MasterOfReality
After forever
Well that's the nature of a progressive system. The more you earn the more you pay, and vice versa.
The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Scott Morrison's new role revealed
Scott Morrison’s next job has been announced: the former Australian prime minister is joining international advisory and consulting firm American Global Strategies.
AGS was founded and is chaired by Robert O’Brien, who was national security adviser to Donald Trump while he was in the White House. O’Brien’s name has been floated as a possible vice president option, or secretary of state in a potential second Trump term. He is considered an anti-China hawk.
In a press release overnight, AGS announced that Morrison was joining the firm as a “non-executive vice chairman”.
O’Brien said:
Scott Morrison’s next job has been announced: the former Australian prime minister is joining international advisory and consulting firm American Global Strategies.
AGS was founded and is chaired by Robert O’Brien, who was national security adviser to Donald Trump while he was in the White House. O’Brien’s name has been floated as a possible vice president option, or secretary of state in a potential second Trump term. He is considered an anti-China hawk.
In a press release overnight, AGS announced that Morrison was joining the firm as a “non-executive vice chairman”.
O’Brien said:
Morrison was quoted saying:
Mr Crudley
Glock in your sock
Lining himself up for a plum spot for when Biden gets punted and leverage that he worked with Trump. Trump can continue calling him a 'titanium man' which I consider an insult to the GOAT of all metals.
I don't want Trump to get back in either but Joe's shakey image doesn't inspire much confidence even if the US economy is doing well.
Oh well...... Maybe Xi might like us eventually.
safreek
*******
You are right about the universe.
The way everyone wants the government to fund every little thing these days I think keep the tax rates as they are and increase the gst by 5%.
Slowman
Likes Dirt
If Trump gets back in watch America become the hand maid's tale. I still do not understand how a crook and a traitor is allowed to run. I suppose I have to respect the presumption of innocence until the trial finds him guilty but anyone else would not make bail and be held in remand. Surely there must be some kind of interlocutory injunction that can be made preventing him from running (while not restraining his right of free speech and being a douche bag).
Last edited:
LPG
likes thicc birds
I would disagree with most of that.
I don't think many reasonable people want the government to fund every little thing. People want the government to look after 2 things: long term items that support Australia for the future like education, infrastructure etc. These are never addressed by private companies as they don't make tangible profit. The other is to support the population to keep people at a minimum standard of living, health and safety.
Gst is functionally a regressive tax and bumps up living costs. We should be taxing people's luxuries harder, not their ability to look after basics when so many people are struggling to meet their basic needs.
Mr Crudley
Glock in your sock
Agreed. You would think it would be a huge red flag liability to have him running again with what seem to be daily court appearances and all of messy things mostly of his own doing orbiting around him. The mind boggles.
The die hard Trumpers must get inspired that he is here on a mission from God to liberate the masses so he can do no wrong. Trump loves to jump up and down about the rule of law except when he believes that it shouldn't apply to him. Then it turns into a 'witchhunt from the deep state' kind of thing to hose it all down.
It is nuts all over and I feel for the sane Americans that must also see all of this crazy unfolding again.
Scotty T
Walks the walk
Yeah I dunno the answer. But I do like the idea of taxing luxuries harder. Tightening up tax breaks and mechanisms that already exist for wealthier folks is another.
What if we said tax breaks on your first investment property but none after that? Then all those mum and dad investors we hear about whenever the topic comes up can't complain because surely if you are on a modest income you won't have more than one investment property?
What if we said tax breaks on your first investment property but none after that? Then all those mum and dad investors we hear about whenever the topic comes up can't complain because surely if you are on a modest income you won't have more than one investment property?
Thing is politics is like a religion over there. People feel very strongly about it even if they choose not to vote. It's weird. I think in my years of working here politics raised its head around election time or when some policy was enacted that was unpopular or crazy etc. Certainly not a day to day topic. While I was in the US I heard something pretty much every day and even got asked on multiple occasions my thoughts on this or that. Might have been atypical but seemed the norm. I actually asked if the public in general was that interested and was told it is something most are passionate about.
LPG
likes thicc birds
My view is that investment into existing property should be discouraged to be well below the current level. Investing in existing property drives the prices up and makes it harder on businesses and people earning a living. Businesses have to pay more for their premesis to operate from and more to their employees just to cover their rent/high mortgages. It makes Australia less competitive globally as it makes us cost more to do the same thing.
In contrast, investing in local businesses/shares gives businesses more capital to grow their businesses. Imagine if 50% of investment went from residential housing into growing local businesses. There would be more job opportunities and less upwards pressure on homes/premesis. The only downside is the shift scares people who own property including myself but it needs to happen to look after the future of the country instead of increasing the divide between haves and have nots.
Investment properties are needed for renters so I was thinking more along the lines of reducing the tax deductions claimable for each property you have. Something like letting them claim 100% on the first place then 80% for the second, etc.
Also, I think there needs to be something to discourage people from owning untenanted properties.
Oddjob
Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
The absolute best taxes are inheritance taxes and land taxes. Progressive, hard to avoid and encourage resources being used productively. But like most things in life, people absolutely loathe the best policy option.
I agree that Australian Govts try to cover too much poorly. We would be better served by Govts being more focused on key areas and regulating and enforcing them better.
Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk
I agree that Australian Govts try to cover too much poorly. We would be better served by Govts being more focused on key areas and regulating and enforcing them better.
Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk
Slowman
Likes Dirt
I have more than 1 investment property and both my wife and I work (so we can die and our kids can spend it all! I have shown them how to spend on expensive bikes). At first it seems like you are getting a bit of help but as you pay them off that opportunity to claim the interest expenses reduces and of course as it goes from a loss to a profit you will get taxed on that like all other income.
The other point to make once you do have an investment property it is easier to get more because as your equity in A) your home and B) your investment property(s) rise you can borrow more. Depends how highly geared (how much risk) you want to go. Even though it is real estate (safe as houses mate!) there are still risks, right now with such high occupancy rates they aren't that obvious, but I can tell you in the past there have been times where the vacancy rate goes up. During those times you need to still be able to service the mortgages and that's when people get into trouble and have a fire sale and possibly losing any capital gain, especially if they bought when the market peaked - lose, lose.
So right now, it all looks rosy but even now, one bad tenant can ruin things. I had these 2 young ladies in my unit that refused to open the windows (too cold) or turn on the exhaust fans (electricity costs) while they were taking showers and then tried to claim for damages caused by mildew and mold. I still had to pay to have mold removers come in and clear the place and go to a QCAT hearing to straighten the matter out. They wanted to break the lease and not be held liable to the outstanding term if I could not get another tenant. Fortunately, for them it wasn't vacant long but I was still out of pocket for the mold removal. I was lucky that is all it cost I suppose, while they were not vindictive they really accepted no responsibility for their actions.
So there is a balance. Mum and dad investors help with supply, so it's a balancing act. Foreign investors get no negative gearing tax break, EXCEPT, on new properties - which increases the supply. In fact they cannot buy existing properties only new ones which was designed to increase the rental stocks but it hasn't because there are ways around that. So I have to agree something needs to be done about all these empty properties but also tighter regulation to prevent foreign investment finding its way into the existing market because they can afford to outbid and push up prices in the market.
The thing is a lot of people like a rising market. Peter Dutton will always criticize any measures to put downward pressure on the market and say poor mum and dad who worked hard won't realise a profit. But he's no economist and just a dim wit that likes to throw spanners because he thinks that's what good opposition leaders do and rack up a score. Sorry it's easy to get started on that bloke, you can't help but compare him with Turnbull. Progressively the Liberal Party have down graded from Turnbull (Lexus Landcruiser) to Morrison (Toyota Landcrusier) to Dutton (Morris Minor).
So I think the lever to push, to increase supply, is to restrict negative gearing to new properties, for everyone, especially in times like these. All foreign investment and real estate purchases need to be restricted and enforced to new only, and when they are found to have bypassed regulations, the property should be confiscated, with no compensation - that will send a pretty clear message.
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Oi, don’t be insulting to Morris Minors - they were a cool little thing. I think you meant Dutton is a Yaris Cross
Slowman
Likes Dirt
Or possibly a Jeep Cherokee, I think the Yaris would be too reliable.Oi, don’t be insulting to Morris Minors - they were a cool little thing. I think you meant Dutton is a Yaris Cross
scblack
Leucocholic
You talking about the Stage 3 tax cuts that Labor voted in to legislation? You mean the Stage 3 tax cuts that Albanese and Chalmers committed themselves to maintain over 100 times at the recent election?
Labor committed us (and themselves) to this Stage 3.
But don't let facts get in the way of your post.
Haakon
has an accommodating arse
But a Yaris suv is soulless and pointless…
ozzybmx
taking a shit with my boobs out
Read a good one on Fakebook this morning.
10 men go out for a beer once a month and the bill comes to $100. They decide to split the bill in a similar way to a tax bill:
• The first four men (the poorest) pay $0
• Fifth pays $1
• Sixth pays $3
• Seventh pays $7
• Eighth pays $12
• Ninth pays $18
• Tenth (the richest) pays $59
The men are happy.
The pub owner decides to drop the price, so their bill now comes to $80. What do they do to split the $20 fairly? The publican suggests:
• The first four men (the poorest) pay $0
• Fifth goes from $1 to $0 (a 100% saving)
• Sixth goes from $3 to $2 (a 33% saving)
• Seventh goes from $7 to $5 (a 28% saving)
• Eighth goes from $12 to $9 (a 25% saving)
• Ninth goes from $18 to $15 (a 17% saving)
• Tenth (the richest) goes from $59 to $49 (a 16% saving - the smallest net gain)
But the men aren’t happy….
The sixth man points out that he only got $1 out of the $20 but the tenth man got $10. The seventh man agrees, also asking why he only got $2 when the tenth man got $10. The first four men are also indignant, saying “we didn’t get anything at all – the new system exploits the poor!” So the nine men surround the tenth man and beat him up.
The next month the tenth man doesn’t show up. When it comes to paying the bill the group of nine men find they don’t have enough money between them to even pay for half the bill.
Slowman
Likes Dirt
Are there many of these 10 man groups? Or even one that anyone can name? I'd certainly like to join one.
When I was drinking at Kooralbyn Resort I was with Kerry Packer (a looong time ago) but he never shouted me. For a while I kept bumping into him, like at the Lakeside Hotel for breakfast during the premier's conference, he never shouted my breakfast then either. But he would acknowledge me with a hearty "get out of my way!"
When I was drinking at Kooralbyn Resort I was with Kerry Packer (a looong time ago) but he never shouted me. For a while I kept bumping into him, like at the Lakeside Hotel for breakfast during the premier's conference, he never shouted my breakfast then either. But he would acknowledge me with a hearty "get out of my way!"