The negative gearing election

[Dan Baker]

It’s a feature that while individuals can pay tax several times on their affairs (how much does tax multiply on stamp duty for example), companies rarely do

Stamp duty is a state tax though. States now trying to gouge people outside the GST with licences, duties and levies. Peter Costello said all this would go with GST. Bunch of liars, the lot of them.

 

[Pessimistic]

Stamp duty is a state tax though. States now trying to gouge people outside the GST with licences, duties and levies. Peter Costello said all this would go with GST. Bunch of liars, the lot of them.

OK but how does a company deal with stamp duty? its a cost so not taxable profit.
An individual pays the duty, tacks it on the home loan, adds interest and then pays tax on the money used to pay it off

Stamp duty on average home is now what that home cost 30-40 years ago. how well have incomes risen? 5 times more is my guess

 

[JackOutback]

The GST is a lazy tax by governments that don't have the backbone to deal with tax avoidance.

 

[Pessimistic]

An opposition taking the same leader and the same policies which the govt have ignored, but have gathered credo in the electorate is a winning formula.

The govt have neutralised some policies like Banking RC and Super rorts, but theres enough left to make a case

Having the same opposition leader is rare (abbott was another) the leader made enough gains the first time that if repeated, deliver government

 

[Pessimistic]

The GST is a lazy tax by governments that don't have the backbone to deal with tax avoidance.

Its even lazier when it reaches 20% as in some countries

 

[Darkyprotector]

It is indeed no matter what the bureaucratic model is. But which country has been most successful in keeping people in jobs?

Part of the problem is pollies have organised means of hiding unemployment under the carpet of under employment which is massive in Australia.

Whats the pollies solution to the ponzie real estate scheme? Immigrate more people which is unsustainable. It cannot go on forever.

Look at any highly populated country. Absolute crap holes with poverty everywhere.

Yeah gotta love selected immigration
All about tenancies in shopping centres, franchise I operations that can never make money and desperate people , yet again being fleeced
Or rubbish jerry built developments on swamp land that only the ill informed buy
Cheap labour
Students learning to cook a chook at a cost of 35 k per year , classes weekends so they can work on the cheap
I agree WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYMENT
Had enough of this s**t

 

[Darkyprotector]

The GST is a lazy tax by governments that don't have the backbone to deal with tax avoidance.

No it's another way to make us pay for the richeys lifestyle
Once happened in france ,Russia, china and Cuba too then they woke up

 

[Power Raid]

The GST is a lazy tax by governments that don't have the backbone to deal with tax avoidance.

Or it’s a really smart tax that puts Australian businesses on the same level playing field as imported goods.......something that has zero to do with tax avoidance.

At 10% it’s an OK tax but at 15-20% its a perfect tax for this function.

 

[JackOutback]

Or it’s a really smart tax that puts Australian businesses on the same level playing field as imported goods.......something that has zero to do with tax avoidance.

At 10% it’s an OK tax but at 15-20% its a perfect tax for this function.

It's a tax in which a multimillionaire pays the same as an unemployed person. Governments like it because you can't minimise it or avoid it. But it's regressive and lazy.

 

[Power Raid]

It's a tax in which a multimillionaire pays the same as an unemployed person. Governments like it because you can't minimise it or avoid it. But it's regressive and lazy.

No doubt a wealth tax needs to be implemented to balance the burden.

Same said with increasing award wages and welfare to counter any increases in GST to be fair.


However in the 1960s we could get away with no GST but in a globalised economy it isn’t lazy, it’s common sense.

That said although we didn’t have a GST in the 1960s, we did have various transaction taxes such as sales tax, stamp duties etc. so it’s nothing new.

In fact broadening the tax base is very sensible and efficient!


Lastly, I can understand how people can think the burden of a consumption tax lands on the consumer and how the same people can think an income tax is the burden of the profit recipient.

However a smart person like you though would know differently!

 

[Number37]

It's a tax in which a multimillionaire pays the same as an unemployed person. Governments like it because you can't minimise it or avoid it. But it's regressive and lazy.

It's a double edged sword.

Hard to avoid, regressive in many respects but extremely effective at collecting tax.

It is easier to have a consumption tax and provide rebates to low income people than it is to try to tax rich people.

 

[JackOutback]

It's a double edged sword.

Hard to avoid, regressive in many respects but extremely effective at collecting tax.

It is easier to have a consumption tax and provide rebates to low income people than it is to try to tax rich people.

