Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
Buy a few less planes and apply asset/income test to the PPL. Short term issue solved.

Then, as Sydboy said, implement meaningful and permanent tax reform.
 
noco said:
It is so strange when you hear the Comrades of the Greens and the Greens themselves raving on that the Government should hit the rich to pay more taxes.....then when a levy is applied to those earning over $80,000 per year our comrades complain about it.....I mean what do they want?

After all, as Joe Hockey states, it is equivalent to the price of a cup of coffee per day....Do you really think they would miss that much for the sake of the nation.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-burden-of-levy/story-fn59nsif-1226905277100
Click to expand...

I know you have trouble keeping two ideas in your head at once but the issue of them breaking a promise is separate from the issue of whether it's good policy.
 
noco said:
It is so strange when you hear the Comrades of the Greens and the Greens themselves raving on that the Government should hit the rich to pay more taxes.....then when a levy is applied to those earning over $80,000 per year our comrades complain about it.....I mean what do they want?

After all, as Joe Hockey states, it is equivalent to the price of a cup of coffee per day....Do you really think they would miss that much for the sake of the nation.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-burden-of-levy/story-fn59nsif-1226905277100
Click to expand...

Yet just about every budgeting tips site will mention cutting back on buying a coffee on the way to work. I'm glad you're so willing to help contribute to the Abbott deficit reduction fund.

I don't have a problem with increasing taxation on the rich, I do have a problem when it's done poorly. The deficit / deceit tax does not help resolve the long term budget issues.
 
sydboy007 said:
I don't have a problem with increasing taxation on the rich, I do have a problem when it's done poorly. The deficit / deceit tax does not help resolve the long term budget issues.
Click to expand...

The problem is, your obvious support of Labors poorly enacted tax reform, didn't result in your constant unending criticism.
Shame you can't apportion your venom evenly, or can't disquise your bias, one of the two.:xyxthumbs
 
I think we all know where the "policies" for saving the economy will be coming from.

I can just imagine the LNP acolytes humming chants in support of their beloved Lord Tonez as they sacrifice the nation's future in the name of Sur Plus :D:D:D:D:D

gru5jJX.jpg
 
sptrawler said:
The problem is, your obvious support of Labors poorly enacted tax reform, didn't result in your constant unending criticism.
Shame you can't apportion your venom evenly, or can't disquise your bias, one of the two.:xyxthumbs
Click to expand...

You mean the tax reform like the LISC that would help over 2 million low income earners have more saved within super? You mean the tax reform like how cars are treated for FBT? You mean the FOFA brought in to try and clean up the financial advice industry.

Oh right, the current Government has killed all those meaningful reforms, or is planning to kill off the main parts of FOFA. I do wonder how many boardroom meetings our current treasure had with the financial services industry and if they helped shape the changes currently being brought in :confused:
 
sydboy007 said:
You mean the tax reform like the LISC that would help over 2 million low income earners have more saved within super? You mean the tax reform like how cars are treated for FBT? You mean the FOFA brought in to try and clean up the financial advice industry.
:confused:
Click to expand...

Like I said poorly concieved, badly implemented and in the majority of cases not thought through.

The last thing low income earners need is money locked away in a system, that even in your words is fundamentaly flawed and unffordable. Maybe pay the money off their electricity bill, it would make more sense.

The car lease fiasco was another example of policy on the run worked out on the back of a napkin and introduced overnight through the newspapers. Appaling and whether right or wrong the implementation was KRudd kindy.
 
sptrawler said:
Like I said poorly concieved, badly implemented and in the majority of cases not thought through.

The last thing low income earners need is money locked away in a system, that even in your words is fundamentaly flawed and unffordable. Maybe pay the money off their electricity bill, it would make more sense.

The car lease fiasco was another example of policy on the run worked out on the back of a napkin and introduced overnight through the newspapers. Appaling and whether right or wrong the implementation was KRudd kindy.
Click to expand...

Well, can you point me to any current Govt economic policy that you think we should be supporting? Supposedly they had a plan going into the election, but I'm yet to see any coherency in what they're doing. Seems like gum wrapper policy to me.

Abbotts support of the rentier class prior to the election also means it will be just about impossible to make any meaningful reforms to wind back the $120B in tax expenditures that are bleeding the budget every year.

Unless your proposing to give low income earners extra cash in hand to compensate them for losing the LISC, then all the current Govt has done is to side with extremely wealth* people over a large number of the working poor.

* someone earning at least 100K tax free would be roughly in the top 5% of income earners, so if you're beating more than 95% of the population then I do consider you to be extremely wealthy.
 
sydboy007 said:
Well, can you point me to any current Govt economic policy that you think we should be supporting? Supposedly they had a plan going into the election, but I'm yet to see any coherency in what they're doing. Seems like gum wrapper policy to me.

