Polls Thread Mk III

[Ratts of Tobruk]

First he steals Shorten's 'innovation' lines and then his 'I'm not Tony Abbott' lines. Disgraceful!

Essential confirms the 50/50 is not an outlier:

------------------------------ Total --------- Last week
Liberal ---------------------- 40% ------------ 41%
National --------------------- 3% -------------- 3%
Total Liberal/National -- 43% ----------- 44%
Labor ---------------------- 38% ----------- 35%
Greens ---------------------- 10% ------------ 10%
Palmer United Party --------- 1% -------------- 1%
Other/Independent ---------- 8% ------------ 10%
2 party preferred
Liberal National ------------ 50% ------------ 52%
Labor ----------------------- 50% ------------ 48%

 

[Gough]

This was interesting, not a good time to ripping money out of health hand over fist, especially with unemployment rising as well.

 

[Dry Rot]

Latest Newspoll has Turnbull's support collapsing and the two major parties locked 50/50% TPP.

Based on preference flows at the last election, it leaves the Coalition and Labor at 50 per cent after preferences — a repeat of the last Newspoll a fortnight ago that showed a surprise dive in support for the government after it had enjoyed a 53 per cent to 47 per cent lead since early November....

Satisfaction with Mr Turnbull’s performance has fallen four points in the past fortnight to 44 per cent and has dived 16 points since mid-November, when he peaked at an approval rating of 60 per cent, the highest level for a prime minister in six years. Dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister rose three points to a high of 41 per cent and has almost doubled over the past four months.

Mr Turnbull’s net satisfaction rating — the difference between those who are satisfied and those who are dissatisfied with his performance — dropped from 10 points to three points. It had been an unusually high 38 points in November.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...e/news-story/40a1a79bf00c8c64e23733c4ea099071

Funny as guts.

Suck on that Malcolm, you weak piece of s**t.

 

[NTRabbit]

Death to boomers

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Can these entitled baby boomer pricks just go off and die already?

 

[sherb]

Can these entitled baby boomer pricks just go off and die already?

I'm one of them mate and I want to see house prices go down.

How the hell are young people expected to get into the property market these days with prices the way they are?

 

[NTRabbit]

"They should work harder! Why, back in my day, I was able to buy a house with a year's salary when I was 18, no excuses, they ought to stop wasting all their money on crap"

 

[Lebbo73]

I'm one of them mate and I want to see house prices go down.

How the hell are young people expected to get into the property market these days with prices the way they are?

"They should work harder! Why, back in my day, I was able to buy a house with a year's salary when I was 18, no excuses, they ought to stop wasting all their money on crap"

I agree that house prices are too high. The problem is that banks have a high percentage of their lending books in property. If housing prices don't keep rising, the Australian economy is in trouble. A huge drop in prices and unemployment will more than double.

 

[Fire]

I agree that house prices are too high. The problem is that banks have a high percentage of their lending books in property. If housing prices don't keep rising, the Australian economy is in trouble. A huge drop in prices and unemployment will more than double.

It's healthy for economies to go into recession when they have had sustained malinvestment.

Actually, it's better in the long run they do.

 

[Showbags]

It's healthy for economies to go into recession when they have had sustained malinvestment.

Actuqlly, it's better in the long run they do.

Sometimes it is yes. Especially when you have so much capital tied up in unproductive housing bubbles that it is hurting the rest of the economy.

 

[Broar]

"They should work harder! Why, back in my day, I was able to buy a house with a year's salary when I was 18, no excuses, they ought to stop wasting all their money on crap"

These dam young people, just get a good job that pays good money.

 

[Juddism]

"They should work harder! Why, back in my day, I was able to buy a house with a year's salary when I was 18, no excuses, they ought to stop wasting all their money on crap"

you work two jobs and the government taxes the second income at 50%. You can only work as much as your employer rosters you. Back in the day a house was $70k, now you need $70k to apply should you not take up the banks mortgage insurance..and with rent being as high as it is, it makes it doubly difficult.

best thing would be for interest rates to start heading north...fast and hard.

I agree that house prices are too high. The problem is that banks have a high percentage of their lending books in property. If housing prices don't keep rising, the Australian economy is in trouble. A huge drop in prices and unemployment will more than double.

and if they keep rising the economy is in trouble..bad news all round. creating a new rental problem...etc.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

you work two jobs and the government taxes the second income at 50%.

