Voters now frightened of mad crazy Labor

[Patriot]

BRoss can only follow his simple strategy of deny and attack. He couldn't win an argument with himself.

His weak feeble response that everything that is not from GetUp! is automatically propaganda is so childishly simple.

He fears FACTS and the FACTS are that the Greeny controlled Labor will be the worst "Govt" in Australia's history and will do irreparably damage to Australia that will take years of careful Lib care to recover.

Retirees and pensioners and small business be WARNED the Greeny controlled Labor beasts are out to get YOU!!!!!!

Protect yourself DO NOT VOTE for the VERY DESTRUCTIVE GREENY CONTROLLED LABOR PARTY

[brian ross]

BRoss can only follow his simple strategy of deny and attack. He couldn't win an argument with himself.

Why would I argue with myself? Unlike you, I don't suffer from Schizophrenia. Stop posting your Tory propaganda. The Tories are going to lose the Federal election. Something you need to come to terms with. They, like you, are so on the nose that only a miracle will save them.

[Patriot]

Bross is like a broken record - just keeps repeating the GetUp! mantra.

Doesn't want to know the FACTS and the FACTS are the Greeny controlled Labor "Govt" will be the worst "Govt" in Australia's history.

Even worse than last time if that is possible.

[Black Orchid]

That's the sad truth of it and the Libs will have to do the hard yards for probably the next decade to balance it out again and in doing so cuts will have to be made that people will not like

[Patriot]

The problem is the Greeny controlled Labor Socialist attack on Australia is deeply flawed and poorly thought out and is just like their NeverBuiltNetwork that is a disaster that only Labor's incompetent union brown nosers could create.

Labor's legendary incompetence at managing the economy is about to explode onto Australia again with catastrophic results just like Labor's last six sick years of Socialist waste and disgrace and shame.


The glaring problem with Labor’s dividend franking policy
By Scott Phillips 16 January 2019 — 12:00am

Kudos for announcing it in advance but the Labor Party's franking credit policy is deeply flawed.

Labor is going to the election with a three-pronged approach to tax investors.

VIDEO: Labor's backflip on dividend imputations:- https://www.canberratimes.com.au/video/ ... 53nra.html

After a tough few weeks debating their new dividend imputation tax reform, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten assured pensioners they would not be effected by the proposal.

Firstly, they are planning to wind back negative gearing on property, other than new construction.

Secondly, they’re planning to lower the capital gains tax discount on long-term gains.

And thirdly, they’re planning to scrap the refund of franking credits in most circumstances.

Two reasonable people can hold intelligent, thoughtful but differing views on the first two.

.
Taxpayers protesting the proposed changes.CREDIT:DOMINIC LORRIMER

The third, though, is both unfair and deeply flawed.

Before you fire off an e-mail to either abuse me or suggest I be knighted, let me explain.

I’m going to start with three premises that I think most people can agree on:

One, the tax system should be fair.
Two, you shouldn’t have to pay tax twice on dividend income.
Three — and thanks, Captain Obvious — the tax system, as it stands, is broken.
Now, before we go any further, please leave your political affiliations at the door.

I’ve bagged and praised both major parties for their different policies.

I’ll continue to do it but if you can’t put aside your team jersey and engage in a discussion of ideas, then there’s not much for you in what follows.

Bill Shorten’s policy on franking credits goes something like this:

“We’re happy for you to reduce your tax using franking credits, but we’re not going to give you a refund.”

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think the current situation — regarding the ability to pay exactly zero tax on certain income in retirement that might be up to $80,000 — is crackers.

But Shorten’s policy doesn’t fix that problem.

Here’s why. Consider three people, all of whom have Self Managed Super Funds in pension phase, and who — according to the current tax rules — pay zero per cent tax: Banking Betty, Rental Richard and Dividend Davina.

Banking Betty deposits $100,000 and earns $2000 each year in interest. Betty doesn’t pay any tax.

Rental Richard has a $100,000 property that pays him $2000 each year in rent. Richard doesn’t pay any tax.

Dividend Davina buys $100,000 worth of shares that earned a profit of $2000. The company paid tax of $600, so Davina gets $1400. Davina doesn’t pay any tax.

See the difference here? Because Davina’s investment is in the form of shares, she gets less than the other two.

Even though she’s not supposed to pay any tax, the company paid tax, so she gets less.

Under current rules, she’d get the $600 back, delivering on the government's policy of a zero per cent tax rate, and equalising the return for each of the three investors.

