Jump to content

Miracle win offers Australian PM authority and government stability


webfact

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 hours ago, mfd101 said:

Let me explain the franking bit with an example, at least as I understand it (sigh): Every year I receive income from my Telstra shares, usually about AUD200. Every year I declare them as income on my tax return. And every year I don't have to pay any tax on them because TELSTRA HAS ALREADY PAID THE TAX. It's called a 'franking credit' - that is, I receive credit for the tax because the tax has already been certified paid by Telstra.

 

It's not a 'gift' and it's not a tax reduction or a tax refund. It's just a recognition that the tax has already been paid & doesn't need to be paid twice!

Many who do not pay personal income tax, get the franking credits on the shares refunded by the ATO, that was proposed to cease under Labor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mfd101 said:

Let me explain the franking bit with an example, at least as I understand it (sigh): Every year I receive income from my Telstra shares, usually about AUD200. Every year I declare them as income on my tax return. And every year I don't have to pay any tax on them because TELSTRA HAS ALREADY PAID THE TAX. It's called a 'franking credit' - that is, I receive credit for the tax because the tax has already been certified paid by Telstra.

 

It's not a 'gift' and it's not a tax reduction or a tax refund. It's just a recognition that the tax has already been paid & doesn't need to be paid twice!

Before 1987, dividends were taxed twice: first at the corporate tax level and second at the income tax level. The government was basically double-dipping.

In 1987, then-treasurer Paul Keating introduced franking credits - also known as dividend imputation credits - to address the issue. The change meant that at tax time, shareholders were compensated.

But in 2001, the Howard government extended the system to shareholders who were not actually paying any tax.

The changes meant that even if you were paying no tax... You'd get that tax credit, basically a cheque from the government. And that is the legislated "Gift".

Should this be changed eventually? - Yes!
Should this be changed gradually and more thoughtfully? - Yes!
Should this be changed abruptly? - No!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CapraIbex said:

Before 1987, dividends were taxed twice: first at the corporate tax level and second at the income tax level. The government was basically double-dipping.

In 1987, then-treasurer Paul Keating introduced franking credits - also known as dividend imputation credits - to address the issue. The change meant that at tax time, shareholders were compensated.

But in 2001, the Howard government extended the system to shareholders who were not actually paying any tax.

The changes meant that even if you were paying no tax... You'd get that tax credit, basically a cheque from the government. And that is the legislated "Gift".

Should this be changed eventually? - Yes!
Should this be changed gradually and more thoughtfully? - Yes!
Should this be changed abruptly? - No!

Thank you for the comprehensive explanation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AJBangkok said:

 

Why would you want to take away a benefit that allows people to self fund their retirement and not be a burden on the nation. 

 

In addition If the government is running a surplus which they claim to be doing then they should be cutting taxes.

 

 

 

I can appreciate self-funded retirees who are in the 50K - 100K income bracket would have that attitude. However, when you have millionaires who have arranged their tax affairs through superannuation so that they get a gift of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ATO, it's a serious distortion of the way the tax system should operate.

There is no surplus currently. Morrison and Frydenberg have done some creative accounting to create the appearance of one, plus used the most optimistic assumptions to predict future surpluses. The Labor surplus would have come from reforms to negative gearing, capital gains tax discount, and yes, franking credits. Labor was going to spend it on schools and hospitals. You want it spent on tax cuts. Can't please everyone.

Morrison did a brilliant scare campaign. It's ironic he was running a campaign on the claim the Liberals were the best economic managers, because history shows they are actually more profligate than Labor when it comes to bribing voters.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I can appreciate self-funded retirees who are in the 50K - 100K income bracket would have that attitude. However, when you have millionaires who have arranged their tax affairs through superannuation so that they get a gift of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ATO, it's a serious distortion of the way the tax system should operate.

There is no surplus currently. Morrison and Frydenberg have done some creative accounting to create the appearance of one, plus used the most optimistic assumptions to predict future surpluses. The Labor surplus would have come from reforms to negative gearing, capital gains tax discount, and yes, franking credits. Labor was going to spend it on schools and hospitals. You want it spent on tax cuts. Can't please everyone.

