|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
#27586219 - 12/18/21 01:30 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Oz_Salvia said: Your virtue-signalling about caring zero if property halves is hollow because: 1.) it won't happen; and 2.) it's no actual loss to you. So you can talk shit to big note, yes. You might even get your leg over with some of them here who believe it.

Like I don't know where to even start 
But thanks for dropping by and offering a glimpse of right wing Australian politics.
|
Oz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said:
Some of us out here in 'the public' don't view that tax as double dipping.
If the dividends are taxed and the investors get to claim the money back then the scheme is tax free.
A lot of us don't think that's fair, especially when we are talking about private retirement incomes of around 50 grand a year plus whatever is left of the pension.
Like geeez do you lot want the shirt off our backs as well?
It is double-dipping.
Tax has already been paid by the company of which you as a shareholder are part of. It would be like running a business as a mechanic and paying tax on the business and then what's left you get taxed again as so called "income tax". Wouldn't take a genius to see small business vanish over night on that policy. So I can tell you've never invested because this is basic 101.
https://www.fool.com.au/definitions/franking-credits/
Why do we have franking credits in Australia?
Franking credits were introduced to solve the sticky problem of investors being taxed twice on dividends. This happens because companies pay tax on any profit they earn before paying dividends to investors. Investors need to declare this dividend as income, which then gets taxed again at the investor’s personal tax rate. This is known as double taxation.
Understandably, most shareholders don't like the idea of being taxed twice on the same income. It is also a big deterrent to companies paying out profits as dividends.
As for your spiel: "a lot of us don't think that's fair"; well tough fk'n shit. Queue the small violins of butt-hurtness.
Your Leftie side lost the federal and needless to say Albo has no plans bringing this double-dip crap back. He knows full well the Australian public are centre-right given the majority of governance since WW2 has been conservative. The Shorten experiment foolishly tested that and Albo won't repeat it. In our post-COVID recovery we need to incentivise our economy not malaise with bullshit taxes driving the investment community to take their capital else where.
I should also add you wanted Shorten to not just double-tax franked dividends, you also cheered on his planned 25% increase CGT on equities - both would have hurt me and the rest of the investment community, managed funds, super, company growth ect. So it's not me who's out to take the shirt off your back, it's the grubby thievery of the Left'ard that does. So cease projecting!
And btw there's absolutely nothing wrong with the self-funded retirees who have over decades built a nest egg on which they can draw an income of franked dividends in their retired years. If they can sustainably withdrawal 50k a year or better that's great where they can treat their grandkids. Congratulations to them. This also means less erosion on the folio by not having to sell their stocks thereby retaining their base. FYI, my aim with wife and on target is to have near tax free 200k a year in perpetuity with a 3% CPI once I reach preservation.
In Australia and 100% legal and when these oldies eventually pop their clogs, their Beneficiaries in the Will will get the folio 100% free of death taxes; because the Beneficiaries will only pay CGT gained from the time of death to when they receive at probate. Better if they just keep the folio rolling on infinitum without selling and then they can ride it like gramps did for decades to come. Neat.
It's what my niece will get from the proverbial "rich uncle". I'll have it structured where she will get a payment every four weeks at 3% CPI and in perpetuity. It will be set as a Trust where her children can minimise income taxes up to $18,200 each if the Will were to happen whilst they are children. If my niece dies before or after the Will the surviving Beneficiaries will get a proportional increase. That's how you help out your own d00d. I certainly won't be sharing it with moocher-randoms per Leftie taxes!
Quote:
But thanks for dropping by and offering a glimpse of right wing Australian politics. 
Well, this is a druggie board and 28% are addicts (according to this long running 17 year so far poll).
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/3133673
So there'll be no end of victim-hood here as the theme. The pleas, cries, gnashing of teeth that their plights can only be helped if all the rich cunts are taxed to oblivion. That's the sub-culture echo chamber seen here. It's not like that in the real world as your said "glimpse of right wing Australian politics" is actually the mainstream, given the LNP (the conservatives) are currently the majority federal government. That I can thumbs up!