This is a misnomer. It isn't true, and if it was true once upon a time then it must've changed decades ago.

The government doesn't care how you get your income - one job or 100 jobs. They only care about how much your income is in total - all money you made in the year leading up to June 30 (EOFY). Unless you earn a lot of money you won't have anything near 50% withheld. The whole point of withholding is that they estimate how much you will owe at the end of the financial year and take it out as-you-go (PAYG is pay-as-you-go).

You are only meant to claim one tax-free threshold, but if you claim it on more than one job and earn more than the threshold of $18,200 you will owe the ATO money. Potentially a lot of money. That's why you should only claim the tax-free threshold at your highest-paying job.

If you don't claim the threshold, you will have more tax withheld because the higher-rate assumes you already have an income over $18,200 coming from another job. For that amount withheld to be anything near 50% you would need to be earning something close to $10K per week. In which case, I still think you should take the 2nd job as that is some sweeeeet pay and so long as your regular job doesn't pay you $180K+ you will get some of that tax back (and potentially quite a lot of it if you follow the lead of many rich people and employ a tricky dicky accountant).

 

[Juddism]

This is a misnomer. It isn't true, and if it was true once upon a time then it must've changed decades ago.

The government doesn't care how you get your income - one job or 100 jobs. They only care about how much your income is in total - all money you made in the year leading up to June 30 (EOFY). Unless you earn a lot of money you won't have anything near 50% withheld. The whole point of withholding is that they estimate how much you will owe at the end of the financial year and take it out as-you-go (PAYG is pay-as-you-go).

You are only meant to claim one tax-free threshold, but if you claim it on more than one job and earn more than the threshold of $18,200 you will owe the ATO money. Potentially a lot of money. That's why you should only claim the tax-free threshold at your highest-paying job.

If you don't claim the threshold, you will have more tax withheld because the higher-rate assumes you already have an income over $18,200 coming from another job. For that amount withheld to be anything near 50% you would need to be earning something close to $10K per week. In which case, I still think you should take the 2nd job as that is some sweeeeet pay and so long as your regular job doesn't pay you $180K+ you will get some of that tax back (and potentially quite a lot of it if you follow the lead of many rich people and employ a tricky dicky accountant).

the second job has always been taxed at the marginal rate of 48%...I know you get the difference back when you lodge, but my argument was that people working two jobs have to wait a year to get that back.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

the second job has always been taxed at the marginal rate of 48%...

Link?

 

[Juddism]

Link?

https://www.ato.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Content/MEI/downloads/Weekly-tax-table-2015-16.pdf

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

https://www.ato.gov.au/uploadedFiles/Content/MEI/downloads/Weekly-tax-table-2015-16.pdf

I presume you noticed that I was right, but for anyone else, this link confirms there is no automatic taxing of a 2nd job at 48%. As I stated there is a higher tax rate for a job you don't claim the tax-free threshold for, but the tax taken out works out at:

$100/wk - 22% withheld
$500/wk - 26.2% withheld
$1000/wk - 30.4% withheld
$2000/wk - 34.3% withheld
$4509/wk - 40% withheld
$40575/wk - 48% withheld

So to be taxed at 48% for your 2nd job, you would have the equivalent salary of $486,900 p.a. in your second job and your take-home pay would be $21,099 per week.

 

[pjcrows]

Turnbull is now -5 on approval, for the first time. Pretty crazy considering where he was 6 months ago.

So will he go for the snap poll to arrest the slide or take his time?

 

[Farm Boy]

Turnbull is now -5 on approval, for the first time. Pretty crazy considering where he was 6 months ago.

So will he go for the snap poll to arrest the slide or take his time?

He is not one to take his time IMO.

 

[NTRabbit]

ALP and the Greens blocked parliament sitting again until the budget is due, so he can't pull a DD trigger before May

 

[NTRabbit]

Malcolm got the GG to override, he definitively does not have the numbers to pass the industrial relations bill, so we're having a DD election July 2.

Polls to go into overdrive.

 

[NTRabbit]

 

[Maggie5]

Which pollsters are more reliable/accurate?

 

[pjcrows]

Which pollsters are more reliable/accurate?

Combination of all over a 3 week period is best. 52-48 is about right.

 

[Maggie5]

Combination of all over a 3 week period is best. 52-48 is about right.

That is surprising, didn't think Labor had made up that much, or is it more that the Libs have lost that much?