- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,912
- Reactions
- 12,351
A few pensioners may suffer from this measure, but I would say that Labor would probably hand out some sweeteners for them.
Is Shorten PM material?
- Thread starter dutchie
- Start date
A few pensioners may suffer from this measure, but I would say that Labor would probably hand out some sweeteners for them.
Waste of time really isn't it. Its available for any of the public to use. Or labor dwindles it down to pork roll pensioners.
Pollies will probably give themselves a pay rise with the takings.
Both tax parties are to gutless for proper tax reform. Although Dutton seems heartless enough to give it a spin.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
Self funded pensioners, by and large don't vote Labor so the potential downside is the, mainly Liberal/Murdoch inspired, outrage sympathy vote.
Labor wants everyone to rely on government benefits and services. Opens up their voting base. Same reason they support select big business and certain industry, they can unionize the workforce.
Labor threw this policy at us as a "look at me saving the budget".
Everyone that gives it a go can use this dividend strategy, to make life a bit easier. I was dirt dirt poor to start with. I used financial strategies that were available to everyone, to get ahead.
Labor would be happy double taxing us to pay for its largesse.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,912
- Reactions
- 12,351
Care to mention what party introduced dividend imputation ?
Libs put it in its current form.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,912
- Reactions
- 12,351
But which party actually introduced it ?
Libs
In its current form.
Labor party lost its way a long time ago, as did the libs. And there is nothing on the horizon.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
No, Labor through it out there for the Batman election as a litmus test of how unpopular the Libs are, even with contentious legislation like imputation therapy. It was designed as a slap in the face for Malcolm and it came off.
Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
I thought a socially responsible clean and green policy would have got Labor over the line.
Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
Done. The next years wage to the gov. for free. I will move to N.Z. where the pastures are greener and teach them a thing or two about taxation reform.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,690
- Reactions
- 6,554
They were against the Greens not the Libs. I would have thought the S.A. election shows the Libs are still in with a definite chance.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
That's not how politics is played. The Labs wanted to show they can win an election against an unassailable lead and managed a 3% swing in their favour instead.
That the Libs didn't field a candidate is seen as avoiding a result showing a swing against them and preventing preferences to labor amongst its flock. They were hoping a bleed into the Greens, which didn't happen.
The federal electorate has been detuning itself from party obsequence. The SA State election is just change after a ragged 12 months.
Shorten has consolidated his position and both Malcolm and Richard are in strife from within now
How many throw away candidates did labor field?
Put up independents that run green mantra to dilute the vote.
They do it consistently in my electorate.
Greens simply lost this due to infighting. Why would libs bother wasting money on a safe seat.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
It doesn't matter what excuses are thrown up, because it only shows ineptitude at reading the electorate and party disarray.
The Libs were very open in stating they wouldn't run a candidate that could translate into prefereces to Labor. It backfired and was a mistake Malcolm could not afford.
I think labor strategy is miles in front of the Liberals. I think money is becoming an issue though. Keep it for swing seats rather than lost causes.
They also don't want to be seen giving preferences to the greens. They have sold out their base enough already.
- Joined
- 18 September 2008
- Posts
- 4,041
- Reactions
- 1,185
Thanks for that, best laugh I've had today.
You must be joking if you think that just because a Liberal government gave high wealth individuals and companies tax breaks that they never should have got that it's therefore daylight robbery to claw a bit of that back when we have a budget deficit and debt that was a "disaster" according to the Libs and is now even worse since they got in.
If you read my posts you will see that I am not against this measure (though I think the issue will be the implementation). What intrigues me is your terminology. Calling it "savings" when it is an increased tax take. And previously, your posts suggesting companies should only be allowed carry forward tax losses for just a few years. As I say, it gives the impression that we owe everything to the government and ought to be grateful if they concede to allow us to keep some of it to live on.
In relation to dividend imputation, IMO the problem isn't so much the elimination of the tax refund for those whose tax rate is less than the company rate, it is the drastic change this will have on self-funded retirees in particular. They have structured their finances to avail of these tax credits and it is not something they can change overnight to regain their same level of after tax income. I believe that Shorten has suggested that they look at property as an alternative (I only glanced at the headline, but didn't read the full article). To move from shares into property requires liquidation of shares which would then mean having to pay capital gains tax and there can be huge issues with property if the retiree requires funds to cover some unexpected contingency.
In regards your claim that only 3 countries have a dividend imputation system (I assume you are correct), don't forget that many other countries have a much more favourable capital gains tax regime in relation to shares. For example, in the US:
In 2017, the capital gains rate for those in the 10% and 15% income tax brackets is 0%, meaning those who earn the least are not required to pay any income tax on profits from investments held longer than one year. For those in the 25% to 35% tax brackets, the capital gains tax is 15%. For the wealthiest citizens who fall into the 39.6% income tax bracket, the capital gains rate is still only 20%.
What is likely to happen if Shorten introduces this policy is that it will cause a change in the way companies distribute profits that will in the end negate much of what Shorten is trying to achieve. So the net result is he will have upset a lot of people with little fiscal achievement.
I don't know what measures local businesses will employ, but in the US many companies pay little out in dividends (2% of the share price is regarded as fairly high), instead re-investing in the business. This is because it is more beneficial for investors to take their profits through capital gains which are taxed favourably than from dividends which are taxed at their marginal rate.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
They have cemented their position as the centrist party.
In Batman there was a Bernardi candidate who only scored in the 6 percentile ... that is where the Lib vote should have gone, but it didn't get close to the ~historical 20% conservatives total.
I'm getting worried at the specter of a Labor govt with their quota based, rather than merit based members and the absence of traditional Labor fundamentals they originally championed.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,912
- Reactions
- 12,351
At last look the Libs had a swing away from them of about 7%.
Repeated nationally, that would be disastrous for them.
Wysiwyg
Everyone wants money
- Joined
- 8 August 2006
- Posts
- 8,428
- Reactions
- 284
Social order and quality of life need to be paid for. The more one earns the more one pays. This means the less earners have access to a better quality of life which they (by choice, intellect or lack of earning capacity) paid less for. The less earners should be thankful for what they have. The more earners should be given star treatment for paying the bulk of societies life quality.
I will work the Easter public holidays and pay significantly more tax but will receive the same benefits of that tax as Barry Bludger next door.
