can be passed is it $200 bil of debt trying to buy the election or have I got that wrong?

 

[PZ99]

Nah, he toppled himself.
The election before he won with an increased majority and I and everyone I knew voted for him.
I remember him saying when he won that he warned the party to not get carried away and then he brought out new labour laws to legally cut our wages and before I know it I am being asked to sign a contract giving away holiday leave, 4 weeks only if made redundant and a friend is told he now has to work weekends for no extra pay or lose his job.

He lost his seat because everyone was angry at him. He had Australia at his feet and then he attacked us. I had young kids and a big mortgage so just signed away my conditions for a tiny wage rise. It was a stressful time.

Basically everything you've said there is the reason why I'll never vote for that party again.

Our taxes paid off all that Govt debt but instead of saying thankyou they stiffed us workers.

@sptrawler I think I better wait until next week before I let you know who John Kunkel is

 

[sptrawler]

Coalition's super for houses plan would further increase house prices.

Those of us who own houses should be happy, but it's not going to help home buyers.

A super first home buyers policy? I wanted to scream, says Saul Eslake - Stockhead

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s latest-declared plan would allow first home buyers to dip into their super to spend on a home deposit.

stockhead.com.au

That's the problem, there isn't much that will help home buyers, other than a housing collapse and that doesn't help those who have recently bought a house, they end up with negative equity.
It really is an awkward situation.

 

[The Triangle]

Coalition's super for houses plan would further increase house prices.

Those of us who own houses should be happy, but it's not going to help home buyers.

A super first home buyers policy? I wanted to scream, says Saul Eslake - Stockhead

Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s latest-declared plan would allow first home buyers to dip into their super to spend on a home deposit.

stockhead.com.au

It's not right. Increase the money available to purchase a limited supply of goods (homes).... Economics 101.

More policy to help the wealthy and help the banks push up house prices and mortgage values.

 

[sptrawler]

Basically everything you've said there is the reason why I'll never vote for that party again.

Our taxes paid off all that Govt debt but instead of saying thankyou they stiffed us workers.

@sptrawler I think I better wait until next week before I let you know who John Kunkel is

The worker always gets stiffed, by both sides, because they are the engine room of the economy.

 

[wayneL]

Our whole economy is underpinned by two things, rising house prices and mining and is therefore one of the least complex (if not *the least complex) economies in the first and second worlds... And doesn't really measure that well against the third world either.

Policy failure on a monumental scale from both parties over a very long period of time.

So I can't see any government wanting to bring housing prices into check. If that happens it will be by accident and we will be in very dire economic straits indeed.

The order of the day will be to appear to try to help first home owners while at the same time insuring that housing prices keep getting inflated.

(Personal opinion)

 

[sptrawler]

It's not right. Increase the money available to purchase a limited supply of goods (homes).... Economics 101.

More policy to help the wealthy and help the banks push up house prices and mortgage values.

What's not right is people bidding up the price of houses, I don't know how you can stop them, other than force a limit on how much people can borrow. It is just a crazy ponzi loop over East IMO.
People who want a house want a crash, those who have a house want prices to go up, it is like a casino.
All over a little square of land with a pile of bricks on it, that some bloke who left school at 15 stacked up in a square, weird how it is held in such high reverence.

 

[wayneL]

What's not right is people bidding up the price of houses, I don't know how you can stop them, other than force a limit on how much people can borrow. It is just a crazy ponzi loop over East IMO.
People who want a house want a crash, those who have a house want prices to go up, it is like a casino.
All over a little square of land with a pile of bricks on it, weird.

I have often used the "Frankinomics", but saw another term which is probably better to describe government economic policy... Ponzinomics.

 

[PZ99]

Hehe... If you wanna help first home buyers without blowing out prices have a look at Labor's policies at the last election

Starting with getting rid of that neg gearing yeh ?

 

[sptrawler]

Hehe... If you wanna help first home buyers without blowing out prices have a look at Labor's policies at the last election

Starting with getting rid of that neg gearing yeh ?

