Jump to content
scruffy1

how crap is this government ?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cybes said:

 

No.  It applies to everyone that owns shares for the purposes of investment, and that's a minority of the population.  Also, just because it's written into the law does not mean it's not a gift.

 

 

 

Words are important here. Taxable INCOME is way different to a GIFT.


I can be gifted $50,000.00 by a relative. Tax free. It's not income.

Making a profit on shares is income and therefore taxable.

 

 

That's the way I understand it, but fuck me I'm not an accountant - every time I try to be one and decipher the walls of text on the ATO website, I just want to cry.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twinair said:

That's the way I understand it, but fuck me I'm not an accountant - every time I try to be one and decipher the walls of text on the ATO website, I just want to cry.

 

I'm not a financial advisor or accountant, so I went looking for an explanation and found this: http://frankingcredits.com.au/  That seems to cover this specific issue fairly well compared to other material I found, but is a lot easier to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Cybes said:

No.  It applies to everyone that owns shares for the purposes of investment, and that's a minority of the population.  Also, just because it's written into the law does not mean it's not a gift.

 

Every part of this statement is incorrect.

 

1. Yes.

2. All shares are investment. You can't have shares that aren't classed as investment. All share dividends are earnings, or income. 

 

Seriously, quit while you're digging down.

 

If Centrelink is classed as income for the purpose of tax reporting, then share dividends are classed as income for the purpose of tax.

 

7 hours ago, Cybes said:

They had a plan that required a lot of spending.  As you like to point out, money has to come from somewhere - either it's taxed, or it's borrowed.  You wanna pay a bit more now, or lots more later?

 

I wanna pay nothing no and nothing later because there's no need to pay anything now or anything later.

 

7 hours ago, Cybes said:

As of 2016 (the most current figure I have at hand), the top 10% owned 53% of the nation's wealth.  That will have increased, since growth by nature is compounding - the previous 7 years' growth was 1.3%, so it's probably around 55% by now.  That alone puts your 50% figure on the low side.

 

Owning 53% of the nation's wealth is NOT THE SAME as paying income tax.

 

Fuck me. Gina Rinehart does not have $20b or whatever she's worth. If she tried to firesale her assets, she wouldn't raise a quarter of that. Her income is nowhere near that because income != asset wealth. 

 

We progressively tax income, not assets. 

 

The top 10% pay 50% of all income tax in Australia. if you want to tax assets, then you will bankrupt almost everyone because assets like housing make middle-class Australians millionaires - if you even tax a million dollar property at 10%, a family will have to find $100,000 yearly out of their income on which they're also paying income tax.

 

In short: Ownership of wealth is a different conversation to contribution to national revenues through income tax.

 

7 hours ago, Cybes said:

Most do no

 

I'd like you to show me a statistic that shows most business owners do not care about their staff and don't work long hours to make sure their business is healthy can can sustain staffing levels.

 

7 hours ago, Cybes said:

Coal is going to die sooner rather than later regardless of any actions taken to bolster or kill it.

 

Totes. Move the slider around for a bit.

 

image.png.4459fd4bc5dde55d770601cec654ef83.pngimage.png.51f81feccf743de5f26fe62f08c68b6f.png

 

7 hours ago, Cybes said:

So... What impact would that be, exactly?

 

If there's no impact, there's no policy. So if there's a policy, there's an impact.

 

Logic. It's fucken amazing. Try it.

 

here's the MBA take on how it would affect the construction industry:

 

"The modelling in this report shows that limiting negative gearing to new homes and reducing the CGT discount to 25 per cent will reduce new supply at a time when the construction cycle has already turned. This the ALP policy is a risk to the property industry and will exacerbate the downturn. New dwelling construction is forecast to fall in every major housing market as a result of the ALP policy. Importantly it shows construction employment and new housing starts are estimated to be lower in all major housing markets in Australia as a result of the implementation of these proposed tax policies. This means few opportunities for new home buyers to enter the market and fewer job opportunities for skilled tradespeople"

 

What happens when the construction industry downturns, and bear in mind that getting rid of NG is the equivalent of Rudd's termination of the Pacific Solution. It might be moral but literally everyone warned him.

 

If you don't believe there are effects from government retarding economies for fairer equitable and gentler outcomes I have a city in Venezuela to sell you.

 

7 hours ago, Cybes said:

The only way to reliably make money from housing is as rental, not resale.

 

You can make it from both, but yes.... rental prob makes more sense.