Abbotts support of the rentier class prior to the election also means it will be just about impossible to make any meaningful reforms to wind back the $120B in tax expenditures that are bleeding the budget every year.

Unless your proposing to give low income earners extra cash in hand to compensate them for losing the LISC, then all the current Govt has done is to side with extremely wealth* people over a large number of the working poor.

* someone earning at least 100K tax free would be roughly in the top 5% of income earners, so if you're beating more than 95% of the population then I do consider you to be extremely wealthy.
Click to expand...

I bagged Labor, when they were in office, after they introduced poor policy and jumped from pillar to post, trying ad hock band aid policy on the run.
I will bag the coalition when I see the policies they get through parliament and are enacted.
At the moment the only policy that has been enacted is the soveriegn borders, which currently appears to be working.
Everything else is speculation and media ranting, and to be honest, i have better things to fill my time than run around in ever decreasing circles screaming.
 
The latest Newspoll should be a lesson to Tony Abbott and this government.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...abbott-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226906679734#

While they have to some extent wedged themselves over the deficit tax and hence made it very difficult politically to back out of it altogether, they do have more flexibility than Julia Gillard and Labor did after announcing the carbon tax.

I would now expect a relatively high income threshold (somewhere between $100k and $180k) for any deficit levy in the argued principal of sharing the burden but after taking into account such a large loss of primary support.

The trust deficit as a result of this though is obviously going to be harder and take longer to repair, but the money still says it all in relation to where it sees the electorate's view of the current opposition.

Pay on party which supplies the Prime Minister following the next Federal election.

Coalition: $1.40
Labor: $2.75
Click to expand...

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting...deral-politics/outrights?ev_oc_grp_id=1192309
 
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...snt-tough-these-four-budget-reforms-are-tough

Tony and Joe could have a quick read and see what some meaningful reform looks like

The main points

1. Cut super tax concessions

By changing the way superannuation is taxed, the Grattan Institute estimates the government could generate an extra $6 billion a year in income tax.

A recent Australia Institute report found that superannuation tax concessions will become the single largest area of government expenditure by 2016-17.

2. Cut or reduce negative gearing benefits

According to the Grattan Institute, stopping investors' ability to deduct losses they make on investment properties as a tax writeoff could save the government as much as $4bn a year in the short term and $2bn a year in the long term.

3. Axe or reduce the capital gains tax break

According to the Grattan Institute, cutting the 50 per cent tax break Australians receive off capital gains tax would contribute about $5bn per year to the budget. The institute's chief executive John Daley says that this rule "overwhelmingly benefits" the top 2 per cent of Australia's income earners.

4. Broaden GST, but lower income and corporate taxes

Broadening the base of the GST would give the government more room to move with lowering the corporate tax rate (which current sits at around 30 per cent of revenue) and cutting income tax. In return, the government would drive tax revenue by broadening the base and increasing the rate of the GST to encompass more products. The Grattan Institute estimates this will improve economic output by up to $25bn a year.
 
sydboy007 said:
http://www.businessspectator.com.au...snt-tough-these-four-budget-reforms-are-tough

Tony and Joe could have a quick read and see what some meaningful reform looks like

The main points

1. Cut super tax concessions

By changing the way superannuation is taxed, the Grattan Institute estimates the government could generate an extra $6 billion a year in income tax.

A recent Australia Institute report found that superannuation tax concessions will become the single largest area of government expenditure by 2016-17.

2. Cut or reduce negative gearing benefits

According to the Grattan Institute, stopping investors' ability to deduct losses they make on investment properties as a tax writeoff could save the government as much as $4bn a year in the short term and $2bn a year in the long term.

3. Axe or reduce the capital gains tax break

According to the Grattan Institute, cutting the 50 per cent tax break Australians receive off capital gains tax would contribute about $5bn per year to the budget. The institute's chief executive John Daley says that this rule "overwhelmingly benefits" the top 2 per cent of Australia's income earners.

4. Broaden GST, but lower income and corporate taxes

Broadening the base of the GST would give the government more room to move with lowering the corporate tax rate (which current sits at around 30 per cent of revenue) and cutting income tax. In return, the government would drive tax revenue by broadening the base and increasing the rate of the GST to encompass more products. The Grattan Institute estimates this will improve economic output by up to $25bn a year.
Click to expand...

Yes. It needed to be decisive, hard and swift. This should have been a painful budget. Probably the only thing Keating and Howard ever agreed on was that you have to use up your political capital, it's not a savings plan. You then have 2.5 years to win back your support. Instead, the writing is on the wall that we will toss and turn through to the next election with no real changes.
 
sydboy007 said:
The main points.
Click to expand...
These are valid areas of review but politically require the argument to be made and a mandate sought. That's hopefully what the upcoming tax white paper will do.

