Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
There will be no new taxes under a government I lead.:rolleyes:

abgill_Dthumb_thumb.png
 
trainspotter said:
Governments of the day should realise that they are not voted in on their policies or how well they have the trust of the voting public. The reason they are voted in is because we get SICK of the EEEJITS running the country at the time. :aus:
Click to expand...

JEFF KENNETT: Let's just recap the reality of life as we see it. Firstly, oppositions don't win government, governments lose office.
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3995463.htm

Notice the subtle difference? (Thanks McLovin) ;)
 
who would have thought I would ever say that but I wish Kennet was in charge instead of preparing to be taxed as mad while wasting billions on pensiosn, fighter jets, submarines, mandatory super,maternal leave
absolutel;y appaled.
We had a worst nightmare government with Julia G and keep the same dum ass management with the current government..
I had hope at least some sanity on the finance side with the liberals
 
Kennett's plan at least has logic on it's side, but it still involves boosting tax revenue, which I will never support while there's still significant scope to reduce unnecessary Government expenditure (defense, welfare, PPL).

I always found Abbott to be an unpleasant character (like most politicians), but I did make the mistake of believing him when he said no new taxes. He said it so many f***ing times, 'no new taxes' and 'no surprises'.

Both total rubbish less than a year down the track.
 
maybe Joe and Tony can take this info from the ATO to heart. Some big $$$ there just ripe for the saving.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) has just released its 2011-12 Taxation Statistics, which once again revealed Australia is a nation of loss-making landlords, with 15% of taxpayers owning rental properties declaring a combined $7.86 billion of losses.

According to the ATO, there were 1,895,775 property investors in Australia in 2011-12, up from 1,811,175 in 2010-11

Some more interesting (worrying?) facts that can be deduced from the ATO data includes:

  • Just over 1 in 7 (1,895,775) Australian taxpayers are a property investor (either negatively geared or positively geared), claiming a total of $7.859 billion in rental losses;
  • 1 in 10 Australian taxpayers (1,266,540) are a negatively geared property investor claiming a total of $13.799 billion in rental losses;
  • The average income loss for all property investors in 2011-12 was $4,146; and
  • The average income loss for all negatively geared property investors in 2011-12 was $10,895.

With the massive increase in IP loans over the last 18 months I am expecting these figures to really blow out for the next few years, worse still when interest rates start rising and losses really take off.
 

Attachments

  • ng stats.JPG
    ng stats.JPG
    55.8 KB · Views: 9
If I could sum up the Abbott government in 2014,

they're using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Lurching to the extreme right, and if you don't believe me, read the Bolt blog these days. Wake up to yourself Andrew Bolt, who's the extremist now.

At this rate, Labor will be back next time.

In 2014, the Abbott government's electoral WorkCover is:

i) 6 months Paid Parental Leave, and
ii) Medicare co-payment
 
Logique said:
If I could sum up the Abbott government in 2014,

they're using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Lurching to the extreme right, and if you don't believe me, read the Bolt blog these days. Wake up to yourself Andrew Bolt, who's the extremist now.

At this rate, Labor will be back next time.

In 2014, the Abbott government's electoral WorkCover is:

i) 6 months Paid Parental Leave, and
ii) Medicare co-payment
Click to expand...

Cheer up. GG still thinks Tony will be the best PM Australia ever had.
 
sydboy007 said:
Cheer up. GG still thinks Tony will be the best PM Australia ever had.
Click to expand...

I don't know about GG, but if he turns the bludger mentality of Australia around, he will be. Maybe you think another round of Labor splash of dumb cash, would somehow work out better, in the longer term.:xyxthumbs

You can only keep throwing money away like Labor for so long before it comes home to roost. Or maybe you think they were about to turn it around, jeez give me a break.:D

In a perverse way, I hope Labor do get in, it will make the medicine even worse as things blow out further and further. Then gen x and y will never be able to retire, what goes around comes around.
 
sptrawler said:
Then gen x and y will never be able to retire, what goes around comes around.
Click to expand...
That's amusing because some of them already have retired. Before the preceding generations.

I'm mystified by some of the sentiments in here at times. It is if people are under the illusion that the government has a fair bit of control over their actions.

Not just your post sptrawler.... but some of your comments echoed what I have seen a lot on here and in the media. "You'll never get to do this because of the government....." Utter tripe.
 
Junior said:
Kennett's plan at least has logic on it's side, but it still involves boosting tax revenue, which I will never support while there's still significant scope to reduce unnecessary Government expenditure (defense, welfare, PPL).

I always found Abbott to be an unpleasant character (like most politicians), but I did make the mistake of believing him when he said no new taxes. He said it so many f***ing times, 'no new taxes' and 'no surprises'.

Both total rubbish less than a year down the track.
Click to expand...