Morrison did a brilliant scare campaign. It's ironic he was running a campaign on the claim the Liberals were the best economic managers, because history shows they are actually more profligate than Labor when it comes to bribing voters.

 

There has been no mention of the increase in national debt incurred by the LNP over 6 years.

The alleged surplus will be achieved by underfunding services, forcing low income (mainly women) onto social security.

The run down in infrastructure(hospitals/schools/community housing) over the past 6 years has been considerable, the fact is that longer term services cannot be well planned by services (those which exist) as the funding rounds are often less than 3 years, and this forces services to not invest longer term due to lack of guaranteed funds.

 

Due to loss of jobs, (mainly women working part time )in the community sector (aged care/youth/homelessness/DFV sectors) there will be a decrease in accumulation of superannuation, impacting on their viability to maintain accommodation in later years. Forcing them onto aged pensions on retirement, increase pressures on the public purse.

 

The promised tax cuts are for middle income earners, and larger businesses who are already benefitting from the last tax decreases.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

There has been no mention of the increase in national debt incurred by the LNP over 6 years.

The alleged surplus will be achieved by underfunding services, forcing low income (mainly women) onto social security.

The run down in infrastructure(hospitals/schools/community housing) over the past 6 years has been considerable, the fact is that longer term services cannot be well planned by services (those which exist) as the funding rounds are often less than 3 years, and this forces services to not invest longer term due to lack of guaranteed funds.

 

Due to loss of jobs, (mainly women working part time )in the community sector (aged care/youth/homelessness/DFV sectors) there will be a decrease in accumulation of superannuation, impacting on their viability to maintain accommodation in later years. Forcing them onto aged pensions on retirement, increase pressures on the public purse.

 

The promised tax cuts are for middle income earners, and larger businesses who are already benefitting from the last tax decreases.

 

 

IMHO the worst outcome of the election will be energy. The Liberals still don't have any coherent policy. Cost cutting in CSIRO was initiated by Howard, carried on by Abbott, who probably holds some kind of record for being anti-science. "Climate change is crap" was the expression he used.

With more sunshine than anywhere else on the planet, Australia should be in the forefront of renewable energy exports. The technology is there. It's just being starved of funding for development.

This is why, when I see posters prating about their personal circumstances, I find it difficult to stay polite. No idea of the bigger picture. Self-interest is a potent tool in politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IMHO the worst outcome of the election will be energy. The Liberals still don't have any coherent policy. Cost cutting in CSIRO was initiated by Howard, carried on by Abbott, who probably holds some kind of record for being anti-science. "Climate change is crap" was the expression he used.

With more sunshine than anywhere else on the planet, Australia should be in the forefront of renewable energy exports. The technology is there. It's just being starved of funding for development.

This is why, when I see posters prating about their personal circumstances, I find it difficult to stay polite. No idea of the bigger picture. Self-interest is a potent tool in politics.

I agree with you, we have become more self interested and fail to look at the bigger picture

Renewables will occur, but many Australian innovations have been sold to companies in Spain and other European countries, robbing Australia of royalties, income and energy savings

The solar energy farm in northern NSW was oversubscribed in a few days and already turning a profit for the shareholders, but the likes of shock jocks like Jones and his ilk appeal to the lowest common denominator along with Hansonites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IMHO the worst outcome of the election will be energy. The Liberals still don't have any coherent policy. Cost cutting in CSIRO was initiated by Howard, carried on by Abbott, who probably holds some kind of record for being anti-science. "Climate change is crap" was the expression he used.

With more sunshine than anywhere else on the planet, Australia should be in the forefront of renewable energy exports. The technology is there. It's just being starved of funding for development.

This is why, when I see posters prating about their personal circumstances, I find it difficult to stay polite. No idea of the bigger picture. Self-interest is a potent tool in politics.

