The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[scblack]

I'm not too sure about the purity of this anymore. After their ETS with Krudd that set us back a decade and then fuel excise politicing, I'm no convinced they can actually put environment above their own political interests.

The greens voted AGAINST increases to the fuel excise, proposed by Abbott. Some attempt to politicise somthing.

All for the invironment? Nah, not to be trusted.

 

[Haakon]

The greens voted AGAINST increases to the fuel excise, proposed by Abbott. Some attempt to politicise somthing.

All for the invironment? Nah, not to be trusted.

Because the liberals had committed to putting it all into roads which just encourages more car use. Some of it should have been earmarked for public transport, which reduces car use, which helps the environment and reduces the need for excise spends on the roads in the first place.

The greens were not being hypocritical as much as the rwnjs like to bleat on about it.

 

[scblack]

Smsf owners might be pushing the risk envelope, but the vast majority are in a managed fund, invested in the super low risk “protection” strategy, which is bank interest.

Ummm, where do you come up with this information?

I have my personal SMSF holding only minimal cash.

I know many other SMSF trustees and cash is minimal. Seminars and other investment group meetings on the topic never propose large cash holdings.

 

[slowmick]

I would guess you're not retired and haven't seen your portfolio decimated by the GFC. A few retirees I know are a little gun shy about "risk" in retirement.

 

[scblack]

I would guess you're not retired and haven't seen your portfolio decimated by the GFC. A few retirees I know are a little gun shy about "risk" in retirement.

I had my SMSF in place before the GFC of 2008/09. Quickly after that event, I DOUBLED my portfolio by buying in at the prices then on offer.

The generally regarded investment cycle is quoted as 7-10 years. Retirement at 65 and death at 80 carries funds through a few full cycles so being gun-shy at retirement age is really not required.

 

[pink poodle]

I had my SMSF in place before the GFC of 2008/09. Quickly after that event, I DOUBLED my portfolio by buying in at the prices then on offer.

The generally regarded investment cycle is quoted as 7-10 years. Retirement at 65 and death at 80 carries funds through a few full cycles so being gun-shy at retirement age is really not required.

This highlights a key aspect of the SMSF - vigilance. If you aren't keeping on your toes (life can be pretty distracting) it is easy to fall into a cash holdings cycle and suffer shitty returns.


I think we all know th benefit of leverage...just keep refinancing and buying more property with the fund's equity. This way you can do your share of sustaining the housing market through demand pressure against slow supply.

 

[Haakon]

.just keep your greedy mitts off buying more property with the fund's equity. This way you can do your share of sustaining the falls in the housing market so some people get an actual home one day...

 

[Calvin27]

Because the liberals had committed to putting it all into roads which just encourages more car use.

I'm not sure we can say that is true. I mean there is no real line of sight from fuel excise to expenditure like other funds (for example landfill levy). Fuel excise goes into general revenue so the line of sight is not clear as that even if politicians tell us so doesn't make it true. Even stuff like MLS goes into the general revenue pit can ultimately can be used to fund anything, even submarines.

 

[Haakon]

I'm not sure we can say that is true. I mean there is no real line of sight from fuel excise to expenditure like other funds (for example landfill levy). Fuel excise goes into general revenue so the line of sight is not clear as that even if politicians tell us so doesn't make it true. Even stuff like MLS goes into the general revenue pit can ultimately can be used to fund anything, even submarines.

It was a while ago and i might be fuzzy on the details, but as I recall the LNP had explicit said that was the intent (they often promise things they catn do....)

 

[Freediver]

The greens voted AGAINST increases to the fuel excise, proposed by Abbott. Some attempt to politicise somthing.

All for the invironment? Nah, not to be trusted.

Greens to vote against fuel excise increase

The Greens have decided not to support the Abbott Government's bid to increase the fuel excise, effectively killing off the $2.3 billion budget measure.

www.abc.net.au

Sometimes omitting details is worse than lying.

 

[Calvin27]

It was a while ago and i might be fuzzy on the details, but as I recall the LNP had explicit said that was the intent (they often promise things they catn do....)

Yep they definitely said this. The flipside is I think some of it was earmarked for the East-West link so it never got spent. But like I said they pretend that it's tied revenue, but in fact it's not.

 

[rangersac]

Rotorburn brains trust, I seek your collective sympathy as I feel sullied after a pre lunch session undertaking the voting process. Having to choose the order of ranking below the line from Palmer United, One Nation, Fraser Anning's Conservatives, Australian Conservatives and the Love Australia or Leave parties has left me traumatized and ridden with guilt...

 

[Mr Crudley]

Rotorburn brains trust, I seek your collective sympathy as I feel sullied after a pre lunch session undertaking the voting process. Having to choose the order of ranking below the line from Palmer United, One Nation, Fraser Anning's Conservatives, Australian Conservatives and the Love Australia or Leave parties has left me traumatized and ridden with guilt...

Just go the Legalisation of Hemp party and all will be fine. If it isn't fine then you won't care anyhow.

Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk

 

[Calvin27]

Just go the Legalisation of Hemp party and all will be fine.

About the only bright spot on the polling sheet.

 

[Mr Crudley]

About the only bright spot on the polling sheet.

I always given them a shot at the title.

They always seem to be there, so it 8s the least you can do.

Sent from my F5121 using Tapatalk

 

[Nerf Herder]

In Scenario 2 - person BENEFITS from the franking credit. In Full.
In Scenario 1 - person LOSES the Benefit of the tax paid for them.

It is an Unfair impost which will really only hurt retirees, super funds and those with small incomes. Is that in ANY way fair?

this isn’t 100% correct ... just for completeness ... in both scenarios the investor benefits from the franking credit ... by the full $30 paid
In s1 they get cash refund of $15 + $15 tax deduction. in s2 they get a tax deduction of $30
Even if you put a non super scenario (S3) Where a tax payer with 45% marginal tax, they benefit by the full $30 franking credit by reducing the amount of tax they would have had to pay from $45 to $15.

So if you remove the franking credit I’m back to the tax I should have paid of $15 (S1 and S2) or $45 (S3). I lose a benefit sure, but I pay my fair share of tax.

It’s important to know that the intention of franking credits was to avoid double taxation and to encourage Long term savings when Australia’s per capital savings rate was at record lows vs the world ... but I think this Q&A video explains the franking credit and negative gearing benefits pretty well as a tax payer subsidy not a tax.

There is a second video that covers negative gearing ... so part of my comments refer to that vid. Worth watching

How I see it. Labour if in power will redirect tax payer funds away from subsidising investment or savings (rich people per se) ... and redirect it to services (all the other schmucks). So in terms of fairness ... it’s all relative and skewed towards the less well off.

Many people can’t afford investments, and are struggling with day to day ... so to say low income earners would be penalised isn’t completely correct. Labour Currently thinks income and service redirstribution is of higher priority then encouraging people to save for the future or invest. So they are taking away the investment related subsidies and putting that into whatever their policies are.

Bill’s explanation about subsidy vs new tax is spot on IMO and frankly is clever strategy ... presuming people understand it ...

So, purely from a fairness point of view ... If you think the average joe is currently worse off and those with investments or disposable income are ok. Then removing investment related subsidies is more than fair.

The use of the term ‘subsidies’ was what got me across the line. I was initially against the investment related changes.

 

[Calvin27]

I was initially against the investment related changes.

The overarching problem in my view is that we are at a point in time where capital wealth is more valuable than labor income. There for to balance the economy, fundamental shifts that reward labor income and pull back on investment incentives needs to occurs across all policies. Not doing this is the key risk because it means wealth divide grows bigger and ultimately that is bad for everyone in the long run.

 

[Tubbsy]

Weird ass banner ad from the union lobby appeared for me just now on another website, but had somehow grabbed some of what I was looking at on Rotorburn:

I was wondering why the trade union has @moorey exhorting us to eat a bag in an election campaign... I guess they've done the numbers?

 

[pink poodle]

this isn’t 100% correct ... just for completeness ... in both scenarios the investor benefits from the franking credit ... by the full $30 paid
In s1 they get cash refund of $15 + $15 tax deduction. in s2 they get a tax deduction of $30
Even if you put a non super scenario (S3) Where a tax payer with 45% marginal tax, they benefit by the full $30 franking credit by reducing the amount of tax they would have had to pay from $45 to $15.

So if you remove the franking credit I’m back to the tax I should have paid of $15 (S1 and S2) or $45 (S3). I lose a benefit sure, but I pay my fair share of tax.

It’s important to know that the intention of franking credits was to avoid double taxation and to encourage Long term savings when Australia’s per capital savings rate was at record lows vs the world ... but I think this Q&A video explains the franking credit and negative gearing benefits pretty well as a tax payer subsidy not a tax.

There is a second video that covers negative gearing ... so part of my comments refer to that vid. Worth watching

How I see it. Labour if in power will redirect tax payer funds away from subsidising investment or savings (rich people per se) ... and redirect it to services (all the other schmucks). So in terms of fairness ... it’s all relative and skewed towards the less well off.

Many people can’t afford investments, and are struggling with day to day ... so to say low income earners would be penalised isn’t completely correct. Labour Currently thinks income and service redirstribution is of higher priority then encouraging people to save for the future or invest. So they are taking away the investment related subsidies and putting that into whatever their policies are.

Bill’s explanation about subsidy vs new tax is spot on IMO and frankly is clever strategy ... presuming people understand it ...

So, purely from a fairness point of view ... If you think the average joe is currently worse off and those with investments or disposable income are ok. Then removing investment related subsidies is more than fair.

The use of the term ‘subsidies’ was what got me across the line. I was initially against the investment related changes.

Lets not forget that everyone benefits from an increase to services, not just lower income earners or people with a lower margin of disposable income. Those with a huge disposable income benefit from the increased services as well.

 

[Flow-Rider]

It's the poor that are using the franking credits the most, all it will do is make low income retirees depose of investments and get more of the pension.