The ScoMo Government

[Logique]

Paid on your behalf by someone else ?
So why don't the refunds go to the people who actually paid the tax in the first place ?

As fleshed out by Smurf, if your marginal tax rate is less than the company tax rate, franking credits refund you the difference.

Labor, 'friend of the worker', had no problem under Bowen-omics with the 'top end of town' claiming this back on their tax return. Their refund wasn't going to 'someone else', and still isn't.

It was an attempted retiree tax, preying upon the financially illiterate. But the punters weren't so gullible.

 

[basilio]

This investigation is going to cause more grief for ScoMo and Angus Taylor.

Government rejected several offers on water rights before reaching $80m deal
Exclusive: New documents raise further questions about deal with company founded by energy minister Angus Taylor

Energy minister Angus Taylor says he was unaware of the $80m sale of water rights to the government before it was announced. Photograph: Mick Tsikas/AAP
The government rejected several offers from Eastern Australia Agriculture over the past decade to sell its overland-flow water rights because the deals were “not value for money”, before paying $80m for the same rights, new documents show.

The water purchase in the Condamine Balonne catchment has been controversial because it cost taxpayers $80m, was concluded without tender and the company was founded by the energy minister, Angus Taylor.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...fers-on-water-rights-before-reaching-80m-deal

 

[Smurf1976]

Labor, 'friend of the worker', had no problem under Bowen-omics with the 'top end of town' claiming this back on their tax return. Their refund wasn't going to 'someone else', and still isn't.

I think all this raises a broader question really.

If I work for x and they pay me $y on which I pay full rates of Income Tax, then when I spend the money:

*On most purchases I'll pay 10% GST

*On some purchases I'll pay no further tax at all.

*On a small number of items, all of which are non-essential, there's an additional tax a higher rate. Such items include alcohol, tobacco and luxury cars. The first two are explainable as a tax on unhealthy products etc whilst the latter basically does amount to a wealth tax albeit only on a non-essential purchase.

That being so, if I choose to instead invest that money then even paying normal rates of Income Tax is a rather steep rate of taxation compared to anything else I could do with it. Especially so when it's considered that if I bought lottery tickets and won then the winnings are untaxed even if it's a fortune and that by virtue of investing in a more cautious manner I've likely done myself out of at least some form of welfare at some stage too.

Now to be clear I'm not arguing that we give huge tax breaks to the rich or that we scrap welfare or anything like that but there needs to be a balance, there needs to be a reasonable reward to be had by those who do invest and avoid reliance on taxpayer funded welfare when unemployed or retired (noting that most will be in one or both of those situations at some point in their life).

I don't have any firm thoughts on how it ought to be but I do think there's a need for broader reform in all of this. Basic concept being that someone paying a moderate rate of tax and never claiming welfare is a much better outcome for government finances and thus taxpayers than them paying no tax, because they didn't invest, and then claiming welfare. There's an awful lot of people who could be self-funded but who choose not to - if anyone's going to be the target of higher taxes then that's who it would seem fair to aim it at.

 

[SirRumpole]

There's an awful lot of people who could be self-funded but who choose not to - if anyone's going to be the target of higher taxes then that's who it would seem fair to aim it at.

Are you referring to people on the pension living in million $ homes ?

I'm not sure how you would go about taxing this without a severe voter backlash like Labor suffered at the mere mention of franking credit changes, but obviously this is an example of "choosing not to be self funded", when in theory they could downsize and invest the balance for income.

 

[Smurf1976]

Are you referring to people on the pension living in million $ homes ?

I'm referring more broadly to anyone who has the means to support themselves but who chooses to rely on welfare.

The sort of people who earn $150K a year, travel overseas every year, buy expensive cars etc and then expect welfare the moment something goes wrong and who's retirement plan is the Age Pension. I know people like that yes.

I also know people who've never had any job higher than manual labouring, cleaning, delivery driver etc sort of jobs and who are completely self-funded in retirement. They just lived below their means and invested.

If anyone's going to be given incentives of any sort via the tax system well the latter seems far more deserving than the former.

 

[Humid]

If there's one thing I'd really like to see change in Australian politics it's the notion that everyone ought to vote for self interest which the media constantly promotes.



It wasn't like that always, there was a much greater focus on what was good for the country overall, and we'd all ultimately benefit from a return to that.

Like the uproar on franking credits versus the abolition of penalty rates type self interest?

 

[sptrawler]

I'm referring more broadly to anyone who has the means to support themselves but who chooses to rely on welfare.

The sort of people who earn $150K a year, travel overseas every year, buy expensive cars etc and then expect welfare the moment something goes wrong and who's retirement plan is the Age Pension. I know people like that yes.

I also know people who've never had any job higher than manual labouring, cleaning, delivery driver etc sort of jobs and who are completely self-funded in retirement. They just lived below their means and invested.

