Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[OzLuke]

@Jedi_Tiger as for Plibersek's husband, everyone loves a success story....just goes to show that no matter what happens you can still get the top job in Justice, even with ten years up his sleeve.....

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

@Jedi_Tiger as for Plibersek's husband, everyone loves a success story....just goes to show that no matter what happens you can still get the top job in Justice, even with ten years up his sleeve.....

Is this the same bloke that was appointed director of the NSW department of education despite not having any credentials in education?

 

[OzLuke]

@Cultured_Bogan yup.....great guy to have in charge of the education of thousands of kids....

 

[happy_tiger]

@Cultured_Bogan yup.....great guy to have in charge of the education of thousands of kids....

C'mon CB we let Geo become a MOD ...surely we can cut this guy some slack🤣

 

[Spud_Murphy]

@Cultured_Bogan yup.....great guy to have in charge of the education of thousands of kids....

I have a friend who worked under him when he was Education Dept head. She said he was a great guy who did a really good job.

Perhaps we should reserve our judgment of someone and leave it to the people who actually know them.

 

[OzLuke]

@Spud_Murphy so you have no problems with a guy who did ten years prison time have the highest position in Justice for NSW? Would you be happy if this same guy became a politician? It just goes to show that doesn't matter what you do, there are always second chances for people, rightly or wrongly.
I don't for one minute think he shouldn't get a second chance, but honestly Secretary for Justice? That'll do me.

One thing it is doing is promoting debate from both sides of the coin.

 

[Spud_Murphy]

@Spud_Murphy so you have no problems with a guy who did ten years prison time have the highest position in Justice for NSW? Would you be happy if this same guy became a politician? It just goes to show that doesn't matter what you do, there are always second chances for people, rightly or wrongly.
I don't for one minute think he shouldn't get a second chance, but honestly Secretary for Justice? That'll do me.

One thing it is doing is promoting debate from both sides of the coin.

Not if they have paid for their crimes and completely atoned for the mistakes of their youth and proven themselves to be good citizens since - no. God I could’ve easily done time for some of the things I did in my younger years if I ever got caught. I’m sure some of the people already in politics are in the same boat. Anyway it’s all moot now as Plibersek isn’t running in any case.

 

[Harvey]

@OzLuke Obviously a few of his former clients now hold some fairly senior positions. How else do you explain someone with no background or training being placed in charge of numerous government departments.

 

[weststigers]

@pawsandclaws1 seems strange a KPMG tax specialist would say that.

Franking credits are neither a gift, nor a tax rort. Nobody is getting more tax back than was paid as Labor claims.

**Simple example:**

**Earnings in this country up to $18,200 are tax free**, so why should the below examples be treated differently?



* If your mum earned $18,000 a year working part-time at the local school............How much tax should she pay?

* If your mum earned $18,000 a year running a small business from home............How much tax should she pay?

* If your mum is retired and earned $18,000 a year from share dividends...............How much tax should she pay?

**Franking Credit/Tax Return Example**


* If your mum earned $18,000 in her job over the year: $16,000 was transferred to her bank account and $2,000 was withheld for income tax....What tax refund should she get?

* If your mum earned $18,000 a year running a small business from home: To be safe, she sent $200/mth ($2,400 total) to the ATO so she wasn't stuck with a tax bill in the event she earned more than $18,200 during the year............What tax refund should she get?

* If your mum is retired and earned $18,000 in the year from share dividends: At dividend time, the company transfers $12,600 to her bank account and sends $5,400 (30% company tax) to the ATO on her behalf...............What tax refund should she get?

Under the Labor plan, your retired mum would have earnings of $18,000, taxed at 30% and would not be able to get a tax refund. If she earned the same amount any other way, she would have had a tax rate of 0%. How is this fair? Who is getting back more tax than they have paid? I don't think Labor thought that one through...

 

[hank37w]

@weststigers Very well put.

 

[happy_tiger]

My old mate and qld premier cant act fast enough now to get Adani off and racing

Glad to see policies and the environment are more important than votes

 

[weststigers]

@hank37w thanks mate...I'm actually shocked there was even a debate about this in the first place!

 

[Tim Sheens]

Under the Labor plan, your retired mum would have earnings of $18,000

Meanwhile until the legislation was to be passed and until the set date, she has the ability to sell those shares to invest in other areas, even overseas, that would not have her exposed to the closing the rort that many others feather their nest with. Of course this is after those many have already benefited from the super loopholes already utilised prior to retirement in creating their nest egg.

Nobody was going to have money taken from them, they were simply no longer going to have it handed to them. The nation then gets the 30% company tax on their profits to allow programs such as the poorer retired to have their teeth repaired etc.

Still, I have always advocated for allowing a low threshold amount to be grandfathered for at least a few years, so that those at the lower end and likely with less diverse investments, were not impacted.

 

[gallagher]

Under the Labor plan, your retired mum would have earnings of $18,000

Meanwhile until the legislation was to be passed and until the set date, she has the ability to sell those shares to invest in other areas, even overseas, that would not have her exposed to the closing the rort that many others feather their nest with. Of course this is after those many have already benefited from the super loopholes already utilised prior to retirement in creating their nest egg.

Nobody was going to have money taken from them, they were simply no longer going to have it handed to them. The nation then gets the 30% company tax on their profits to allow programs such as the poorer retired to have their teeth repaired etc.

