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

[Dales Cannon]

The sex party are now called The Reason Party.


Shattered to discover that they're not standing in my electorate.

They must be married if they need a raeson for sex!

 

[Kerplunk]

I’m really struggling this election, i’m weighing up voting for the party with the least worst donors/lobbyists.. At the end of the day that is how policy is formed in this country. Union criminals or the coal lobby. Such great choices. Who bank rolls the greens?

 

[pink poodle]

I’m really struggling this election, i’m weighing up voting for the party with the least worst donors/lobbyists.. At the end of the day that is how policy is formed in this country. Union criminals or the coal lobby. Such great choices. Who bank rolls the greens?

Well not all those unionists are criminals, but yiu can bet your arse that all those coal lobbyists are. Though I reckon a lot of coal miners are tied to those evil unions...


If you care about the future at all, back the greens. They may have some scary left policies or really liberal ideas about drugs, but that will be kept in check by the conservatives. The greens are the only real progressive option that will save the planet.

 

[johnny]

Text message from my father:

"Vote informal, it's the only candidate you can trust"

Hard to argue with that logic.

 

[Haakon]

Well not all those unionists are criminals, but yiu can bet your arse that all those coal lobbyists are. Though I reckon a lot of coal miners are tied to those evil unions...


If you care about the future at all, back the greens. They may have some scary left policies or really liberal ideas about drugs, but that will be kept in check by the conservatives. The greens are the only real progressive option that will save the planet.

wot he said. Their touchy feely social stuff gives me the irrits, but overall theyre the only real choice.

 

[Calvin27]

wot he said. Their touchy feely social stuff gives me the irrits, but overall theyre the only real choice.

I can live with the touchy feely stuff, but not when they waste so much political airtime on it. SSM basically wasted 9 months of the political calendar last time around. Yeah ok it was a lot of blue vs red fighting too, but really only because the green made it an issue and started to erode the labor voter base. I guess the only good thing that came out of that is it sewed the seeds of the LNP imploding.

I'm of the opinion Australia will stay/blue/red for a long time to come - we will not have a 3/4 way split for at least 2 decades. Which means the most effective action is to actually elevate issues via strategically placed senate votes. And yes I did label all of the bloody numbers below the line!

 

[steve jobs' pancreas]

the numpts will hold the balance of power once again, regardless of which of the major parties jags it

Here comes the new boss
Same as the old boss

 

[johnny]

If Abbott, Dutton and Kelly lost their seat and Mundine didn;t win, I'd even accept an LNP lead house.

 

[Tubbsy]

If Abbott, Dutton and Kelly lost their seat and Mundine didn;t win, I'd even accept an LNP lead house.

Yep, I think turfing some of the nutters is more important than which major gains control.

Hopefully the balance of power will be kept away from Hanson and Palmer, but that seems unlikely because Queensland.

 

[Kerplunk]

If you care about the future at all, back the greens. They may have some scary left policies or really liberal ideas about drugs, but that will be kept in check by the conservatives. The greens are the only real progressive option that will save the planet.

I voted greens a few times knowing full well they will not win the seat I am in. Probably will do the same this time. They have good policies but no way of actually implementing them economically..
Might chuck Labor in senate so they can hopefully get their negitive gearing and franking credits policies through the senate, without some greedy boomer party blocking it.

 

[Dales Cannon]

I dont get the franking credit thing. Can someone explain that? Is it not additional tax on pre taxed income? Neg gearing fair enough.

 

[Haakon]

I dont get the franking credit thing. Can someone explain that? Is it not additional tax on pre taxed income? Neg gearing fair enough.

Basically tax is not being paid by retirees on their investment dividends, but are still being issued a "tax refund" on that non-taxed income. So in effect its simply a government handout. Hard to argue youre self funded if youre relying on payments from the government.

 

[Calvin27]

I dont get the franking credit thing. Can someone explain that? Is it not additional tax on pre taxed income? Neg gearing fair enough.

Basically people who earn dividends but are below the company tax rate of 30% get a tax refund come tax time.So if you earn $under $18k in dividends, come tax time you get some of the tax credits that the company you invested in has paid already. The proposal is to stop refunding these tax refunds.

However, as long as the net effect isn't that the tax office gives you back the tax already paid, you can use the tax already paid to reduce your tax liability. For example if your marginal tax rate is 32% and you earn dividends which have a 30% tax component, then you only need to pay for the additional 2%.

 

[scblack]

Basically tax is not being paid by retirees on their investment dividends, but are still being issued a "tax refund" on that non-taxed income. So in effect its simply a government handout. Hard to argue youre self funded if youre relying on payments from the government.

But Nah.

Please only reply to this topic if you have any clue what you are talking about. That reply is plain wrong.

Dales here is what it ACTUALLY means:
Company makes $100 profit.
Company pays tax at 30% = $30
Dividend is paid to shareholders for $70, carrying a franking credit for $30.

Scenario 1
Person submits tax return. Their only income is the shareholding.
So they earned $100 income for the year - $70 dividend is grossed up in tax return.
They are in a super fund so pay 15% tax = $100 * 15% = $15

So: Taxpayer has tax payable of $15.
But Company paid $30 tax.
So, the $15 difference is refunded to Taxpayer.
The Person only receives a refund of the tax prepaid on their behalf. Labor is looking to stop this REFUND of $15.

Scenario 2
Person submits tax return. They have shareholding $100 plus interest earned of $100.
So they earned $200 for the year.
They pay tax at 15% too = $200 * 15% = $30.
The Franking Credit covers this tax payable. They do not have to write a cheque for the tax payable.

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?

 

[steve jobs' pancreas]

its a strange policy from Bill that potentially impacts those with lower super balances allocated to equities and leaves the large balances unchanged

edit SCBlack dun the math

 

[born-again-biker]

Was just looking at local candidates to get an idea...in particular where my vote would go if a candidate is unsuccessful...

Question:
Do preference deals effect upper AND lower house outcomes?



Sent from my LG-H870DS using Tapatalk

 

[Mattyp]

voting green, not necessarily because I agree with everything they stand for, but because I hate that there are only 2 potential winners and that's all there has been forever, if the greens can win more votes and put them in a position of a bit more power it will keep the bastards honest. Give it another 10 years and maybe there'll be more than just the big 2 going for the win. Bring on more options.

 

[SummitFever]

Good explaination @scblack . There is too much misinformation on the franking credit issue and it's one of the shittiest things that labour have come up with. It will only hurt people with low incomes because anyone that has shares and receives a dividend will effectively have paid at least 30% tax on that dividend. Totally fucks up owning shares for poor people and low income earners.

I know that very few people on low incomes (other than retirees) own shares and so they don't give a shit, but they should. On a low income you can't go and buy an investment property but you sure can go and buy yourself some solid blue chip stocks and benefit.

It's part of this continual dumbing down of society that low income earners all over Australia aren't outraged by this BS. If you're a poor person, building up a share portforlio is basically the only type of investing that you can do.

 

[Tubbsy]

People using holding companies for their shares are doing rather well out of this though, aren't they?

 

[Dales Cannon]

Thanks SC that is how I saw it.