Is Shorten PM material?

[trainspotter]

Keating abolished the whole lot in 85. It's grandfathered under the latest arrangements, there is no comparison.

One investor's property is another family without their own home.

I don't give a stuff about Liberal propaganda, the vast majority of negative gearing benefits go to the top 10 percent of income earners.

It's a rort and should be got rid off.

One investor's property put's a roof over some peoples head who for whatever reason cannot afford a home due to circumstances like bad credit, not enough income, divorce, lifestyle choice, whatever.

Ermmmmm the Keating statement you might want to check you FACTS on that one ...

Following the tax summit in July 1985 the Hawke/Keating government disallowed negative gearing interest expenses on properties bought after 17 July 1985. It meant that taxpayers could only offset interest expenses against rental income. It was no longer possible to obtain a tax deduction for that part of the interest expense that exceeded the net income from properties (that is rent less other expenses such as rates, maintenance, etc.). The left over interest costs could not be offset against other income. However, it could be carried forward to offset property income in later years.

Talk about taking a sledgehammer to fix a Rolex

 

[Knobby22]

One of those WTF moments .... where the Labs once again don't realise:

View attachment 67267

Yes, incredibly dumb.

 

[Knobby22]

Spending on services vs spending on corporates ?

Something is a no brainer.

No word from the Libs about how reliant their corporate tax policy is on overseas events, and how shaky their ROI is.

0.9% improvement in GNI after 20 years. Pathetic. Is that the best they can do ?

And keep allowing the tax lurks of negative gearing on all homes and capital gains discount which costs $7 billion a year.

Yes, we are in a deficit guys, but as long as the mates are ok, that's fine. We'll just slug the sick to make up for it.


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ments-company-tax-claims-20160529-gp6ika.html

Its about competiveness with other countries.
Anyway it doesn't really matter, 10 years ahead?? It's just small business cuts for this term and they may not get another much less a fourth term. I don't know why the Libs stated the 10 year plan, it was pretty dumb, and it will be a real millstone next election.

 

[overhang]

Its about competiveness with other countries.
Anyway it doesn't really matter, 10 years ahead?? It's just small business cuts for this term and they may not get another much less a fourth term. I don't know why the Libs stated the 10 year plan, it was pretty dumb, and it will be a real millstone next election.

I really don't believe that a 5% lower tax rate will revive our manufacturing industry nor is it going to prevent companies shifting their profits to tax havens. It will make such a negligible impact to the mining industry who are far more dependent on commodity prices than tax rates. We have the minerals in the ground, they're a finite resource in an ever growing world population increasing demand, they can mine here with our healthy political climate, generous subsides and infrastructure or they can head elsewhere. And a tax cut will do stuff all to boost the service industry who rely on consumer demand, a company tax cut will not put $ in the hands of consumers, individual tax cuts would. Businesses don't just employ more people because they pay less tax, they depend on demand and these tax cuts do nothing to increase demand to a substantial level. Trickle down economics is a load of :swear:

 

[bellenuit]

I really don't believe that a 5% lower tax rate will revive our manufacturing industry nor is it going to prevent companies shifting their profits to tax havens. It will make such a negligible impact to the mining industry who are far more dependent on commodity prices than tax rates. We have the minerals in the ground, they're a finite resource in an ever growing world population increasing demand, they can mine here with our healthy political climate, generous subsides and infrastructure or they can head elsewhere. And a tax cut will do stuff all to boost the service industry who rely on consumer demand, a company tax cut will not put $ in the hands of consumers, individual tax cuts would. Businesses don't just employ more people because they pay less tax, they depend on demand and these tax cuts do nothing to increase demand to a substantial level. Trickle down economics is a load of :swear:

If that were the case then increasing the tax rate should have no effect either, in which case why not put it up to 99% and we all reap the benefits.

If you have a competitive environment, tax cuts should flow on to consumers and likely lead to increased demand, which in turn should cause an increase in production and employment. When our manufacturers and service industries compete with overseas companies, then the tax reduction makes our companies more competitive allowing them to expand.

 

[SirRumpole]

If that were the case then increasing the tax rate should have no effect either, in which case why not put it up to 99% and we all reap the benefits.

If you have a competitive environment, tax cuts should flow on to consumers and likely lead to increased demand, which in turn should cause an increase in production and employment. When our manufacturers and service industries compete with overseas companies, then the tax reduction makes our companies more competitive allowing them to expand.

No business makes money unless consumers spend.

The LNP have no plans for increasing consumer spending power. How will corporate tax cuts flow on to consumers ?

Business could just say thanks we'll take it as profit.

Thoughts of increased health prices (still on the books in the Senate), won't help consumer sentiment.

There are too many holes in the LNP plan. It was probably written by the business community themselves.

 

[overhang]

If that were the case then increasing the tax rate should have no effect either, in which case why not put it up to 99% and we all reap the benefits.

If you have a competitive environment, tax cuts should flow on to consumers and likely lead to increased demand, which in turn should cause an increase in production and employment. When our manufacturers and service industries compete with overseas companies, then the tax reduction makes our companies more competitive allowing them to expand.

Of course within reason but our tax rates are currently quite competitive on an international level. But it will only increase our GDP by 1% in the long run. It's an inefficient way of increasing cash flow to consumers when companies can bank the profits themselves and pay dividends to overseas shareholders and the quite negligible impact to the economy is evidence of that. Give the money to the consumer and you're assured it will increase spending, increase demand and subsequently lead to employment.

 

[Knobby22]

Tighten the tax laws so they actually do pay some tax and get the best of both worlds.

Let's face it, McDonalds, Apple, Newscorp, Singtel etc. pay virtually no tax in any case.