Still, I have always advocated for allowing a low threshold amount to be grandfathered for at least a few years, so that those at the lower end and likely with less diverse investments, were not impacted.

And the fact unions were to have an exemption?

 

[Nelson]

Under the Labor plan, your retired mum would have earnings of $18,000

Meanwhile until the legislation was to be passed and until the set date, she has the ability to sell those shares to invest in other areas, even overseas, that would not have her exposed to the closing the rort that many others feather their nest with. Of course this is after those many have already benefited from the super loopholes already utilised prior to retirement in creating their nest egg.

Nobody was going to have money taken from them, they were simply no longer going to have it handed to them. The nation then gets the 30% company tax on their profits to allow programs such as the poorer retired to have their teeth repaired etc.

Still, I have always advocated for allowing a low threshold amount to be grandfathered for at least a few years, so that those at the lower end and likely with less diverse investments, were not impacted.

And the fact unions were to have an exemption?

They're income tax exempt generally just like a whole host of other institutions so that is not really unexpected.

The unfortunate thing is that dividend imputations can be used as part of a tax minimisation strategy for high wealth individuals and now that's going to persist. Nobody is going to make a move against them because they'll be too scared of the public perception that an attack on dividend imputations is an attack on pensioners and self-funded retirees. Labor were right to target them as an unnecessary erosion of the tax base, they just went about things in a ham-fisted way...

Looking at when these cash refunds were introduced (in 2000) the tax free threshold was down around $5,400 and the first marginal tax rate was 20c in the dollar. So back then the first $5,400 would get a full refund of the 30% tax paid by the company and then 10% (the difference between the marginal tax rate and the company tax rate) between $5,401 and $20,000 (above $20,000 the marginal tax rate jumped to 34% which was greater than the company tax rate). The increase of the tax free threshold in 2012 to ~$18,000 made this a much bigger drain. Plus the first marginal tax bracket now goes up to $37,000 and is 19c in the dollar.


Max cash refund when policy was introduced: ~$6,850
Max cash refund in 2019: ~$20,000

The more wealth an individual has the more likely they'll be maxing out their cash refund. I hope the issue is given some bipartisan attention because that looks like a structural problem to me.

 

[gallagher]

@Nelson
'They’re income tax exempt generally just like a whole host of other institutions so that is not really unexpected.'


I thought the whole counter argument was how can someone who doesn't pay tax claim a refund? Why shouldn't that apply to unions, churches, or leagues clubs?
But just retirees?

 

[Nelson]

@Nelson
'They’re income tax exempt generally just like a whole host of other institutions so that is not really unexpected.'


I thought the whole counter argument was how can someone who doesn't pay tax claim a refund? Why shouldn't that apply to unions, churches, or leagues clubs?
But just retirees?

That's an entirely different argument about the tax exempt status of NFP's, charities, religious institutions, educational institutions etc. generally. It's also not "just retirees", it's every individual.

I think the justification generally given for the tax exempt status of these kinds of organisations is that they provide desirable benefits to the public so their existence and financial viability is encouraged.

 

[Tim Sheens]

Under the Labor plan, your retired mum would have earnings of $18,000

Meanwhile until the legislation was to be passed and until the set date, she has the ability to sell those shares to invest in other areas, even overseas, that would not have her exposed to the closing the rort that many others feather their nest with. Of course this is after those many have already benefited from the super loopholes already utilised prior to retirement in creating their nest egg.

Nobody was going to have money taken from them, they were simply no longer going to have it handed to them. The nation then gets the 30% company tax on their profits to allow programs such as the poorer retired to have their teeth repaired etc.

Still, I have always advocated for allowing a low threshold amount to be grandfathered for at least a few years, so that those at the lower end and likely with less diverse investments, were not impacted.

And the fact unions were to have an exemption?

As would have all not for profit organisations.

As for unions, I have operated a small construction business for over twenty five years, both on and off unionised sites and have encountered no issues whatsoever with the CFMEU, ETU etc. Not saying that there have not been problems in some areas, but in general, I reckon that they do a lot more good foir society as a whole, than harm.

 

[gallagher]

Under the Labor plan, your retired mum would have earnings of $18,000

Meanwhile until the legislation was to be passed and until the set date, she has the ability to sell those shares to invest in other areas, even overseas, that would not have her exposed to the closing the rort that many others feather their nest with. Of course this is after those many have already benefited from the super loopholes already utilised prior to retirement in creating their nest egg.

Nobody was going to have money taken from them, they were simply no longer going to have it handed to them. The nation then gets the 30% company tax on their profits to allow programs such as the poorer retired to have their teeth repaired etc.

Still, I have always advocated for allowing a low threshold amount to be grandfathered for at least a few years, so that those at the lower end and likely with less diverse investments, were not impacted.

And the fact unions were to have an exemption?

As would have all not for profit organisations.

As for unions, I have operated a small construction business for over twenty five years, both on and off unionised sites and have encountered no issues whatsoever with the CFMEU, ETU etc. Not saying that there have not been problems in some areas, but in general, I reckon that they do a lot more good foir society as a whole, than harm.

I just can't work out why they could make an exemption for huge organizations with huge assets but not a retired person
living on $30k a year.

 

[Tim Sheens]

@gallagher for the bottom end and for a short period, yes, there should have been a sunset clause, but it should never have been introduced in the first place. It has formed part of the structaral deficit that was put in place in 2006 and I expect it to be the difference between finally obtaining a surplus next year and my favoured not.