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
#27586863 - 12/19/21 02:16 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Other companies would replace VA.
There are subsidies for renewables, I suppose one might put up note that when providing subsidies for coal it's like feeding a dying horse.
I suppose this brings in to question monopolies, in a free market free of regulation or oversight, it's easy to buy out the competition and price gouge to desire.
With an accountability campaign I don't think the stereotypical political cronyism we're so used to would play as big a role in the minds of voters.
I don't think private sectors are any better in the realm of transparency.
I remember Trump said he'd repeal 2 regulations for every new one, but I don't see how that's inherently a good thing seeing as there is context behind each regulation and it seems a careless at best idea imo.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia] 1
#27586871 - 12/19/21 02:51 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
That's bullshit and you know it. It's the same lie Morrison used 
Quote:
Franking credits were originally introduced under the Keating government to eliminate double-taxation on company profits.
Shareholders who were paying income tax were given money back from the tax office to compensate them for the fact their dividends were being taxed twice.
The Howard government then extended the scheme so shareholders who were paying no income tax — mostly retirees — could also get a cash-back from the tax office.
This is the change Mr Shorten has promised to unwind if Labor wins the election.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-01/bill-shorten-franking-credits-scott-morrison-federal-election/11064898?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment
As for the rest of your post/s man you're just plain nasty.
Go smoke some weed and chill the fuck out
|
Oz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said: That's bullshit and you know it. It's the same lie Morrison used 
Quote:
Franking credits were originally introduced under the Keating government to eliminate double-taxation on company profits.
Shareholders who were paying income tax were given money back from the tax office to compensate them for the fact their dividends were being taxed twice.
The Howard government then extended the scheme so shareholders who were paying no income tax — mostly retirees — could also get a cash-back from the tax office.
This is the change Mr Shorten has promised to unwind if Labor wins the election.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-01/bill-shorten-franking-credits-scott-morrison-federal-election/11064898?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment
As for the rest of your post/s man you're just plain nasty.
Go smoke some weed and chill the fuck out 
So you're going to go by what the ABC says, eh. The Australian Bolshevik Commissars of misinformation.
The Howard government then extended the scheme so shareholders who were paying no income tax — mostly retirees — could also get a cash-back from the tax office.

I will now school you again (as I have in every post to you so far).
The truth is you can have a million dollar income or a zero dollar income and still get franked shares of value deposited into your bank account. Why is this a problem when the company paid tax?? It's not a magic pudding, actual wealth was created, tax paid, and you paid tax per being part of that company as a shareholder. Show me where it came out of the ATO's pocket and therefore came from your taxes, go on! Newz flash fer ya, it was never in the ATO's pocket! It was never yours. It was the shareholders who own it.
An ASX listed company pays a flat 30% which is a good deal less than Australian workers do in tax. That's not greed, that's opportunity, because less tax means you may be able go get your hands in on some action.
Now to keep this round let's say one has 10-thousand shares in a company paying 30% tax and just so happens they do franked dividends. The company pays their 30% tax and from profits they offer 10 cents as a franked dividend per share; yep you get a tidy $1,000 deposited to your bank account. All of it tax free because the company paid their 30% tax (this has to said again, and again, as you're struggling on this).
It's not hard to grasp.
Around one third of Australians directly own shares, the rest do per Super (which is mandatory per employment) and many SMSF. To change the rules as you want back to double-taxes is plain Communist, Shorten-short-change, bullshit. Ain't gonna happen and even the ALP has abandoned it; so you can get indignant, stamp your feet, pound your chest, strut up Swanson or Pitt St with your Che Guevara T-shirt and CEMFU flag, howling about how unfair it all is, but that won't change diddly shit. The tribe has spoken.
So yes, how about you chill out and accept this.
|
Oz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#27587820 - 12/19/21 09:59 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Coal, other than coking coal, is ultimately dead because the LCOE of it can't compete with renewables which continue to lower in price.
