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

Useless Labor Party

Jump to new
thnx, read it.
My immediate reaction is that I have a wish to have a tax system that is simpler (not with more if, then, but, else options to wriggle around in). I tend to think what is good for the goose is good for the gander....and so if a certain deduction is available for set of taxpayers it should be offered on equal terms to all sets of taxpayers.........(that is how you get away from legal crap like trusts and avoidance schemes and similar)......
anyway........
 
@PZ99
btw, I do accept the underlying premise that we need to tax the behaviour we want to reduce and subsidise the behaviour we want to encourage..........
 
HelloU said:
@PZ99
btw, I do accept the underlying premise that we need to tax the behaviour we want to reduce and subsidise the behaviour we want to encourage..........
Click to expand...
Completely agree.

Maybe that's the impetus of the death impuesto. Prophets say death is bad for profits. lol
 
SirRumpole said:
It would be fair if the deductions were only against the income from that asset.

It's not the other taxpayers job to subsidise loss making investments.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Abolishing negative gearing doesn't mean disallowing a tax deduction for interest expenses. It means allowing property expenses and interest to be offset against rental income only, not against salary/employment income.

This would mean it is on par with business expenses. As business expenses are generally offset against business income.
 
Another thought around negative gearing....as interest rates rise, the cost of neg. gearing to the taxpayer could soar even further. I say quarantine the arrangement for existing properties and disallow the practice for new investments.
 
SirRumpole said:
I believe that is what the Labor Party is proposing to do.
Click to expand...

The proposal on its own and phased in over time would be OK. My concern is around the timing of this change coinciding with rising rates and tight lending, and combined with their other policy proposals which will result in a huge increase in tax revenue and bigger Government.
 

Rising rates ?

When was the last time that happened ?

Not giving a tax reduction to companies is not a "huge increase in tax revenue", it's situation normal for them.

MyHealth as introduced by the Libs is bigger government, and more data on you that can be sold off to companies.
 

Many banks recently increased rates (or have proposed increases) across a range of home loans, out of cycle. Forecasts are for higher rates ahead due to increased cost of funding. RBA's next move, albeit a long way off, is likely to be higher.

Re company tax, fair enough it's not an increase, but given how increasingly noncompetitive our company tax rates are in a global sense, we need to look at ways to reduce the rate. Small businesses will be much worse off under Labor based on policies proposed at this stage.

I'm not defending the Libs or MyHealth. Just talking about Labor's proposed policies around the tax system, which would lead to a much bigger government in terms of the Government's share of the economy (% of total GDP and employment).
 
SirRumpole said:
Rising rates ?

When was the last time that happened ?
Click to expand...

The U.S reserve has stated they are going to push rates up, they really have to, to start and make the system work again.
When that happens the $U.S will go up, which in turn will have a downward pressure on our $. That will increase the cost of funding for our banks, as they source most of their funding overseas, therefore they will have to pay more for it and increase returns on deposits to attract more Australian funds.
Well that's is my thoughts on it, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
 
PZ99 said:
Completely agree.

Maybe that's the impetus of the death impuesto. Prophets say death is bad for profits. lol
Click to expand...
yes.........I see the point being made there from my supposition.........in a world where we have injecting rooms but still send peeps to jail for possession i guess that is worth a try. lol.
see ya
 
hi.......to me it is about lumping receivables together. For many years the taxation system has been slowly adjusting to allow individual taxpayers to lump receivables together in the same way that business does.

(on a deeper level, if a receivable was never in contract then non delivery of same is not a cost - no matter how much someone wanted to get it)
 

At least some reporters are aware of the issue.

https://thewest.com.au/opinion/shan...when-the-the-tax-river-runs-dry-ng-b88901750z
 
sptrawler said:
This suggestion on negative gearing changes, makes a lot more sense than Labors idea. But as usual Labor want to take a sledge hammer to a walnut.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-07/report-reveals-new-negative-gearing-proposal/9519586
Click to expand...


Can never under estimate the electorates suspicion that tax changes will always favour an elite and dog the average person. Grumbling about tax is deep rooted complaining post of citizens, take it away and it will create an unsettling conspiracy vacuum.
 
Investment tax deductions, to a degree, will always favour the rich they have more money to invest.
The flip side is to not encourage investment, then let the populace experience real poverty, someone has to supply housing for the needy. Sadly the Governments don't seem too interested.
 
Yet another Labor lie debunked.

Productivity Commission squashes Labor's inequality myths

Productivity Commission - "over nearly three decades, inequality has risen slightly in Australia"
"Indeed the commission's report is explicit about the fact, saying that, "sustained growth has delivered significantly improved living standards for the average Australians in every income decile". That statement is critical: economic growth has made everyone in Australia in every income group better off. What this means is that quite aside from virtually no increase in headline inequality, insofar as there has been a slight rise, it is in the context of a society where everyone is much wealthier than 30 years ago. The other important insight that the commission makes is that there are periodic jumps in income for different income groups at different time. So whereas the mining boom of the 2000s was better for higher income groups, the post-global financial crisis period – even taking into account slow wages growth – has been relative better for people earning lower wages."


https://www.afr.com/opinion/editori...ashes-labors-inequality-myths-20180829-h14ofn

Shorten and Sally McManus are liars.
 
Not much being reported in the SMH or the AGE about Labors proposed changes, that they are taking to the election?
 
One thing I am a bit disappointed about, is the way Bowen is having to put forward all the bad news, i think he is setting himself up to be the Tony Abbott of the Labor Party.
Which IMO is a bit disappointing, he has a lot of potential, but will end up carrying all the baggage.
If Labor bring about a recession, Bowen will end up Bill's Bunny. IMO
I think I read the other day, that Bill backs Bowen's call, sounds like someone distancing themselves to me. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...