If anyone's going to be given incentives of any sort via the tax system well the latter seems far more deserving than the former.

That smurf is the key to the whole problem IMO.
I also know many people who fall into both categories, to constantly punish endeavour and a responsible attitude is just going to drive it out of the Australian culture, but it appears that is what is wanted by the media.
Well the end result will be interesting.IMO I know younger people who were working hard to become self funded and now are working hard toward becoming self sufficient and Government funded, it is all turning out pretty sad for Australia IMO.

 

[Smurf1976]

Are you referring to people on the pension living in million $ homes ?

As a concept going half way might be more acceptable politically.

Pay them the full pension as normal but upon death government has first claim on the property to recover the pension amount paid.

That doesn’t necessarily force a sale if whoever’s inheriting it prefers to pay $ to government and keep the house although if it is sold then government takes some $.

A property value limit of say the average price in Sydney (since that’s the most expensive market) might be a reasonable line in the sand applied nationally? Anything below that no issue, above it the Pension is effectively an interest free loan not a gift.

 

[Smurf1976]

Like the uproar on franking credits versus the abolition of penalty rates type self interest?

I see both as much the same.

Divide and conquer is exactly what they are.

 

[Humid]

I see both as much the same.

Divide and conquer is exactly what they are.

Yeah but one happened the other didnt

 

[sptrawler]

Like the uproar on franking credits versus the abolition of penalty rates type self interest?

They both hit the little person, like smurf said they are similar arguments, yet divided opinion.

 

[sptrawler]

Yeah but one happened the other didn't

That doesn't change the principal, behind the orginal concepts.

 

[Smurf1976]

Yeah but one happened the other didnt

It would be better if neither had occurred.

United we stand, divided we fall.....

 

[qldfrog]

I'm referring more broadly to anyone who has the means to support themselves but who chooses to rely on welfare.

The sort of people who earn $150K a year, travel overseas every year, buy expensive cars etc and then expect welfare the moment something goes wrong and who's retirement plan is the Age Pension. I know people like that yes.

I also know people who've never had any job higher than manual labouring, cleaning, delivery driver etc sort of jobs and who are completely self-funded in retirement. They just lived below their means and invested.

If anyone's going to be given incentives of any sort via the tax system well the latter seems far more deserving than the former.

You mentioned deserving and i think you are using an odd and now obsolete context: you see taxation as a kind of social justice, it is not anymore, it is a grab for cash :
Get as much as you can with best ROI for the ATO
Do not see further
A few lollipops for election time but basically tax as much as you can
Otherwise all tax bracket would be indexed, gov expenses per citizen indexed etc etc
You are in a country where even capital gain is not indexed anymore
Seriously...
As for the ATO themselves, what a bunch of wankers.
ato made a mistake inputting a written figure in their system, 4 months fights so far, 4 calls, 2 letters, not even a response or acknowledgement and still owned 1k
They can not even consider they could be at fault..

Kafka..

 

[SirRumpole]

The word "rort" comes to mind...

Scott Morrison's local soccer club boasted about funding weeks before grants announced

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-20/scott-morrison-sports-grants-lilli-pilli/11881578

 

[sptrawler]

The word "rort" comes to mind...

Scott Morrison's local soccer club boasted about funding weeks before grants announced

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-20/scott-morrison-sports-grants-lilli-pilli/11881578

That is the 'word' that is meant to come to mind, good pick up.

 

[SirRumpole]

That is the 'word' that is meant to come to mind, good pick up.

Nothing unusual as far as you're concerned ?

 

[sptrawler]

Nothing unusual as far as you're concerned ?

Absolutely not, this sort of thing will go on until he is removed, then the next P.M pops his or her head up and off it goes again.
Even if there is an apology next week, for misrepresenting the facts, it would make a small article on the back page.
If there has been corruption someone should face court and the grant removed, pretty simple really.
If I took notice of every half truth and innuendo in the media, I'd be as crazy as some others.

 

[SirRumpole]

Absolutely not, this sort of thing will go on until he is removed, then the next P.M pops his or her head up and off it goes again.
Even if there is an apology next week, for misrepresenting the facts, it would make a small article on the back page.
If there has been corruption someone should face court and the grant removed, pretty simple really.
If I took notice of every half truth and innuendo in the media, I'd be as crazy as some others.

As crazy as the Auditor General perhaps.

https://www.ausleisure.com.au/news/...seats-with-potentially-illegal-sports-grants/

 

[Smurf1976]

Nothing new about this sadly, "sports rorts" was a term that became popular back when Keating was PM and sports funding records were infamously kept by Ross Kelly on a whiteboard.

That doesn't make it even slightly acceptable, just pointing out that it's nothing new.