This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The ScoMo Government

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Logique said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Smurf1976 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SirRumpole said:
Are you referring to people on the pension living in million $ homes ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Like the uproar on franking credits versus the abolition of penalty rates type self interest?
 
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.
 
SirRumpole said:
Are you referring to people on the pension living in million $ homes ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 said:
Nothing unusual as far as you're concerned ?
Click to expand...
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/
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
J Capital Research
Replies
1
Views
2K
greggles
R
The 7 Moats of Quality Companies
Replies
7
Views
7K
divs4ever
M
The Night of the Long Prawn
Replies
0
Views
3K
Michael Cornips
M
R
Multiple Sclerosis: If you know of any MS patients
Replies
4
Views
6K
noirua
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...