The cost and availability of energy is ultimately the source of everyone's prosperity and security. Without energy you can do nothing. If energy prices rise beyond the rate of inflation, as they have done in Australia during the past decade, you have to either lower your living standards (on average) or increase the efficiency with which you use the available energy.

 

If the transition to renewables is done recklessly, as a result of a political scare about the dangers of natural climate change and the delusion that climate change is all man-made, and that we are so clever that we can control the climate and stop it changing simply by reducing CO2 emissions, then the inevitable consequences will be either lower wages and lower prosperity, or a burgeoning national debt possibly resulting in an economic catastrophe.

 

The Liberals have the economic sense to understand this and place economic stability above the uncertain claims about the harmful effects of CO2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, VincentRJ said:

The cost and availability of energy is ultimately the source of everyone's prosperity and security. Without energy you can do nothing. If energy prices rise beyond the rate of inflation, as they have done in Australia during the past decade, you have to either lower your living standards (on average) or increase the efficiency with which you use the available energy.

Wholesale energy prices jumped yesterday https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/morrison-win-sparks-sharp-lift-in-wholesale-electricity-prices-20190520-p51p7t.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I can appreciate self-funded retirees who are in the 50K - 100K income bracket would have that attitude. However, when you have millionaires who have arranged their tax affairs through superannuation so that they get a gift of hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ATO, it's a serious distortion of the way the tax system should operate.

Retirees are getting free money by claiming a cash refund for tax they haven't paid. That and the negative gearing/capital gains discount rorts on property are two of the biggest gifts around to tax bludgers.  The original design for dividend imputation was to ensure that income was taxed only once. By giving a cash refund for excess credits you are ensuring that tax isn't paid at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

As long as the jump doesn't persist, there should be no problem. I'm sure the Liberal government will be sensibly working on this issue. Unfortunately, they'll probably be hampered by the religious fanaticism of the CO2 alarmists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

This is why, when I see posters prating about their personal circumstances, I find it difficult to stay polite. No idea of the bigger picture. Self-interest is a potent tool in politics.

Self-preservation is natural and becomes stronger as one ages. Sudden changes can cause fear, insecurity and emotional strain - seniors can do without it!

It is rather absurd assuming all old-age retirees never cared about climate, renewable energy or the 'big picture' etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Retirees are getting free money by claiming a cash refund for tax they haven't paid. That and the negative gearing/capital gains discount rorts on property are two of the biggest gifts around to tax bludgers.  The original design for dividend imputation was to ensure that income was taxed only once. By giving a cash refund for excess credits you are ensuring that tax isn't paid at all

Retirees are getting these benefits because they are legal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Morrison did a brilliant scare campaign. It's ironic he was running a campaign on the claim the Liberals were the best economic managers, because history shows they are actually more profligate than Labor when it comes to bribing voters.

 

I and obviously so may other Australians affected by this proposed change were worried indeed. Elderly people prefer security and stability as do some of the younger ones striving to achieve an early retirement from the workforce. Proposed abrupt changes which affect real income will always be down-voted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's cluster*** from the "better economic managers" - Morrison promised an extra $1080 in most people's tax refunds after 1 July and was so arrogant he refused Opposition support to pass the enabling legislation before the election. Now it seems he didn't know what he was talking about - https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/election-2019/2019/05/21/tax-cut-delay/ and other papers online

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThaiBunny said:

That doesn't stop them being bludgers; they're not mutually exclusive terms

They were frightened they would loose the gift that Howard J granted them years ago, estimating to be costing the treasury around 6 billion, that's a lot of infrastructure which could be built. 

 

The governor of the Reserved Bank has announced they will consider lower interest rates at the June meeting ( 2 weeks away), the Governor has never made statements like that before. 

 

This will affect the AUD/THB exchange for a lot of expats.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The cost and availability of energy is ultimately the source of everyone's prosperity and security. Without energy you can do nothing. If energy prices rise beyond the rate of inflation, as they have done in Australia during the past decade, you have to either lower your living standards (on average) or increase the efficiency with which you use the available energy.