 

However you didn't address my point:  I said assets appreciate out of it. No-one denies that on average, asset value of property goes up. Whether you keep the asset or no, is irrelevant to that simple statement.

 

7 hours ago, Cybes said:

What I said was that you should not treat people like animals.

 

Agreed. You shouldn't drown them like puppies in seawater.

 

But lets play this out. If you shouldn't treat people like animals then you shouldn't treat criminals like animals either.

 

"Oh" you say "but they're criminals". Correct. There are extenuating circumstances.

 

Here's an extenuating circumstance: we have zero responsibility to people who have not crossed our border, are outside our jurisdiction and are suspected of having the intent of unlawfully breaching our border.

 

Do remember: absolutely nothing stops them from leaving the camps. We even buy them tickets. Some have stayed in Nauru and opened businesses. They can go to any country with which their origin state has a visa arrangement.

 

 

Edited by Leonid
  • Yes Sir! Very atomic! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nich... said:

Also nice of you to assume that the rapists and abusers were also the detainees, btw.

 

I don't need to assume. There are documented cases and allegations against everybody involved.

 

The difference is we can fire the abusive guards, but we can't refoul the abusive asylum seekers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

cry me a river, oppressed one

 

I'll cry you an ocean which no illegal can cross because our defense forces turn them back 🙂

 

2 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

and long experience suggests tarring any people with homogeneity is too facile for a real world

 

Yes. That's kind of like in the 1930s the New York Times butt-covered for the Nazis by referencing their radical wing.

 

Who knew... apparently there were moderate Nazis?

 

---

 

Evidence trumps experience. Look at polls of the Muslim world. 90% anti-semitic. 90% homophobic. Etc, etc, etc. All re-enforced by the protection of holy men and holy books. And among the Abrahamics, none are as conservative a body, as Muslims.

 

Hell... just look into our own damned country. The Bible was used to shield pedo priests for decades, with the help of the police force. Decades, man!

2 hours ago, Nich... said:

I dunno.  Maybe you should marry and import more muslims.

 

I feel that this is better suited to commies in the refugee advocacy sphere. Marry the detainees. Get them in 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

I'd like you to show me a statistic that shows most business owners do not care about their staff and don't work long hours to make sure their business is healthy can can sustain staffing levels.

Can you uh show the reverse?  I'll put aside my own experience and just refer to the last few times the FWC has had to chase up franchisees and various non-franchise owning business people in popular hospitality precincts and found that a lot of shit is not going along by the law as you'd expect, from business owners who are just out there to look after their staff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

 

Who knew... apparently there were moderate Nazis?

I reckon in the early days there probably were those that were moderate... until they ran or died .

 

1 hour ago, Leonid said:

 

---

 

Evidence trumps experience. Look at polls of the Muslim world. 90% anti-semitic. 90% homophobic. Etc, etc, etc. All re-enforced by the protection of holy men and holy books. And among the Abrahamics, none are as conservative a body, as Muslims.

 

Hell... just look into our own damned country. The Bible was used to shield pedo priests for decades, with the help of the police force. Decades, man! 

And because of this ^^^ good people feel lost in mind and soul. Gotta just love us !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... didn't Amazon And Besoz  ( spell ) have some major staffing issues too.

 

going back to who is going to lead Labor ... two other blokes look to have their name in the ring Joel and Chalmers iirc. One of them mouthed some silly-pollie-speak about being able to have the coal mining and be all climate and health conscious ...

wonder how all the dudes with lung / respiratory issues from being down the mines are getting on ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

I'll cry you an ocean which no illegal can cross because our defense forces turn them back 🙂

 

 

i like it !

 

even though you can't spell defence

 

 

to quote the prez : "the best defence is a fence"

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nich... said:

Can you uh show the reverse? 

 

And why would I need to do that?

1 hour ago, eveln said:

I reckon in the early days there probably were those that were moderate... until they ran or died .

 

There weren’t. It was just NYT journalism. They have a shameful history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leo.  I am going to say it right here and now so that there is no mistake.  The Leo I see on this forum, I really don't like.  Smug, arrogant.  However, strangely though, once I look past that (not that we have ever met) we are both just the average Joe making a living and to have a good safe life.  So, to say that I find some of your arguments, well, compelling surprised me.  The fact is here, all of us can debate all of these issues as till the twilight of time and never actually agree on anything with each other.  To be frank, it's your right to have those opinions whether I like them or not, and vice-versa.  If for whatever reason, the party you vote for doesn't get in, one has to accept that gracefully as well.