Bill Shorten, in effect, is penalising investors for owning shares. Now, let’s address the elephant in the room.

Yes, because the company has already paid tax on that $2000, Davina does officially get a refund. And the optics of that are bad: it looks like somehow the taxpayer is subsidising Davina.

However, it’s all a question of cash flows and timing. The Australian Taxation Office just gives Davina back the money the company paid in tax.

And remember, a company is just a legal structure to organise your ownership interest in an asset.

Shares in a company aren’t all that different, in effect, to accounts at a bank. Your bank account is evidence that you have a claim to a share of the bank’s assets, even if you don’t know specifically which notes you deposited.

Imagine a scenario under which Banking Betty’s bank withholds 30 per cent of her interest and sends it to the government as tax. And where Rental Richard’s property manager is obligated to send 30 per cent of his rental income to the ATO.

Both of these investors would have to fill out a tax return and the ATO would send them a refund — because tax was paid on their income, even though the tax rate should have been zero per cent.

Would Bill Shorten stop Betty and Richard from getting their money back? I doubt it.

Essentially, because of the asset class they decide to invest in, our three protagonists are being treated differently. Sound fair to you? No, me neither.

Yes, the idea of a "refund" for someone who has paid no tax feels, somehow, deeply wrong. But it’s because tax was paid by the company, on behalf of a shareholder who shouldn’t be paying tax, so the ATO is essentially just righting that wrong.

Still with me? Still fuming that well-off people pay no tax? Me too.

Frankly, either income inside superannuation or distributions from super should be taxed, progressively, above a generous tax-free threshold. But neither party seems prepared to confront the elephant in the room.

Instead, Labor’s policy of penalising a subset of a subset of a population — either because of a poorly formed policy or rank political opportunism — is a terrible solution to a legitimate problem.

I’ve sought a response from both Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen but thus far to no effect.

Maybe it’s the elephant that dare not speak its name.

https://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and- ... 50rjq.html

[Patriot]

Now what do some real people not conned by GetUp! propaganda reckon.

maaprj 1 WEEK AGO
Very concisely put.

I'm pretty sure if it comes to Labor making a choice between fairness and political expediency on this issue - I'll be losing my franking credits. Not happy, as I've worked hard for over 40 years (and paid full tax on salary - with no significant deductions) . I should mention I've never received any government welfare. I did this because I have a solid work ethic, and wanted to fund a modestly comfortable retirement.
However, it seems the pain of government reaching unfairly into my pocket is never ending. Now if I'd sat on my bum for 40 years and and made no contribution to society - I wouldn't have this problem.


Cyber Robin Hood 1 WEEK AGO
The counter argument.
Retirees would need 9% more savings under Labor franking credit plan
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... lan-report

Pensioners would retain cash refunds on franked dividends
https://theconversation.com/pensioners- ... down-93972

Franking Credits used to offset against deductions means less tax but those that do not pay tax cannot expect a refund seems fair.
Dividend Davina still have two other choices as you mentioned in the article aka be Banking Betty or Rental Richard. Just mean a strategy change in her Self Managed Super Funds which is no great impost.


mitch of ACT 1 WEEK AGO
My bet is that as soon as Howard announced that excess franking credits would be refunded Dividend Davina promptly started the process of restricting her share portfolio to give a strong emphasis on companies paying fully-franked dividends.
Now in response to Labor's proposal to stop refundable franking credits Dividend Davina should again start the process of restructuring her portfolio away from companies paying fully franked dividends to those paying unfranked dividends & distributions, e.g. REITS & other trusts. Those entities pay no tax. When comparing yields they are a little less than strong fully franked dividend payers, around 7%, but their prices have not undergone the severe downturn that the dividend paying sector has suffered of late.
The banks, for example, have lost 20%+ of their capital value since their March 2015 highs and have returned grossed-up dividends less than the capital lost. That's nearly 4 years of NIL or less net returns. If Dividend Davina had instead been invested in REITs & Trusts she would be well ahead as that sector has seen strong growth in share prices and around 7% dividend yields. There have also been takeovers in that sector that have significantly boosted returns.

[Patriot]

Now more holes exposed in Labor's flawed poorly thought out Socialist policies. Then Labor's union brown nosers' inability to manage the economy is well known.


Labor super policy flawed: industry group
UPDATED 24 SEPTEMBER 2018


AIG CEO Innes Willox says he would welcome further consultation over Labor's superannuation policy. (AAP)

The Australian Industry Group says an analysis of Labor's policy to improve the retirement savings of women shows it would be ineffective and burden business.