As long as they do it across the board, doing it to one sector just stiffs the worker yet again.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's the problem, there isn't much that will help home buyers, other than a housing collapse and that doesn't help those who have recently bought a house, they end up with negative equity.
It really is an awkward situation.

Yes it is, but I'll suggest one idea,

1. Federal , State and Local governments cooperate to build more well serviced but affordable home units that are within the reach of young couples to purchase. This obviously increases supply of dwellings.

2. As a couple's family grows and their income income increases they will likely want larger accommodation so they look around for a house.

3. Meanwhile retired people who don't want to maintain their house any more and want to downsize may find an apartment attractive.

4. The retired couple sells the house to a young family and they then buy an apartment.

5. Both get what they want.

So there is an upward path for the young, and a comfortable and secure place for retirees.

There would have to be some disincentive for speculators so that only genuine buyers are in the market (negative gearing has to go or be curtailed).

 

[sptrawler]

Yes it is, but I'll suggest one idea,

1. Federal , State and Local governments cooperate to build more well serviced but affordable home units that are within the reach of young couples to purchase. This obviously increases supply of dwellings.

2. As a couple's family grows and their income income increases they will likely want larger accommodation so they look around for a house.

3. Meanwhile retired people who don't want to maintain their house any more and want to downsize may find an apartment attractive.

4. The retired couple sells the house to a young family and they then buy an apartment.

5. Both get what they want.

So there is an upward path for the young, and a comfortable and secure place for retirees.

There would have to be some disincentive for speculators so that only genuine buyers are in the market (negative gearing has to go or be curtailed).

Yes it is a bit along the Singapore model and would work IMO, the problem is neither side of politics want to get into the housing market, it is easier just to either give stimulus money, or crash a section of the market.
The underlying issue IMO is, politicians are lazy and only want to deal with moving taxpayers money around, they don't want to be answerable and responsible for a department that actually supplies a direct service to the public, that style of politics has been well and truly buried, now it is all outsourced.
Lets privatise or corporatise everything so that the Govt is at arms length and the minister just has to say,"yes we will give more funding for that", it is so much easier than explaining why housing development is behind schedule.
Remember when Governments actually had public works departments, main roads departments and trucks, workers, yards etc.

 

[IFocus]

Hehe... If you wanna help first home buyers without blowing out prices have a look at Labor's policies at the last election

Starting with getting rid of that neg gearing yeh ?

Yep as per Wayne's post neg gearing is just another thing that insures flow of capital into the wrong area of the economy

 

[Ferret]

Hehe... If you wanna help first home buyers without blowing out prices have a look at Labor's policies at the last election

Starting with getting rid of that neg gearing yeh ?

Spot on.

Get rid of negative gearing on housing and/or cut the CGT tax discount to 25%. A whole bunch of investor buyers move out of the housing market and housing prices drop. Easy fix to the problem.

Unfortunately, as Labor found out at the last election, Aussies love their housing investments and these policies are toxic. Maybe the electorate will eventually see we need to take this medicine to fix housing affordability.

I would have voted for this at the last election, but I didn't like abolishing franking credits bundled into the package and I found Shorten obnoxious.

 

[sptrawler]

Spot on.

Get rid of negative gearing on housing and/or cut the CGT tax discount to 25%. A whole bunch of investor buyers move out of the housing market and housing prices drop. Easy fix to the problem.

Unfortunately, as Labor found out at the last election, Aussies love their housing investments and these policies are toxic. Maybe the electorate will eventually see we need to take this medicine to fix housing affordability.

I would have voted for this at the last election, but I didn't like abolishing franking credits bundled into the package and I found Shorten obnoxious.

I liked both the ideas, get rid off negative gearing and franking credits, what I didn't like was that both were only going to be taken of low income people, the rich were still going to get the franking credits and be able to negative gear new builds.
Just stop them both, or put a cap on them both, easy.
Also as you say Shorten was unelectable, Albo is a far better choice.

 

[wayneL]

I liked both the ideas, get rid off negative gearing and franking credits, what I didn't like was that both were only going to be taken of low income people, the rich were still going to get the franking credits and be able to negative gear new builds.
Just stop them both, or put a cap on them both, easy.
Also as you say Shorten was unelectable, Albo is a far better choice.

