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

[pink poodle]

Not wanting to ignore the entertainment value and poetic liscence this clip provides and deserves - and the fact that it's a youtube clip.

However, the fundamental argument of the whole rant is that the military spending is a political ploy for a desparate govt and is being spent on flawed items for flawed reasons instead of being spent on a real threat, such as climate change. That's not a small part, it's the first 4 mins of the clip (minus the obvious comedy cut outs). And I'm not going to argue the call on this govt being desparate and politicising anything it can get its hands on, especially in the national security space. (got Jerusalem Embassy?)

The premise of his argument, that the massive defence spending is wasted because the enemy is not real and the toys are useless, is simply not true. Nothing wrong with the climate change bit (ironically, it's the militaries in most modern countries that are taking climate change seriously and screaming at govts to do something about it) but saying the military spending is only political and the Defence establsihment doesn't understand the threat is just not true.

Again, I get that this is a youtube clip from a less than serious dude that does political outrage-comedy. However, I think that grants the creators of this kind of material too much leeway. I may a bit sensitised to this given the focus on meme warfare and the influence online material like this had on the 2016 presidential election in the US (and since), but material like this, when it is released in the lead up to a federal election, has an impadt. Concocting mistruths and putting them on social media is not a harmless act.

Worst part is, the crux of his argument, that CC is a priority issue, is undermined by framing it in a false argument around defence spending.

I thought his spin was that resistance is futile, should China choose to invade. Does this indicate he may be a Chinese plant?

@johnny is the sudden burst of chinaphobia actually sudden or a long term thing the general populace hasn't noticed beyond maybe an impact on some housing availability? Or is it a sudden realisation that China has greatly extended their influence in the pacific region, maybe involving questionable aid programs? Or is Clive Palmer nailing it home with his run from the communists anti Labor campaign? Or something else?

 

[SummitFever]

My son is a uni student and has shares. About $15k worth now. If the dividends are franked then no need to pay tax on the dividend. If not franked then they are income in the usual sense and tax thresholds apply. It is the rebate part that is wonky and I agree should go and probably never have been implemented. I will pay very little tax for this fy. How to get some imputation rebates before the rug is pulled up and burnt (joke).

Share income (eg. Dividends) is just like any other income for your son its just that the company has already paid 30% tax. So a fully franked $70 dividend is actually counted as $100 earnings on his tax return and he gets $30 of tax credits.

Say his total earnings are less tha 18000. He pays no tax. The govt will refund the tax the he has paid on his salary earnings which the employer mist deduct. Currently he will also get the tax the company has paid on his dividend earnings.

In future though, if the imputation credit scheme is scrapped he will be stuck with paying at least 30%.

Dividend imputation credits are not a govt handout. Its a credit for an amount of tax that has already been paid on your (the shareholder's behalf). In this instance its no different to tax paid on a salary by an employer.

 

[johnny]

@johnny is the sudden burst of chinaphobia actually sudden or a long term thing the general populace hasn't noticed beyond maybe an impact on some housing availability? Or is it a sudden realisation that China has greatly extended their influence in the pacific region, maybe involving questionable aid programs? Or is Clive Palmer nailing it home with his run from the communists anti Labor campaign? Or something else?

Using the term 'chinaphobia' seems to beg a few questions. Leaving that bit aside:

There is very clear reason to be cautous about China, for one very big reason, if no other: Do you think that the Chinese government will treat the rest of the world any differen than it treats its own people? The US is not a beacon of fairness or altruism (especially under current admin) but if I were to choose between US, China, Russia, Iran, Germany, Japan as world leader/most powerful, it would be the US and maybe Germany. It's about the best we can expect given current crop.

China's track record compared to the US is disasterous, on so many fronts. Everything bad the US does, China does X10 and in spades. If China was interested in increasing its power in the current (but flawed) system, then there would be less reason to be worried. But its not, it's looking to flip the system and is exporting all kinds of technology and methodology to unsavory states converting as much of the world into its own image, which essentially makes the world safer for the Communisst Party.

for me, the Social Credit System and the Xinjiang re-education camps tell me enough to be convinced that the Chinese Communist Party is not an entity I would like to see become even more powerful in the world.

 

[SummitFever]

Also, if the aim is to get the rich then set a yearly limit on how many franking credits you can claim. This will rotect the less well off.

 

[pink poodle]

Using the term 'chinaphobia' seems to beg a few questions. Leaving that bit aside:

There is very clear reason to be cautous about China, for one very big reason, if no other: Do you think that the Chinese government will treat the rest of the world any differen than it treats its own people? The US is not a beacon of fairness or altruism (especially under current admin) but if I were to choose between US, China, Russia, Iran, Germany, Japan as world leader/most powerful, it would be the US and maybe Germany. It's about the best we can expect given current crop.

China's track record compared to the US is disasterous, on so many fronts. Everything bad the US does, China does X10 and in spades. If China was interested in increasing its power in the current (but flawed) system, then there would be less reason to be worried. But its not, it's looking to flip the system and is exporting all kinds of technology and methodology to unsavory states converting as much of the world into its own image, which essentially makes the world safer for the Communisst Party.

for me, the Social Credit System and the Xinjiang re-education camps tell me enough to be convinced that the Chinese Communist Party is not an entity I would like to see become even more powerful in the world.

I'm not disagreeing with your assessment here, except that the use of communist has become rather out of date for their fascist dictatorship. But...in relation the the question is posed, is this a new wave of concern at the governmental level or is it just that the concern has not been of much media interest until recently (say last 2-5 years where reporting in regular media has blown up)?

 

[johnny]

Communist in name only, they are authoritarian single-party state by any measure.