Herein lies the laziness; it's too hard to tax rich people correctly because we've conditioned society to fetishise tax minimisation. So instead, we take the easy option of making everyone pay. It's at the heart of what's wrong with the system. I don't have the whole answer myself, because rich individuals will always look for ways to game the system. But reducing things like negative gearing is a start.

Lastly, I can understand how people can think the burden of a consumption tax lands on the consumer and how the same people can think an income tax is the burden of the profit recipient.

However a smart person like you though would know differently!

I don't think income tax is the burden of the profit recipient. It's mine, yours and everyone's burden. Then we pay again at the checkout because some people don't want to pay their share.

 

[Power Raid]

Herein lies the laziness; it's too hard to tax rich people correctly because we've conditioned society to fetishise tax minimisation. So instead, we take the easy option of making everyone pay. It's at the heart of what's wrong with the system. I don't have the whole answer myself, because rich individuals will always look for ways to game the system. But reducing things like negative gearing is a start.


I don't think income tax is the burden of the profit recipient. It's mine, yours and everyone's burden. Then we pay again at the checkout because some people don't want to pay their share.

The burden of income tax lands on both the consumer and the seller......just like GST.

 

[Gough]

Greg Jericho putting it nicely.

Negative gearing is the economic equivalent of a migrant crime story – something conservative political parties believe they can use to scare voters despite little or no relation to facts.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...aring-this-government-prefers-fiction-to-fact

 

[Benny78]

One thing I never understood in this country is PAYG workers training to and from the city unable to claim that ticket against their tax.

Tradies/dropouts put a ladder on their roof drive and for some reason are allowed to deduct their transport expenses. As well as the car itself. As well as the wear & tear/maintenance of the car itself.

 

[Frank Grimes]

The final issue to address is how does the ATO the lower tax take from income. The obvious answer is if you can't tax income you tax wealth! After all, wealth creation is a positive but wealth hoarding is not.

A wealth tax doesn't appear to be a good idea to me. Taxing wealth would discourage people from saving. I know on the surface people spending is good for the economy (and it is), but if nobody saves for their retirement due to their savings being taxed then it will be a massive strain on the Government and tax payers who have to fund all these pensions. I remember reading an article in the news paper about a year ago that a person will need about $650,000 in order to retire in their 60's ( I think the article was about how superannuation alone won't be enough for a person to retire on). That is a lot of money a person needs to save up. Taxing the savings/wealth will make it harder. If a persons wealth/savings for their retirement is taxed then they'd think "why bother".

 

[Taylor]

Why should the wealthy be taxed to bring their spending power down to equal the less high incomes?

 

[Number37]

One thing I never understood in this country is PAYG workers training to and from the city unable to claim that ticket against their tax.

Tradies/dropouts put a ladder on their roof drive and for some reason are allowed to deduct their transport expenses. As well as the car itself. As well as the wear & tear/maintenance of the car itself.

You can only claim a deduction for costs incurred in consequence of deriving assessable income.

The general rule is that you cannot claim travelling to work expenses, primarily because you only derive assessable income from the time you start work until the time you finish work.
Tradies get a deduction for their cars because they are required to lug around tools and machinery which are an essential part of their assesssable income deriving activities, so their assessable income deriving activity begins from the time they leave home.

 

[Power Raid]

A wealth tax doesn't appear to be a good idea to me. Taxing wealth would discourage people from saving. I know on the surface people spending is good for the economy (and it is), but if nobody saves for their retirement due to their savings being taxed then it will be a massive strain on the Government and tax payers who have to fund all these pensions. I remember reading an article in the news paper about a year ago that a person will need about $650,000 in order to retire in their 60's ( I think the article was about how superannuation alone won't be enough for a person to retire on). That is a lot of money a person needs to save up. Taxing the savings/wealth will make it harder. If a persons wealth/savings for their retirement is taxed then they'd think "why bother".

I guess you have to consider whether wealth creation or wealth storage is more valuable to society. For me wealth creation is valuable and wealth hoarding is undesirable.

In regards to taxing wealth, a incremental tax rates would be needed as we have for income tax.

An example of its importance would be Gina. She would be worth circa $10b depending on the day but would only be taxed on profits. However her office in Singapore would mitigate much of her Australian tax and zero tax would be paid in Singapore.

Another would be twiggy who would be worth $5b and much of his tax would be offset with the charity donations. The use of charity entities is already well discussed.

In short, profits can be moved but assets where ever they are, are taxable!

 

[King Brown]

Even the Herald Sun are on board:

Politically, of course, declining housing affordability is only a problem for the Liberal Party. Ignore the crocodile tears on this subject from Labor politicians.