There are many reasons why coal can't compete. Namely it requires to be mined else where, milled, rolling stock to bring it to a plant, available water for steam production, pollution controls such a sulphur capture stacks and tailing waste management; there's also potential union strikes at the mines, or at the rail, or at the plant.
Wind and sunlight have no unions or any of the capital expenditure costs of coal to inhibit profits on tight margins on a PPA. The energy instead comes to the renewables for free. It makes good capitalist sense to invest in renewables provided storage and dispatchable sources are integrated commensurate to the critical 50 mhz requirements of the NEM. Intermittents can't just be randomly plugged in. There needs a wholistic approach to deal with the complexity of the NEM. One day it may even be connected to the SWIS by high voltage DC lines and the continent capitalise on being a continent.
Quote:
I suppose this brings in to question monopolies, in a free market free of regulation or oversight, it's easy to buy out the competition and price gouge to desire.
One of the problems for the utilities to own the lot is PPE's set in stone for 20 or so years. Hence the regulations.
From the private sector they want a guarantee they'll have a long legs PPA so they not only break even on the capital expenditure they can generate income for their investors. From the government side there must be a guarantee of production on an agreed wholesale generation cost over the agreed time frame. This is where government has its place to act as traffic keepers to ensure best business flow.
Unless this is assured then peripheral high use customer businesses such as bauxite will fail. There's also the disaggregation given no end of retail and commercial consumers can put solar on their roofs ergo the PPA's have to factor aggregating this by harvesting per FiT and/or storage. Yep, we're now in an age because of technology where just about everyone can generate meaningful electrons. The days of big plant control are over. They were the days of coal.
I also see numerous entrepreneurs will rise to create virtual micro-grids and each a shifting subset of consumers across States, with tight margins made profitable by predictive futures software. Such as looking closely at remote sensing and ground instruments to determine cloud shadow and/or wind velocities to help determine most profitable generation in minutes ahead, as well as values set by FiT's, PPA inputs, time of day and load demand. AI will be a game changer on this. Of course there will be many who will opt out altogether and that's doable once the cost on batteries gets to 10 cents a kwh. Currently 17 cents and falling.
Quote:
With an accountability campaign I don't think the stereotypical political cronyism we're so used to would play as big a role in the minds of voters.
Voters switch off from the endless stream of media noise. That's the goldfish factor of apathy. It suits both sides of the aisle and only in the lead up to an election do they dust off their claimed policies and the media goes into full polling mode. A circus.
Quote:
I don't think private sectors are any better in the realm of transparency.
They can be audited.
I'm yet to see governmental departments given the same scrutiny per billions wasted. Take Queensland's Department of Health for example. Over a third are not medical staff. That's over 26-thousand bureaucrats and not one is a nurse or a doctor let alone the money lost which would otherwise go to more beds in hospitals. You couldn't replicate this if it were a private hospital with thousands of unnecessary staff. The requirement of being profitable jettisons the superfluous.
https://www.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/363906/qh-staffing.pdf
Edited by Oz_Salvia (12/19/21 10:03 PM)
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
#27588285 - 12/20/21 12:52 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The ABC got it wrong and you're right............
Let's not take your word for it, as I get the impression you're slightly biased, lets listen to Bill explain his tax on people who pay no tax.
Next, we can talk about that bloated hemorrhoid on the arse of Australian politics Clive Palmer, the billionaire that chose to move his money around before Qld Nickel sunk and the workers lost their entitlements, like superannuation!
|
Oz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
|
I'm 100% right and correct as your side the Leftist ALP Shorten side, LOST!! 
Yes, the tribe has spoken and no one wants to hear from Shorten, who's as unwelcome as a open sore chancre on a pecker.
So what are you going to do about this?
Oh, that's right, show a video of your good mate Shorten talking shit, as his input means so much. He lost the un-lose-able-election and you're expecting me to be inspired by a failure? LOL I don't think so!
