That is a bit of a backflip from you Rumpy, it was only a couple of posts back that you were promoting penalizing the lowest income earners with franking credits. Just saying?
But super tax still has to be low because we want people to contribute to it so they aren’t a burden later, and also if some one does save enough to be a self funded retiree, then I think the fact that they aren’t a burden on society deserves a bit of a tax break.
One factor worth thinking about is that if super was taxed at say 20%, a lot of retirees that would have been self funded will burn through their super faster, and drop into the pension years earlier than they would have other wise.Well even if you taxed super income at half the marginal rate that is still an incentive and would increase revenue. As @Smurf1976 pointed out something should be done about those who blow their super then go on the pension.
Mate a lot of low income earner mum and dads have Telstra and Medibank shares.Mate, the lowest income earners just don't have the money to invest in shares or rental property so changes to franking credits or negative gearing means stuff all to them whereas an increase in GST means a lot. And a lot of low income earners aren't on welfare they just happen to be lowly paid so increases in welfare won't affect them either.
Mate a lot of low income earner mum and dads have Telstra and Medibank shares.
I also never said they negative geared, but I did allude to the fact if they are renting, the landlord would pass on the increased cost of higher interest rates onto the low income tenant.
Those low income earners may work in somewhere like Woolies or Bunnings, so they definitely will have shares earned as part of their wage package through the employees share purchase plan, but you dont mind kicking them in the goolies. Lol
Absolutely, I have said over and over, it is immoral to take it of the lowest earners, while high wealth individuals retain them.It was your suggestion to get rid of franking credits for everyone, wasn't it ?
Absolutely, I have said over and over, it is immoral to take it of the lowest earners, while high wealth individuals retain them.
It is the same as saying, only those who have worked qualify for a pension, because they are the only ones who have paid tax to support the pension.
Well my position hasnt changed.Well I think we agree then.
One factor worth thinking about is that if super was taxed at say 20%, a lot of retirees that would have been self funded will burn through their super faster, and drop into the pension years earlier than they would have other wise.
So it might not be as big of a net win as we would hope, especially if that 20% drop in revenue caused a certain portion to drop out of private health care, or private nursing homes etc.
For every 1 wealthy retiree that you want to tax there is probably 20 border line self funded retirees.
It's looming as well, larger than life !Appologies for the spelling of looking, Im currently on the phone, big fingers and small letters arent a good fit. Lol
Do people in Saudi Arabia or the USA pay world parity prices for their own oil i wonder ?It sounds as though the energy issue is starting to cause a problem, on one hand the treasurer is talking about introducing new taxes on the gas suppliers and in the next breath talking about capping what they can charge consumers, it could all get very messy IMO.
Interesting times.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers can’t say when Australians' power bills will come down
Treasurer can't say when power bills will come down, as government weighs price cap
Jim Chalmers says the government is "always recalibrating our expectations for electricity price rises" and that prices will "moderate in time".www.abc.net.au
Treasurer to consider increasing tax on gas companies
Jim Chalmers has signalled the government will consider strengthening the petroleum resource rent tax arrangements to collect more revenue from gas exporters.www.google.com
I doubt it.Do people in Saudi Arabia or the USA pay world parity prices for their own oil i wonder ?
I think they are trying too hard to please everyone (except the consumers). They have to grasp the nettle and lay down the law to the resource exporters who are the ones making billions at the expense of the rest of us.I doubt it.
The thing is Albo, Bowen and Chalmers need to get some rhyme and reason to their narrative, it is all sounding like a confused symphony with no common flow, it sounds a bit chaotic.
They quoted that they will reduce emissions by 43% and reduce power bills, at the moment they sound like they will be lucky if they can keep the lights on, there is an underlying feeling of panic IMO.
I just hope they sort it out.
In the USA I would say pretty close to it, Oil is privately owned in the USA, no oil company is going to want to sell their oil at a discount.Do people in Saudi Arabia or the USA pay world parity prices for their own oil i wonder ?
In the USA I would say pretty close to it, Oil is privately owned in the USA, no oil company is going to want to sell their oil at a discount.
I think you are spot on, but I also think Bowen and Chalmers are talking themselves into a corner.I think they are trying too hard to please everyone (except the consumers). They have to grasp the nettle and lay down the law to the resource exporters who are the ones making billions at the expense of the rest of us.
What did you want me to get from that info? It’s talking about gasoline/petrol prices, not oil prices.USA gasoline prices, 25-Nov-2024 | GlobalPetrolPrices.com
We show Octane-95 gasoline price data for the USA from 2014-12-22 to 2024-11-25. The average gasoline price during that period is USD 0.82 per liter with a minimum of USD 0.52 on 2016-02-15 and a maximum of USD 1.37 on 2022-06-13.www.globalpetrolprices.com
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?