 

The thing is, no matter whether I know you or not, Leo, you and I both want the same things.  I may not like your forum persona but that doesn't mean that you are beyond redemption.  The thing I want to say is that I admire you for having the guts to say the things you do, not to say I agree with them all (and I am not going to explain why),  but you are the reason why democracy is great.  Freedom of speech is the only thing we have now that no one can put down as much as our politicians have tried in the past decade.  So for that, I salute you.  Doesn't mean I agree with you though 🙂

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s mutual. I find most people here smug and arrogant, living in a bubble of like-minded types. I don’t like most people’s forum persona. And for some people here I would gladly violate the obvious least worst case of The Trolley Problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

 

And why would I need to do that?

Then why would anyone need to do what you asked for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Nich... said:

Then why would anyone need to do what you asked for?

 

Because they said “most” and I just asked for evidence of this frightening statement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So majority government 🙂

 

The good news:

1. You get to keep more of your money and you get to decide what to do with it.

2. Retirees aren’t going to have income ripped out of their hands

3. Billions (additional) are not going to be thrown to fix problems we can’t fix, mathematically

4. The top end of town is not going to be asked to subsidise another education money grab with zero projected improvements and zero statistical evidence of any improvement.

5. Regional Australia will be able to maintain coal jobs in a world with rapidly expanding coal power.

6. We are not going to be divided by economic class even more than we are now.

7. The economy isn’t going to be cratered in a housing downturn by the stripping of NG. A bad economy always affects the poorest the most - there is nothing more equitable than a growing economy in terms of getting everyone over baseline wealth metrics.

 

A fairer, more equitable Australia is the result of this election. Greed and class envy has lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure majority was actually in doubt, but whether it'd be majority once the speaker is taken out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

 

According to ABC radio just minutes ago there remain primarily two seats in doubt but favoring LNP.

 

That would mean a total of 78 seats for the LNP which is a comfortable if not luxurious margin.

 

Considering how razor's edge it was coming into the election that is nothing to complain about.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most importantly is that all the lower house independents are utterly irrelevant.

 

Its delicious given the promises at least Stegall made.

 

The voters of Warringah are literally getting nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leonid said:

Most importantly is that all the lower house independents are utterly irrelevant.

Remember the last time the independents in the House were irrelevant, until very suddenly they were?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just interested to see how it goes .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leonid said:

Most importantly is that all the lower house independents are utterly irrelevant.

 

Its delicious given the promises at least Stegall made.

 

The voters of Warringah are literally getting nothing.

 

as opposed to getting tony abbott ?

 

based on that alone, we won the election

 

 

cool beanz by me

 

a hung lower house would be delicious to watch, but i'll settle for an obstructive senate - given what great negotiators the liberals have historically proven to be, they are going to have to up their game if you are after your tax break

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nich... said:

Remember the last time the independents in the House were irrelevant, until very suddenly they were?

 

If Libs play their cards right and appoint a Labor Deputy, there are 149 with a vote. 77 Libs, 72 other.

 

Libs would need to lose 3 to Labor, the communists or to left-leaning independents. Which still wouldn’t largely matter because Sharkhie, Katter and probably Stegall would never back Labor.

 

It’s very, very unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

as opposed to getting tony abbott ?

 

Representation within party of government or representation by political novice outside of government?

 

I get you don’t like Abbott but Stegall didn’t win because she’s awesome - she won because Abbott was a wrecker who took down their darling Turnbull.

 

If Abbott has resigned 8mo ago in favour of a Dave Sharma type, you reckon she’d have had a chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

 

If Libs play their cards right and appoint a Labor Deputy, there are 149 with a vote. 77 Libs, 72 other.

 

Libs would need to lose 3 to Labor, the communists or to left-leaning independents. Which still wouldn’t largely matter because Sharkhie, Katter and probably Stegall would never back Labor.

 

It’s very, very unlikely.

It's not about Labor having the numbers to do shit.

It's only partly about another cockup and the medevac bill.

 

Numbers are close, they can't guarantee people won't lose seats for random shit (again).  So they won't be throwing around pork to the indies, but at the same time they'd be fools to shit on everything they ask for.

 

This is the party where they don't /have/ to vote on party lines, remember?  Are their whips that good to get every member toeing the party line and in the chamber for every vote, a few occasional pairs excepted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×