Franking credits and negative gearing are in no way, shape, or form the same thing.

All franking credits do is to eliminate double taxation of company profits. Removal of these would be tantamount to restoring double taxation, unless company tax is accounted for in the individual's tax return.

Whereas negative gearing is special consideration for intentional trading losses, which are not available to those running any other sort of business.

 

[sptrawler]

Franking credits and negative gearing are in no way, shape, or form the same thing.

All franking credits do is to eliminate double taxation of company profits. Removal of these would be tantamount to restoring double taxation, unless company tax is accounted for in the individual's tax return.

Whereas negative gearing is special consideration for intentional trading losses, which are not available to those running any other sort of business.

I don't disagree, just think that if you take either of them off one group, they should be taken off all groups.
To say that negative gearing is o.k on multiple new builds but not o.k on established homes, just distorts the market in favour of those who can afford to build multiple new investment properties, while destroying the value of home owners. Wouldn't it just be fairer to cap the amount that can be claimed?
Same with franking credits, to take the franking credits off those who earn less than $18,000 or have investments in a SMSF, while allowing retail and industry super funds to retain them. Also someone who is a billionaire, to use them to offset their tax obligation, appears skewed reasoning.
As you say franking credits are there to stop double taxing, the first $18k of earnings is tax free, but with dividends they are given out after tax has been removed.
So those on less than $18k should either get that tax back, or get an untaxed dividend which would be higher, they would actually be paying tax at 30% on the first $18k of earnings otherwise.
Again if there is a problem funding the franking credit system, either cap it or remove it, it has only been in existence from recent times.
I'm all for saving the budget, what I'm not for, is stiffing the average working person to carry it as usual, while the elites go on their merry way getting richer.

 

[wayneL]

I don't disagree, just think that if you take either of them off one group, they should be taken off all groups.
To say that negative gearing is o.k on multiple new builds but not o.k on established homes, just distorts the market in favour of those who can afford to build multiple new investment properties, while destroying the value of home owners. Wouldn't it just be fairer to cap the amount that can be claimed?
Same with franking credits, to take the franking credits off those who earn less than $18,000 or have investments in a SMSF, while allowing retail and industry super funds to retain them. Also someone who is a billionaire, to use them to offset their tax obligation, appears skewed reasoning.
As you say franking credits are there to stop double taxing, the first $18k of earnings is tax free, but with dividends they are given out after tax has been removed.
So those on less than $18k should either get that tax back, or get an untaxed dividend which would be higher, they would actually be paying tax at 30% on the first $18k of earnings otherwise.
Again if there is a problem funding the franking credit system, either cap it or remove it, it has only been in existence from recent times.
I'm all for saving the budget, what I'm not for, is stiffing the average working person to carry it as usual, while the elites go on their merry way getting richer.

I say just make the taxation regime consistent and reasonable. No trickery, unbalanced incentives, or excessive bureaucratic expense to administer.

If we have an income tax, make it consistent, if we have a business tax, make it consistent, if we have a capital gains tax, make it consistent.

Franking credits at the base level seek to make taxation consistent, negative gearing seeks to make taxation inconsistent.

This is why we have an unbalanced economy geared towards property investment, rather than production.

 

[The Triangle]

I say just make the taxation regime consistent and reasonable. No trickery, unbalanced incentives, or excessive bureaucratic expense to administer.

If we have an income tax, make it consistent, if we have a business tax, make it consistent, if we have a capital gains tax, make it consistent.

Franking credits at the base level seek to make taxation consistent, negative gearing seeks to make taxation inconsistent.

This is why we have an unbalanced economy geared towards property investment, rather than production.

And franking credits are effectively available to any and everyone with a share trading account. They are reasonably fair.

Negative gearing credits are really only available to people who already own a home (suppose they could be renters themselves) and have enough money to own a second investment home - which is generally the wealthy earners.

 

[moXJO]

Negative gearing isn't why house prices are high. It ain't going to do a lot either if you get rid of it.