Businesses will face higher costs and more red tape without any significant benefit to women if a Labor government went ahead with changes to superannuation, a peak industry group says.

Federal Labor has proposed to remove the $450-a-month income threshold below which employers are not required to make super contributions.

Labor leader Bill Shorten says this will give women a fairer go when it comes to superannuation.

But Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group said new analysis showed the policy would add much more to employer costs than it would add to the retirement incomes of women.

"Improving retirement incomes for women is of course an important goal," Mr Willox said.

"However, the removal of this long-standing threshold will add significantly to the direct costs of employment and to business compliance costs."

As well, the extra superannuation guarantee payments will give rise to higher payroll tax liabilities, he said.

About a third of the funds would be paid into the superannuation accounts of males, the analysis found.

And of the remaining additional contributions, 15 per cent would be paid in federal tax and another proportion would be deducted as fees by superannuation funds.

Mr Willox said he would welcome further consultation over the policy.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/labor-super ... YMV_tC2Qqo

[Serial Brain 9]

Will the 2019 federal election be fought and won on equal grounds?

The answer is NO it won't be.

GetUp are just a front for the Labor and Greens party.

Everyone knows it but the AEC won’t do anything about it.

Late last year GetUp received a au$½ Million donation from the US activist group fronted by Clinton/Podesta via an Australia front group called the Sunrise Project.

Remember this when you see them on election day spruiking for the left.

What sort of Australia do you want? A fair go has always been intrinsic to our way of life, until now.

Wake up People

[Patriot]

Already Labor's planned socialist destruction of Australia is coming apart at the seams. Then Labor's union brown nosers are not known for their ability to manage the economy - just look at the mess they made last time.



Labor’s negative gearing policies are flawed: Doug Driscoll
DOUGLAS DRISCOLL | 11 OCTOBER 2018

Labor’s negative gearing plans will disadvantage some first-home buyers and lower-income Aussies who are property investors working hard to get ahead.

A more effective policy would be to means-test investor tax subsidies, and cap the number of properties that can be negatively geared.

Labor’s plans to limit negative gearing to new housing and halving the capital gains tax concession will do little to help this hardworking market segment.

Labor has wrongly suggested that all investors are higher-income earners. Through the Starr Partners network of 31 real estate offices, he has learned that many investors are also first home buyers and lower-income Aussies.

I’m hearing from agents and brokers across markets popular with first home buyers, that approximately 30-35 per cent are rentvesting.

They are often purchasing a property, living in it for six to 12 months, then putting it on the rental market.

Labor is trying to help middle- and working-class families, but let’s not forget that many nurses, teachers, and policemen are also purchasing investment properties – they make up the investor profile, too. The Opposition’s proposed policy could inadvertently disadvantage many of the people it is trying to help.

To make the Australian dream of purchasing a home true for all Australians, there are more effective strategies that would appease investors and nurture first home buyers. From what I can tell, this policy is a regurgitation of Labor’s previous election manifesto.

What puzzles me most is that if it didn’t curry favour in the lead up to the last election when investors made up the majority of the market, then how is it going to garner support now that their numbers have decreased considerably. House prices are cooling, which shows the government’s macroprudential measures are working, but I agree more could still be done.

Instead of limiting negative gearing, as Labor has suggested, Aussies that want to claim tax subsidies could be means tested. This would ensure that higher-income earners are not benefitting the most, and tip the balance in favour of those that need the subsidies the most. Alternatively, capping the volume of properties an investor can negatively gear will reduce the number of negatively geared properties, without limiting it to a subset of homes.

Any existing properties need to be grandfathered. Labor has got it right to grandfather existing investment properties, a policy I strongly stand by. Without this, it could lead to property Armageddon.

https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/for ... QSJiSwRUwk

[sprintcyclist]

Will the 2019 federal election be fought and won on equal grounds?

The answer is NO it won't be.

GetUp are just a front for the Labor and Greens party.

Everyone knows it but the AEC won’t do anything about it.

Late last year GetUp received a au$½ Million donation from the US activist group fronted by Clinton/Podesta via an Australia front group called the Sunrise Project.

Remember this when you see them on election day spruiking for the left.

What sort of Australia do you want? A fair go has always been intrinsic to our way of life, until now.

Wake up People

will the mainstream media alert people to this ?