 

If the transition to renewables is done recklessly, as a result of a political scare about the dangers of natural climate change and the delusion that climate change is all man-made, and that we are so clever that we can control the climate and stop it changing simply by reducing CO2 emissions, then the inevitable consequences will be either lower wages and lower prosperity, or a burgeoning national debt possibly resulting in an economic catastrophe.

 

The Liberals have the economic sense to understand this and place economic stability above the uncertain claims about the harmful effects of CO2.

It's unfortunate so many Australians have been brainwashed into believing the Liberal line on climate change, that it should not concern us because we are too small to matter. We do matter, because of the amount of carbon we export.

Climate change is not a delusion. Look at the trend line for carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. Look at what's happening with increased melting of the Larsen Ice Shelf and Greenland ice cap. Current projections are saying by 2050, the Tibetan plateau's contribution of water to major river systems such as the Ganges and Mekong will be halved. Think of what that will do to the millions for whom that water is lifeblood. The price of increased carbon dioxide is mass coral extinction. Say goodbye to your fish and chips.

Do you understand entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Mankind cannot go on adding carbon dioxide and heat to the planet without consequences.

Renewables are the hope for the future, The Liberals are still unable to even agree on what energy policy for Australia should be, as they are beholden to vested interests such as major power companies, miners and the rabid right-wing media.

There's an old Roman aphorism. " Duc, sege aut ad viam decede". It means lead, follow or get out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It's unfortunate so many Australians have been brainwashed into believing the Liberal line on climate change, that it should not concern us because we are too small to matter. We do matter, because of the amount of carbon we export.

You've got it upside down. It's the uneducated, scientifically illiterate masses who have been brainwashed. Ask them what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2, and most people wouldn't have a clue. Ask them if the oceans are acidic, or what the average pH of the oceans is, and most people also wouldn't know. Yet they are so certain that CO2 emissions are bad.

 

We've even brainwashed our school children. Instead of teaching them to distinguish between the undeniable facts about climate change and the great uncertainties about mankind's influence on climate, we teach them to accept whatever they are told without question.

 

Climate change is not a delusion.

 

 

Of course it isn't, and I never said it was. I wrote that the delusion is the notion that climate change is all man-made and that we can control it by reducing our CO2 emissions.

 

If you are interested in the subject, do some research and you will find that climate is always changing. It always has throughout the history of the planet, and the causes are very numerous and complex and not fully understood. Attributing the current warming phase to minuscule increases in atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuels, is a disturbing political ploy to motivate the drive towards renewable energy.

 

I would much rather governments focused on the real damage to the environment, such as plastic waste, release of toxic chemicals and harmful emissions from coal power stations which don't have adequate emission controls (which do exist), deforestation, and particulate carbon emissions from seasonal burn-off in countries like Thailand and Indonesia, and so on.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this a referendum on Trump?  The Australian markets soared yesterday.  People with money are more conservative, even the clinton loving internet billionaires....get used to it.  He's buddies with Trump, too..might be kind of handy if Mohamed comes calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You've got it upside down. It's the uneducated, scientifically illiterate masses who have been brainwashed.

Latest story in the (Liberal) Financial Review - Morrison's supporters were "Christians, non-university educated voters in lower income brackets" - the "Trump Australians" - https://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/scomo-wins-the-trump-australians-20190521-p51pia (probably behind a paywall)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You've got it upside down. It's the uneducated, scientifically illiterate masses who have been brainwashed. Ask them what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2, and most people wouldn't have a clue. Ask them if the oceans are acidic, or what the average pH of the oceans is, and most people also wouldn't know. Yet they are so certain that CO2 emissions are bad.

 

We've even brainwashed our school children. Instead of teaching them to distinguish between the undeniable facts about climate change and the great uncertainties about mankind's influence on climate, we teach them to accept whatever they are told without question.