 

[bellenuit]

No business makes money unless consumers spend.

The LNP have no plans for increasing consumer spending power. How will corporate tax cuts flow on to consumers ?

Business could just say thanks we'll take it as profit.

Thoughts of increased health prices (still on the books in the Senate), won't help consumer sentiment.

There are too many holes in the LNP plan. It was probably written by the business community themselves.

Company Tax is just another cost on business and reducing it will, in most cases, lead to a reduction in the price of the products/services produced which increases demand. That is very much Business 101. Increased spending power to consumers can be effected by increasing the funds they have available to buy or, as in this example, reducing the costs of the products they want to consume.

The ability of companies to simply cream off the tax cut as extra profit is generally only possible when the company is a monopoly within its industry. That's why it is the responsibility of government to prevent as far as possible monopolistic situations from occurring (one of the roles of the ACCC)

 

[SirRumpole]

Company Tax is just another cost on business and reducing it will, in most cases, lead to a reduction in the price of the products/services produced which increases demand. That is very much Business 101. Increased spending power to consumers can be effected by increasing the funds they have available to buy or, as in this example, reducing the costs of the products they want to consume.

The ability of companies to simply cream off the tax cut as extra profit is generally only possible when the company is a monopoly within its industry. That's why it is the responsibility of government to prevent as far as possible monopolistic situations from occurring (one of the roles of the ACCC)

What you have said could also be done with an increase in the minimum wage. The people most likely to spend, ie the low income earners would spend this money in the economy.

The business sector is now complaining of a lack of wage growth. Well, now is their chance to provide some of that wage growth.

Labor say they support a company tax cut for small business of less than $2 million turnover, which is 86% of businesses. Multi nationals which avoid tax already don't need a tax cut, they only pay around 25% on average.

The ultimate goal should be to lower everyone's tax, but have you seen the deficit and debt disaster left by this government ?

 

[drsmith]

The defining moment of the campaign ?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpfBriMicYY

http://www.9news.com.au/national/20...l-of-karl-stefanovics-budget-surplus-grilling

 

[noco]

.

The ultimate goal should be to lower everyone's tax, but have you seen the deficit and debt disaster left by this government ?

And what did the Liberals inherit from Labor 2013.....They inherited a massive debt and deficit thanks to Rudd/Gillard wreck less spending and the underfunded NDIS and Gonski.....You know the funding Sawnnie said he would recoup from the "MINING TAX" that cost more to administer than what he collected. They inherited an on going cost of maintaining 50,000 illegal boat people plus those still left in detention......The Green/Labor dominated senate obstructed $16 billions in savings which Labor now states they would implement if they win government......Not much help from the Green/Labor coalition in the national interest.....So long as Labor could make the Liberal Government look bad....What a grubby lot!!!!

Had Labor still been in power after 2013 debt and deficit would have been even higher...Just look at Labor's history and their forecast beyond July 2016.

 

[noco]

Sure you are on planet earth atm noco.

And on the polls, and whilst working on pre-polling handing out, the Greens are certainly not on the decline. And commercial polling suggests the Greens will pick up two new lower house seats beside the one we have just in Victoria alone.

.

In 2013 the Greens vote dropped 3.1% to 8.6%.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31947229/greens-hope-for-balance-of-power-talks/#page1

His party wants to lift its primary vote, which fell 3.1 percentage points to 8.6 per cent in the 2013 election, and achieve big swings in targeted seats.

 

[Tisme]

If I was Mal or Bill I'd be trying to lose for the next 3 years as Brexit and the chain reaction washes through the international economy.

 

[noco]

If I was Mal or Bill I'd be trying to lose for the next 3 years as Brexit and the chain reaction washes through the international economy.

Brexit is being beaten up by the media...It will all settle down very soon.

 

[drsmith]

If I was Mal or Bill I'd be trying to lose for the next 3 years as Brexit and the chain reaction washes through the international economy.

For the leader of any political party, government today is better than a chance tomorrow.

That's how Mal and Bill would both see it.

 

[drsmith]

Within striking distance ?

 

[dutchie]

Labor should replace sleazy Shorten with Albanese irrespective of Saturdays result.

 

[Tisme]

Labor should replace sleazy Shorten with Albanese irrespective of Saturdays result.

You're kidding ..right? Put someone who universally liked by both sides of the argument and doesn't mind pulling his head in when he brain farts....never going to happen.

 

[noco]

You're kidding ..right? Put someone who universally liked by both sides of the argument and doesn't mind pulling his head in when he brain farts....never going to happen.

Barnacle Bill says he has a united team but he forget about those 50 Labor MPs who are against the BOAT TURN BACK.....UNITED ??????????????....lMAO

Albo is already sharpening the knife for the next Labor party meeting....Would love to be a fly on the wall.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...3/news-story/0e82ef85426a546e4d33e6b7b00c1257

BILL Shorten is refusing to buy into reports that Labor MPs are already plotting his downfall should he lose on Saturday.

Speculation is mounting that popular frontbencher Anthony Albanese could mount a leadership challenge if Mr Shorten does poorly on Saturday.

“I have no surprise that in the days Labor is closing in on winning that some people will try and distract people from our case,” he told Alan Jones on radio 2GB this morning.

Under Labor rules agreed in 2013, Mr Shorten will be forced to spill the leadership if he loses the election.

The Opposition Leader is continuing his Medicare and health crusade in the Liberal seats of Brisbane and Forde today.

The Prime Minister is doing a radio blitz appearing on Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin and Tasmanian radio. before making a televised election address at the National Press Club in Canberra.

He is expected to use the address to call for an end to division for division’s sake.

Bill may be the brides maid but never the bride.