Shorten is a shit-stain on the ALP's odds at the next federal and the Australian gives a good read on that. If the ALP wants to win it best eschew all of Shorten's bullshit Leftie nonsense.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/shorten-haunts-labor-in-changed-economic-climate/news-story/adfa5f3767aee56db291c2af278edb8f
Elections are a battle for survival. The team with the strongest electoral pulse wins. The Coalition has taken three consecutive elections by playing the main game while the chattering classes play the man. Labor has been lounging on the opposition benches since it snubbed the working class to gorge on the low-hanging fruit of identity politics. Three election losses should have been sufficient to teach Labor that political correctness is the preserve of the privileged, but the green left is not a quick study.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
#27589065 - 12/21/21 03:31 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Lol, you and I both know you aren’t being entirely truthful in your explanation of Shortens tax now are you?
But hey, whatever man.
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
#27589081 - 12/21/21 04:11 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
By your logic Trump was right because he was voted in.
Either way though, I don't trust liberal or labor. Two sides of the same coin imo.
I'm interested in dividends but don't have enough info yet to make an informed comment relating to all the policy aspects, at some point maybe.
Private sectors still don't have to disclose who they donate to.
Quote:
Political funding has the potential to undermine the fundamental principles of accountability and acting in the public interest, and by extension, the integrity of representative government, by 'leaving in its wake particular kinds of corruption'.
Of specific interest to this inquiry is the risk that political funding; in particular, large donations from private interests, poses in terms of 'corruption through undue influence'. Such corruption constitutes a type of conflict of interest.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Political_Influence_of_Donations/PoliticalDonations/Report_1/section?id=committees%2Freportsen%2F024147%2F25779
|
Oz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said: Lol, you and I both know you aren’t being entirely truthful in your explanation of Shortens tax now are you?
But hey, whatever man.
Comments at your YouTube link. You should check the comments as they can undermine your Billy boy bullshit. 
Billy fails to mention that refunds on unused imputation credits was once Labor policy. Here is an extract of a speech by Labor's then shadow treasurer Simon Crean on 17th February 2000 from the House Hansard, page 13733: "Although imputation credits can be used to reduce an individual's or a superannuation fund's income tax liability to nil, excess credits were of no value to taxpayers. This bill proposes to refund to taxpayers any excess imputation of credits that may be left after offsetting the credits against their income tax liability. The classic example of such a situation is a low income person who earns a little investment income—for example, a full rate age pensioner. They face no income tax liability on their income and therefore cannot obtain the benefit of the excess franking credits attached to the small amount of dividend income they receive. Under this proposal, they will obtain a refund of their income tax from the Taxation Office, representing the excess imputation credits. Labor included this proposal in our taxation policy prior to the last election. Therefore we have no difficulty supporting the proposal because it is our policy. It builds on the major reform accomplished by Labor almost 15 years ago and it improves the current taxation situation faced by low income investors, especially retired Australians."
It's a credit, Bill, a credit. It's not a gift. He sure is a dimwit. He deserves to lose the election! Oh shoot! He DID lose the election! rofl!
Bill learn from your mistakes. It’s not a “free” payment. The money comes from the company which exists because retirees and others have risked their capital, buying shares, to make the company work. Government risks nothing but takes a third of the profit as tax, by force of legislation. It’s a disincentive for business and a burden on the real economy.
Perhaps I should point out to people that the money that the government is 'gifting' to retirees and people in the tax free threshold is the very same money that the companies (of which they are shareholders) paid in tax on their profits, essentially on behalf of shareholders, prior to paying their profits out as dividends. It's unfair to call it a gift. The refund is for the tax that was paid by proxy by the company. Regardless of whether or not you think it is good policy, you should at least admit that what you are doing is making some people with gross incomes in the tax free threshold pay tax on part of their income (why?) and reneging the idea that retirees can access their super tax free (in some cases).
|
Oz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
#27589095 - 12/21/21 05:00 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said:
By your logic Trump was right because he was voted in.
The Hildebeast would have been a disaster. But that's US politics and none of us get a vote (say) on that.
Quote:
I'm interested in dividends but don't have enough info yet to make an informed comment relating to all the policy aspects, at some point maybe.