 

 

 

 

Of course it isn't, and I never said it was. I wrote that the delusion is the notion that climate change is all man-made and that we can control it by reducing our CO2 emissions.

 

If you are interested in the subject, do some research and you will find that climate is always changing. It always has throughout the history of the planet, and the causes are very numerous and complex and not fully understood. Attributing the current warming phase to minuscule increases in atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuels, is a disturbing political ploy to motivate the drive towards renewable energy.

 

I would much rather governments focused on the real damage to the environment, such as plastic waste, release of toxic chemicals and harmful emissions from coal power stations which don't have adequate emission controls (which do exist), deforestation, and particulate carbon emissions from seasonal burn-off in countries like Thailand and Indonesia, and so on.
 

If you want to try to patronize me by suggesting I do some research, go ahead. I'm a retired research scientist. Noted you have not addressed my question concerning entropy, I suspect you had to Google it.

Your comments concerning plastic waste, burnoffs and deforestation are valid. Coal power stations emit carbon dioxide and heat. Any talk of "clean carbon" is pure BS, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics comes into play.

The effect of mankind on climate change is a huge challenge, and many prefer to stick their heads in the sand. Your description of the change in carbon dioxide levels as minuscule is wrong. Before 1950, the average of CO2 levels was below 300 ppm. It is now above 400 ppm, and rising exponentially.

If you want to talk about brainwashing, focus on what happens to children with religious instruction. Or perhaps consider how the Coal-ition in Australia has convinced a majority that inaction is good for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Or perhaps consider how the Coal-ition in Australia has convinced a majority that inaction is good for them.

Or even that the majority are capable of making their own decisions.

 

The Australian poll confirmed 2 things:

 

1 ) Making grandiose plans to "fix the climate crisis" is electoral cyanide worldwide.

 

2 ) Voters are more aware of the issues than they are given credit for. That is obvious from how badly off the opinion polls were -- even the exit polls.

 

Voters know which side is the "right" side to be seen supporting, the "progressive" side as championed relentlessly by the ABC, The Age and SMH. So even though they don't agree, they keep it to themselves, mislead the pollsters and quietly vote for the party they want.

 

That's why polls were hugely wrong in the Brexit vote, the Trump vote, and the Aussie vote. You'd think the "progressive" side of politics would have caught on by now, but if there's one thing we know about "progressives" it is that they never learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

 

That's why polls were hugely wrong in the Brexit vote, the Trump vote, and the Aussie vote. You'd think the "progressive" side of politics would have caught on by now, but if there's one thing we know about "progressives" it is that they never learn.

As I recall, Hewson and the Liberal Party were "progressives" some years ago. They seem to have learned.

Your analysis is too simplistic. Labor tried to reform too much at the same time. Do you really think the result would have been the same if they had left out the hip pocket stuff, such as franking credits and negative gearing? I doubt environmental issues and energy supply contributed much to the defeat, except in Queensland. Everyone knows banana benders have the scientific awareness of Crocodile Dundee.

The tragedy for Australia is kicking the can down the road will have a price, which will be paid by the younger generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I doubt environmental issues and energy supply contributed much to the defeat,

Bill Shorten : "This election is all about climate change."

Guardian Australia: The climate change election. Where do the parties stand on the environment?

Greens Senator Richard di Natale: This is the climate change election.

Greenpeace Australia : "This will be a climate change election" 

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/news/this-will-be-a-climate-election/

ABC: Election 2019: What happened to the climate change vote we heard about?

 

If you want to remain in denial about the realities of this election, so much the better.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Bill Shorten : "This election is all about climate change."

Guardian Australia: The climate change election. Where do the parties stand on the environment?

Greens Senator Richard di Natale: This is the climate change election.

Greenpeace Australia : "This will be a climate change election" 

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/news/this-will-be-a-climate-election/

ABC: Election 2019: What happened to the climate change vote we heard about?

 

If you want to remain in denial about the realities of this election, so much the better.

 

 

The reality is Australians voted for their hip pocket. Self-interest. Short-sighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...