On the debt levy, even ol Pete's getting stuck in.

Mr Costello wrote in his column that the superannuation surcharge was "one of the worst decisions" he made, and lamented that Labor reintroduced it following the Howard government’s defeat.
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-06/costello-says-debt-levy-plan-has-no-economic-benefit/5432472
 
McLovin said:
Yes. It needed to be decisive, hard and swift. This should have been a painful budget. Probably the only thing Keating and Howard ever agreed on was that you have to use up your political capital, it's not a savings plan. You then have 2.5 years to win back your support. Instead, the writing is on the wall that we will toss and turn through to the next election with no real changes.
Click to expand...

I fear what little political capital they had has been wasted on the budget leaks.
 
drsmith said:
These are valid areas of review but politically require the argument to be made and a mandate sought. That's hopefully what the upcoming tax white paper will do.
Click to expand...

I just can't believe Abbott will be inclined to even try to get the kind of consensus Labor achieved in the 80s

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...cs/can-abbott-rebuild-bungled-politics-reform

Perhaps the best example of how to sell ‘tough love’ to the electorate came with the election of the Hawke government in 1983. That was an era of runaway inflation and soaring unemployment -- but Hawke did set out an agenda in his campaign launch that explained the pain to come, and how it was to be shared. At his February 1983 launch he said: “... in this hour of Australia's worst economic crisis for fifty years, we shall ask all sections of the Australian community to show the common restraint and share the common burden for the common national purpose.”

He laid out a prices and incomes policy that would not cut incomes in nominal terms, but would crimp spending power and business profits, while still allowing economic rebalancing between supply constraints and booming demand.

In the same speech he promised: “We undertake, immediately on assuming office, to convene a national economic summit conference, fully representative of Australian industry, the Australian workforce and the Australian people through their elected governments ... Its purpose is to create a climate for common understanding of the scale and scope of Australia's present crisis, to explore the policy options, and to ensure that the relevant parties, governments, business and the unions, clearly appreciate the role that each of them will have to play in pulling the country out of its present economic mess.”

What different days. The National Economic Summit was held in April of that year. Hawke described the effect of that summit on ABC Radio in 2012: “We had the representatives, federal government, state government, local government, large employers, small employers, trade unions, churches, welfare organisations. They were given by Treasury all the information that we had and so you had the people of Australia, through their representative organisations, informed in a way that they had never been before.

“... it was out of that that I got an unanimous communiqué except for one person, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, unanimous communiqué agreeing with the analysis and accepting the things that had to be done, getting a constructive relationship between employers and trade unions, reducing the increase in money wages in return for acceptance of the social wage. Virtually all of the success -- the economic success of 1983 -- stemmed from the summit.â
 
sydboy007 said:
2. Cut or reduce negative gearing benefits

3. Axe or reduce the capital gains tax break
Click to expand...

Those two sound like a fantastic way to destroy the middle class. It's these people that have to sacrifice obtaining things in order to invest.

Upping the risk and lowering the reward. There's a point where investing becomes too much of a sacrifice and too risky for the middle class. No incentive to save has an end result in more poor people albeit with the latest iPhones.

Is it better to have more money circulating in the economy and a huge pension line-up when they retire or money going into investments with a large number of self-funded retirees???

Does it matter if the rich get richer if they bring a large number of middle class investors up with them as well???
 
Trentb said:
Those two sound like a fantastic way to destroy the middle class. It's these people that have to sacrifice obtaining things in order to invest.
Click to expand...

Really? The middle class didn't exist before these two tax breaks were introduced?
 
Trentb said:
Those two sound like a fantastic way to destroy the middle class. It's these people that have to sacrifice obtaining things in order to invest.

Upping the risk and lowering the reward. There's a point where investing becomes too much of a sacrifice and too risky for the middle class. No incentive to save has an end result in more poor people albeit with the latest iPhones.

Is it better to have more money circulating in the economy and a huge pension line-up when they retire or money going into investments with a large number of self-funded retirees???

Does it matter if the rich get richer if they bring a large number of middle class investors up with them as well???
Click to expand...

There's a lot of research that shows negative gearing is used predominantly to purchase existing properties. Therefore items not adding to the stock of housing so has little benefit to the rental market, but does allow landlords to cause house price inflation. Quarantining it against the income of the property would be a fairer way to have NG.

Why does a poor person pay full tax on interest income but a rich person get a 50% discount for income via capital gains? It's a big cost to the budget with little benefit to the economy. It encourages speculation and distorts investment decisions. It also encourages the rich to convert income to a capital gain if possible.
 
Top