Don't waste your time on vacillating on whether they're good or bad per policy, invest with them in mind and get a 43% better return compared to same in real estate renting. I've posted this link before, I will again. Worth reading, understanding and applying.
https://www.fool.com.au/2014/06/03/how-im-beating-the-tax-man-and-you-can-too/
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
#27589421 - 12/21/21 12:19 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Anyone who's voted is in right doesn't make sense, a lot of the time there is propaganda and a not totally informed and misled constituency.
That's a bit a give away imo, it's nice to have an idea of whether a policy is beneficial to the whole in the long term for future voting, but as the system is now, whatever's not illegal
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
#27591457 - 12/23/21 05:23 AM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/#Residents
Quote:
Resident tax rates 2021–22
Tax on this income
0 – $18,200
Nil
$18,201 – $45,000
19 cents for each $1 over $18,200
$45,001 – $120,000
$5,092 plus 32.5 cents for each $1 over $45,000
$120,001 – $180,000
$29,467 plus 37 cents for each $1 over $120,000
$180,001 and over
$51,667 plus 45 cents for each $1 over $180,000
The above rates do not include the Medicare levy of 2%.
Seeing as Superannuation becomes your income when you retire everyone is STILL supposed to pay tax.
So @ around 12% return on super worth $300 000 a couple could earn at least $36 grand and pay no tax, SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE.
And according to the table below that 300 grand investment STILL won't affect their pension.
https://www.australiansuper.com/retirement/retirement-articles/2019/06/what-is-the-assets-test-for-the-government-age-pension
Quote:
IF YOU'RE: A HOMEOWNER NOT A HOMEOWNER Single $270,500 $487,000
A couple (combined) $405,000 $621,500
A couple, with one partner eligible (combined) $405,000 $621,500
If the value of your assets is above the limit in the above table, you may still be eligible for a part Age Pension. For every $1,000 over the limit (for your situation), your pension payment will reduce by $3 a fortnight.
That's why your story, along with Morrison's attack's on Labor's effort's to get rid of a $6 billion dollar subsidy to people who should pay tax is incorrect and disingenuous.
|
Oz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
|
You omit a couple of important facts.
1.) You do not pay tax of any sort on growth once you reach preservation age on your super up to the value of 1.7-mil per individual. Preservation age is based on date of birth.
Please note I have explained in this thread some of the tax saving ways to get there and how your pal Shorten wanted to make it that much harder. If you've chosen to not take advantage of what is legal, it is then at your own loss and therefore your own fault.
2.) You do not pay a bean on fully franked shares because the company that delivered the franked shares already paid a 30% company tax. Meaning, you as a shareholder owned a portion of that company which paid company tax. Meaning you already paid tax. This idea from Shorten that it is a "gift" is completely false. It's not a "gift", it's not a magic pudding. Your franked dividend is paid wholly on the profit the company paid and the ATO has not given 1 cent out of its coffers taken from others to franked dividend share holders.
Now if you claim otherwise I want to see the money trail showing the ATO having to dig into others' taxes to pay these franked dividends. Shorten was asked to provide this and never could. He's a liar. He lost the election.
|
Oz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said: https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/#Residents
Quote:
Resident tax rates 2021–22
Tax on this income
0 – $18,200
Nil
$18,201 – $45,000
19 cents for each $1 over $18,200
$45,001 – $120,000
$5,092 plus 32.5 cents for each $1 over $45,000
$120,001 – $180,000
$29,467 plus 37 cents for each $1 over $120,000
$180,001 and over
$51,667 plus 45 cents for each $1 over $180,000
The above rates do not include the Medicare levy of 2%.
Seeing as Superannuation becomes your income when you retire everyone is STILL supposed to pay tax.
So @ around 12% return on super worth $300 000 a couple could earn at least $36 grand and pay no tax, SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE.