They know falling home ownership rates mean more Labor voters; which is why they are so surprised their political opponents have been so comfortable and relaxed about a trend which will make it harder and harder for them to win government — as it is already doing for the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom.

...

Anyone doubting that this has the potential to swing elections should have a look at the recent British Election Survey study of last year’s UK poll which showed the bulk of the increase in turnout, along with the entirety of the swing from the Conservatives to Labour, was down to people who rent rather than own their home.

According to Bloomberg: “While turnout was virtually unchanged from 2015 among homeowners, it jumped eight points among all renters and 10 points among those renting in the private sector.

“Within the latter, turnout increased in almost all age groups, including by 15 points among 25-44 year olds.

“And while the survey contains too few of these new voters to be precise about how they voted, it’s clear that they favoured Labour by an extremely wide margin.”​

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...e/news-story/3054b7bc0344f81c2cbdc6c6cfdb4c47

A generation of mostly renters will mean the death of the Liberal Party (and possibly Labor Party, and a rise in populism).

 

[Power Raid]

Even the Herald Sun are on board:

Politically, of course, declining housing affordability is only a problem for the Liberal Party. Ignore the crocodile tears on this subject from Labor politicians.

They know falling home ownership rates mean more Labor voters; which is why they are so surprised their political opponents have been so comfortable and relaxed about a trend which will make it harder and harder for them to win government — as it is already doing for the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom.

...

Anyone doubting that this has the potential to swing elections should have a look at the recent British Election Survey study of last year’s UK poll which showed the bulk of the increase in turnout, along with the entirety of the swing from the Conservatives to Labour, was down to people who rent rather than own their home.

According to Bloomberg: “While turnout was virtually unchanged from 2015 among homeowners, it jumped eight points among all renters and 10 points among those renting in the private sector.

“Within the latter, turnout increased in almost all age groups, including by 15 points among 25-44 year olds.

“And while the survey contains too few of these new voters to be precise about how they voted, it’s clear that they favoured Labour by an extremely wide margin.”​

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...e/news-story/3054b7bc0344f81c2cbdc6c6cfdb4c47

A generation of mostly renters will mean the death of the Liberal Party (and possibly Labor Party, and a rise in populism).

given negative gearing and CGT didn't cause the problem, attested to by all assessments of NG and CGT. We will introduce a policy that effects all asset classes and penalises workers over those with significant investment income. Only to maybe realise higher density zoning and foreign investment was the cause and left un-addressed.

Seems like populist policy without common sense is already a thing.

 

[King Brown]

given negative gearing and CGT didn't cause the problem, attested to by all assessments of NG and CGT. We will introduce a policy that effects all asset classes and penalises workers over those with significant investment income. Only to maybe realise higher density zoning and foreign investment was the cause and left un-addressed.

Seems like populist policy without common sense is already a thing.

blablablablabla.

Never post again, please.

 

[HairyO]

given negative gearing and CGT didn't cause the problem, attested to by all assessments of NG and CGT. We will introduce a policy that effects all asset classes and penalises workers over those with significant investment income. Only to maybe realise higher density zoning and foreign investment was the cause and left un-addressed.

You could have rephrased it as:
'I dont like their plan cos I will lose some money so I will use big words to make it seem like its really a different reason'

Negative gearing is a blight. It doesnt fix housing shortages it makes them worse.

 

[Power Raid]

You could have rephrased it as:
'I dont like their plan cos I will lose some money so I will use big words to make it seem like its really a different reason'

Negative gearing is a blight. It doesnt fix housing shortages it makes them worse.

Because that would be a false claim.

Due to other reasons our fund is set up overseas and thus pays no CGT in Australia as our tax laws do not tax foreigners on Most CGT events.

FTR I have advocated tax foreign entities, so there is no self interest from this camp.

If morons want to hurt themselves that’s fine but I will speak up if people want to hurt other ordinary people. Speaking up want change the actions of the cruel but it may change the actions of those that chose to be informed.

 

[HairyO]

Because that would be a false claim.

Due to other reasons our fund is set up overseas and thus pays no CGT in Australia as our tax laws do not tax foreigners on Most CGT events.

FTR I have advocated tax foreign entities, so there is no self interest from this camp.

If morons want to hurt themselves that’s fine but I will speak up if people want to hurt other ordinary people. Speaking up want change the actions of the cruel but it may change the actions of those that chose to be informed.

Ordinary people are not making a killing dodgying their taxes via negative gearing. They simply dont earn enough.