Buyer's remorse huh? :rolleyes:
 
Ves said:
I'm mystified by some of the sentiments in here at times. It is if people are under the illusion that the government has a fair bit of control over their actions.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking along similar lines. I hear people say stuff like "we couldn't be expected to provide for our own retirement" because they are baby boomers or earlier born and there was no compulsory super when they were younger. They have apparently grown up with the assumption that their taxes are guaranteed to provide them with a comfortable living from retirement at age 60 ish until they fall off the perch at probably into their 80's.
Did it not occur to any of them to take a look at the projected age pension and ask themselves "is this all I need" and/or "is it conceivable - especially given the records of successive governments - that even this paltry amount will not be available by the time I want to retire"?

Did it only occur to a few that we need not have waited for governments to determine that a compulsory super saving is required and to actually decide for ourselves that we needed to do the appropriate calculations to ensure we had enough to retire on without taxpayer assistance?

In making such a comment, obviously we would exclude those people who genuinely cannot look out for themselves and be generous in our support for them. But there's a world of difference in considering the person with a gross physical or psychological disability and the person who just chooses to spend their income throughout their working life in the naive belief that their taxes will fund them a comfortable and thoroughly deserved existence in retirement.

The government have, of course, exquisitely timed the CoA report. Its very realistic harshness will make the upcoming budget seem like manna from heaven.
 
SirRumpole said:
The PPL was Abbott's 'signature policy'. It may have won him the election. If he's now going to back down and break his promise on this then if he had any decency he would resign as PM.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he will not have to back down or resign....the senate will save his bacon now and even after the 1st July when the new senate take office.

I have no doubt it will be either scrapped or watered down even more.

I personally hope it will be rejected by the senate.
 
Julia said:
The government have, of course, exquisitely timed the CoA report. Its very realistic harshness will make the upcoming budget seem like manna from heaven.
Click to expand...
And that is the crux of all it.... it will be harsh, some of it we will agree with and some of it we will not, of course. And at the end of the day the only thing that we can effectively control are our own actions and taking responsibility for our reactions to any given situation. Whether we agree or disagree with something, it is pointless to get worked up about it (ie. the hysteria that this kind of thing generates) if we are not going to do anything else. Complaining without action is pointless. It's effectively arguing with reality. And I can tell everyone from experience that reality ALWAYS wins. All we can do is assess the situation and take responsibility of our own actions to ensure that when the government does something we all hate like raise taxes or reduce benefits that we are in a position to either be entirely unaffected or barely affected at all.

Independence is a wonderful thing.

Thank you for putting it more eloquently than I did in my first post, Julia.
 
noco said:
Not as bad as, "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD"
Click to expand...

Just for interest, can you explain what the difference between a tax, which Abbott repeatedly said he will not introduce or increase, and a levy, which seems to have been proposed by Abbott.

From my personal point of view, and expecting to pay the levy, if the Government takes more money out of my weekly pay packet, then to me it's extra tax. Any other term is really word games.

The dictionary definition of a tax is:

a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

Sounds very much like a deficit levy to me.
 
Ves said:
Complaining without action is pointless. It's effectively arguing with reality. And I can tell everyone from experience that reality ALWAYS wins.
Click to expand...

Voters have themselves to blame for believing the short term promises of politicians who's main focus is getting into power, and maintaining that power. Any good they do for the country is more often happy coincidence than because that was their objective - maybe I'm getting too cynical in my middle age??

Julia said:
I've been thinking along similar lines. I hear people say stuff like "we couldn't be expected to provide for our own retirement" because they are baby boomers or earlier born and there was no compulsory super when they were younger. They have apparently grown up with the assumption that their taxes are guaranteed to provide them with a comfortable living from retirement at age 60 ish until they fall off the perch at probably into their 80's.
Click to expand...

This argument is continually trundled out by the FIRE sector to keep the rivers of gold flowing into their coffers. Too often I hear that unless we have an overly generous super system people wont save for their retirement. Well, that might be true if it was optional, but we've had a compulsory system in place for a couple of decades, so why does it have to be so generous? Does anyone seriously believe that those who are most able to take advantages of the tax shelter within super wouldn't use other means to save for their retirement?

We have a super system that costs twice as much as the average OECD country to run, costs the budget roughly the same in foregone revenue as the aged pension, and the cost is growing at around 12% a year, compared to roughly 4% for the aged pension. 1/3 of super tax expenditures go to just 10%, while 20%+ pay MORE tax in the super system than they do on their taxable income. It's screaming for an overhaul, yet seems to be as sacrosanct as the primary residence.

Anyone who believes "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help" has to have rocks in their head.

i will say that the CoA has been designed byt he wealthy for the wealthy. Not really anything in it that actuially targets them. No focus on the $128B in tax expenditures each year, no questioning about obscene CEO pay that has no relation to actual management performance, and it was not allowed to look at broadening the GST base, and I can't understand why they didn't mention land tax since it is the MOST efficient tax their is, even more efficient than the GST.
 
Top