And according to the table below that 300 grand investment STILL won't affect their pension.
https://www.australiansuper.com/retirement/retirement-articles/2019/06/what-is-the-assets-test-for-the-government-age-pension
Quote:
IF YOU'RE: A HOMEOWNER NOT A HOMEOWNER Single $270,500 $487,000
A couple (combined) $405,000 $621,500
A couple, with one partner eligible (combined) $405,000 $621,500
If the value of your assets is above the limit in the above table, you may still be eligible for a part Age Pension. For every $1,000 over the limit (for your situation), your pension payment will reduce by $3 a fortnight.
That's why your story, along with Morrison's attack's on Labor's effort's to get rid of a $6 billion dollar subsidy to people who should pay tax is incorrect and disingenuous.
Please, who wants to get an "aged pension"?? That's not a retirement when it would see to a life of scrounge and suffer.
The aim is to be 100% self-funded in retirement, have in today's money a super balance of 3.4-mil with spouse because of the zero growth tax regime and more in investment on the side. By the time I reach preservation the 1.7-mil per individual might be about 2-mil, or 4-mil per couple.
This idea of only having 300k as a super balance at preservation is plain baked beans and candles austerity! Why would one do that after decades of work and opportunity to invest? 300k in today's money won't last long enough to reach funeral territory and once that dough runs out the aged pension is all there is - if it even exists in the decades forward??
You do realise the whole idea of super is to get the populations 100% off the welfare purse in the future. Might be something you get currently, but it's not what will happen for today's young earners and the super they're accruing. Very different territory for them.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
#27591863 - 12/23/21 01:08 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
There would be many people with that amount of super at the moment.
36 grand + the pension for a couple is 40 grand a year. Add car registration, council rates, electricity rates concessions etc and they're pushing 80 grand a year.... yes I think they should probably pay tax.
By the time this bill would have made it's way through the senate the end result would have looked a lot different than Shorten's badly constucted explanation.
https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-age-pension-you-can-get?context=22526
Was it a winner with the voters? lol of course not.
Shorten lost the unlosable election on this point alone, let alone his unpopularity, smashed by the retirees in Queensland, but I'm not loosing any sleep over it.
The silver lining was Abbott being voted out by an independent. What a spectacular loss and good riddance.
|
Oz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
|
|
Quote:
Stable Genius said: There would be many people with that amount of super at the moment.
36 grand + the pension for a couple is 40 grand a year. Add car registration, council rates, electricity rates concessions etc and they're pushing 80 grand a year.... yes I think they should probably pay tax.
Listen up and you need to understand this.
No one pays any tax at all on the growth in their Super once they reach preservation age (for many that's 60 years of age and likely to go up higher in age into the future). That's a guarantee and if you really want political outrage you'll see it by an ocean full if the Super rules were changed to slug taxes as you want. It may even see Super crumble because why salary sacrifice now when you won't appreciate it later?
I'll also add in pre-preservation you get taxed at 15% on growth, which is why it's smart for people to $ock as much as they can into their Super so they don't get an ~35% tax on growth as they would in a regular folio outside of Super. Needless to say the less tax you pay in building Super enables the leverage of time per compounding to build up a secure nest egg for retirement. It's not magic, it's consistency and understanding 15% tax is certainly better than 35%. Further, the sooner one starts growing their Super the better it will be i.e. a dollar put in at age 20 will multi-bag outclass the same aged 50.
I have said it before in my previous post that the idea of Super is to build a future where all who reach preservation are self-funded. I myself won't be leaning on the system for "car registration, council rates, electricity rates concessions etc" because I will be 100% self-funded. I don't believe I should be taxed having followed the Super rules once I reach preservation because my assets preclude me from any of this aged pension nonsense.
I'd like to see the end of the aged pension and concessions rot. I can't understand how and why old people fail to save and invest and instead look to the State to look after them. That old has-been moocher culture needs to end. COVID should be allowed to cleanse the scene. May even lower property prices with a splash of deceased estates on the market and perhaps give the kids you've spoken about a chance at buying a roof over their head.
|
Stable Genius
Radicalised


Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
#27592358 - 12/23/21 08:44 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So you’d be ok if you got cleansed or only ‘other people’?
|
sudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
|
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
#27592433 - 12/23/21 09:56 PM (2 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
|