Put it this way, the Aust govt barred Huawei from the NBN in 2010. I wrote my thesis on expanding Chinese power in 2006. China has been incrementally increasing the tenor and scope of its activity and thus you hear louder and louder voices on the issue. China really ramped up after the GFC for a number of reasons - the US was distracted and its role of world leader under question because of what it did to the global economy - Chinese military expansion and tech allowed it to venture further from its shores - the demand for resource supply has pushed China to be reliant on parts of the world that force it to expand its military reach (protect access and logitical lines) - etc. etc.

As any rising power will, China has expanded its activity in the world so more people are paying attention. China does scary stuff so some of those voices are shrill.

 

[scblack]

Edit: I have no issue with low income earners being paid a refund for "unused" franking credits, there just needs to be a mechanism to ensure it only applys to those that really need it.

Under proposed Labor changes, The richer person will receive FULL benefit of the franking credit, as they offset against other income. A poorer person with less other income will LOSE the benefit.

Its VERY regressive.

 

[scblack]

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

Your opening sentence is Wrong. You may be in a sense correct - yes they get a deduction, but if it is not refunded it is WORTHLESS.

Person 1 LOSES the $15 because it is not refunded.

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[scblack]

You're paying 37c on the dollar for everything between $90,000-$180,000p/a, and 45c on the dollar for everything over $180,001p/a. Given that the Australian Corporate Tax rate is at 30% (small business is 27.5%?), high earners aren't going to be claiming back a lot of the franked credits to begin with. You'll only get it returned if your marginal tax rate is below that of the tax already paid, which pretty much means it's only going to apply for lower earners that aren't punching into a higher tax bracket to begin with.
Or did I miss an important detail?

You are Partly correct.

Wealthy taxpayers at 37% get FULL benefit of the franking credit as it offsets other current income, which they claim in their tax return.

Poor person at average tax rate of 15% LOSES half the benefit of the Franking credits under Labor because they are not refunded it. Because they are poorer they LOSE this benefit.

Rich person gets full benefit. Poor person loses benefit. Is that a good outcome?

 

[steve jobs' pancreas]

Under proposed Labor changes, The richer person will receive FULL benefit of the franking credit, as they offset against other income. A poorer person with less other income will LOSE the benefit.

Its VERY regressive.

if this is how it is then I'm jiggy wit dat

What Labor’s proposed changes to franking credits mean

One of the more controversial policies being recommended by the Federal Opposition in the lead up to the 2019 election is the removal of cash refunds for franking credits.

blog.stockspot.com.au

The spelling mistake is not mine, Moorey.

Further I'm not going to test the policy, coz it aint never getting up, even if "Blow you off Bill" gets the win.

 

[Haakon]

Under proposed Labor changes, The richer person will receive FULL benefit of the franking credit, as they offset against other income. A poorer person with less other income will LOSE the benefit.

Its VERY regressive.

That just reads like a reason to further tighten the tax system and knock out those perks for higher incomes.

 

[scblack]

Came across this quote from 1931:

Even back in 1931 people understood that handouts do not help people.

 

[scblack]

That just reads like a reason to further tighten the tax system and knock out those perks for higher incomes.

Name one "perk" that is not available for ALL people. Just ONE.

 

[Zaf]

Removed by user

 

[pink poodle]

Name one "perk" that is not available for ALL people. Just ONE.

Family tax benefits...if we are all lucky, @Haakon will never need them.

Even back in 1931 people understood that handouts do not help people.

So you class public education, public hospitals, public roads, public toilets, public transport, public parks, and other government funded not for profit services as hand outs? You would prefer to walk down a street lined with human filth and garbage than pay tax for it to be cleared away? Or to face 3rd world beggars and thieves along your lunch time walk? Than pay a little tax to have those stuck in a cycle of poverty receive a little governement assistance to try and break the cycle? Would you be ok with paying a higher insurance premium rather than being taxed because desperate people keep stealing your car land breaking into your house so that unemployment benefits could be axed? This sounds like a true bizarro universe that you wish to live in.

 

[Dales Cannon]

Name one "perk" that is not available for ALL people. Just ONE.

Salary sacrifice. If you dont have a salary.

 

[steve jobs' pancreas]

Family tax benefits...if we are all lucky, @Haakon will never need them.



So you class public education, public hospitals, public roads, public toilets, public transport, public parks, and other government funded not for profit services as hand outs? You would prefer to walk down a street lined with human filth and garbage than pay tax for it to be cleared away? Or to face 3rd world beggars and thieves along your lunch time walk? Than pay a little tax to have those stuck in a cycle of poverty receive a little governement assistance to try and break the cycle? Would you be ok with paying a higher insurance premium rather than being taxed because desperate people keep stealing your car land breaking into your house so that unemployment benefits could be axed? This sounds like a true bizarro universe that you wish to live in.

are they saying "Boo" or "Boo-urns" ?

 

[scblack]

So you class public education, public hospitals, public roads, public toilets, public transport, public parks, and other government funded not for profit services as hand outs? You would prefer to walk down a street lined with human filth and garbage than pay tax for it to be cleared away? Or to face 3rd world beggars and thieves along your lunch time walk? Than pay a little tax to have those stuck in a cycle of poverty receive a little governement assistance to try and break the cycle? Would you be ok with paying a higher insurance premium rather than being taxed because desperate people keep stealing your car land breaking into your house so that unemployment benefits could be axed? This sounds like a true bizarro universe that you wish to live in.

Teehee, one Lefty bit the bait. I'm happy for the day now.

 

[Haakon]

Teehee, one Lefty bit the bait. I'm happy for the day now.

Easily amused I see... I’m sure we can al apologise for taking your question seriously then.