Umm the lack of covid cases.
Lack of business collapse.
We are 149th for deaths/mill. And lets face it, that was because it got out of control in one state. Good old 'belt and road' province.
Umm the lack of covid cases.Please name something, anything, world class that Morrison put in place to fight covid. For that matter, what shingle apart from good luck, can he claim?
Harvey Norman for exampleUmm the lack of covid cases.
Lack of business collapse.
We are 149th for deaths/mill. And lets face it, that was because it got out of control in one state. Good old 'belt and road' province.
Go Harvey go Harvey.Harvey Norman for example
They failed on on covid arrangements as no consistency was ever achieved.Probably the best thing he did was establish a National Cabinet with the State Premiers to bring together a united front to the issue.
Closures were carried out by States.The Government also respected the medical advice that said go quick and go hard on closures to minimise the spread and get on top quickly.
JobSeeker, JobKeeper, assistance to small and medium sized businesses, plus a few ancillary economic response measures will cost somewhere around $185 billion. Have a look around your council area or State to see what that generated or built.Umm the lack of covid cases.
Lack of business collapse.
Wow. You mean we have twice the death rate of Madagascar, three times the death rate of Togo, four times the death rate of Tajikistan, five times the death rate of Uganda, and...ten times the death rate of China. Well done Scomo!We are 149th for deaths/mill.
Single largest issue I've heard mentioned about the last election, by far, was the franking credits.
Where the problem arises is best explained by looking at the actual Income Tax rates at the bottom end:Once it was changed so credits were handed out with no tax paid it became a benefit nothing to do with tax policy as its a net drain on treasury.
Any franking credit is a net drain on treasury, whether it is a refund to a SF retired person, or a reduction in tax payable by Twiggy Forrest.Once it was changed so credits were handed out with no tax paid it became a benefit nothing to do with tax policy as its a net drain on treasury.
Now that its a benefit it should be argued what its purpose is.
If they wish to go down a “tax the rich” approach then that’s one thing.Fair you View attachment 122480 say
Like I said, just stop franking credits, don't just pick and choose who should and shouldn't get them.Fair you
Like I said, just stop franking credits, don't just pick and choose who should and shouldn't get them.
Same as negative gearing, just stop it, don't pick and choose who can have it.
This is what causes all the friction in Australia.
Why should someone who is under retirement age and is self funded on savings and shares, be less entitled to a tax offset, than someone who has shares and earns $3m a year?
Why should someone who owns their own house and can afford to build a new house, for the purpose of renting it, be able to negative gear it.
When a tradie working away, who doesn't own a house wants to buy a property to rent out to build a nets egg, can't negative gear it?
Just weird $hit.
Hopefully Albo doesn't get the same dickheads in his ear that Shorten did, if he keeps his head down, he is a shoe in.
Same with negative gearing make it upto a $ amount, simple, why try and pick winners and losers.Just put a means test on franking credits.
People have to declare ALL their income including tax free super and if it's bigger than the median wage then reduce franking credits dollar for dollar over that amount.
Same with negative gearing make it upto a $ amount, simple, why try and pick winners and losers.
Reward endeavour, investment and risk taking but reduce rorts, anyone negative gearing multiple properties is taking the pi$$, same as anyone getting $m of franking credits.
People should be encouraged to invest in companies and real estate, but it shouldn't become a taxpayer funded gravy train for anyone, it should help those who are trying to become principal home owners and self funded pensioners.
I would rather see negative gearing applied to first home buyers up to a certain amount, to offset their interest payments and franking credits as you say stopped after a certain amount, not as ar$e about as was suggested.
You want mums and dads to buy a house, build a nest egg and reduce the reliance on the pension later in life, not punish them for it.
If a real estate investment doesn't stack up without a tax offset, it really shouldn't be allowed, at the end of the day negative gearing was designed to assist an investment until it became positive geared.If the RBA wants to put out the fire in RE prices, all they need do is demand that all investment loans have an unencumbered deposit of 10% minimum
In most cases it makes negative gearing "not worth the effort"
If you want to believe the negative media at the time was aimed at bricklayers and truck drivers good onya.If they wish to go down a “tax the rich” approach then that’s one thing.
What caused the upset is that someone at the bottom end of the scale was going to be collateral damage and there’s quite a few such people.
We’re taking about bricklayers and truck drivers here, not CEO’s and the like and we’re talking about money being invested that they’ve already paid tax on when they earned it.
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?