Getup campaign

Yeah, do you think this claim Reform negative gearing - fifty percent of this tax break goes to the top two percent of income earners is a bit sus? It's more than a bit sus, I call it out as complete BS.

The claim is that negative gearing is worth $4b per annum. 50% of this is $2b. So, the top two percent of income earners are losing $2b per annum? Yeah, I don't think so. Pull the other leg, it plays jingle bells.

 

Do these fools at Getup understand that tax breaks simply means the government letting us keep a little more of our OWN money.

 

Does anyone know who funds these Getup fools.

 

Unlikely. As I said in my post, I in principle agree that a lot of those things need reform. For example, a top tier income earner salary sacrificing into super gets an effective 30% tax break. Conversely, a lowest tier income earner has to pay 15% on contributions to super, which may be higher than their marginal tax rate. Effectively, they have to pay the government money to put money into super. This stupid situation needs to be rectified. Equally, I find handing out $11.5bn to fossil fuel industries is stupid. My complaint is the very devicisive, classist and negative language they use to justify the policies. But then they have to appeal to their target market, who really think like that.

 

Gee, I hope it is not "the rich". Otherwise they are biting the hand that funds them

 

Actually it does the reverse... more people sell when the capital gains discount is removed since it only applies from that date. It makes less sense to hold on to a capital gain since the "non discounted" period starts eating into the gain. This is why I sold a year after the capital gains discount on property was abolished 3 years ago for non residents. Selling would increase, prices would likely go down.

It seems a probable and reasonable next step to abolish it for residents also. I always suspected removing it for non residents was a "first step" to removing it for everyone.

 

Well if that is how they would implement it.... makes sense. I just hate how you can't just easily spread the sale (and profits) of a property over multiple years, unlike shares.

 

What comment is this that you mean ?

 

I've never thought of these things as "unfair" because they are available to everyone who wants to take part in the scheme.

To describe it as unfair strikes me as the sort of mindset that the poor use when they are talking about the greedy, evil rich.

I don't know about others here, but when I was young and poor, I never looked at these schemes as unfair, and never looked at the rich as having any unfair advantage.

If anything; I looked at these situations and made a promise to be like them, and to use those advantages provided to all.

I think this a is a big problem in Australian culture where many folks are resentful of the richer folks who seemingly get all the breaks, all the perks etc.

I want to be rewarded for trying to get richer; to be less of a burden on our Gubb coffers.

At the moment; this is happily the case.

God help us if this Country stops rewarding and incentivising folks to get off their backside and do better for themselves.

Yes, we need to look after the less fortunate, the battlers and so on - but how many of us here started off less fortunate, started off as a battler?

Probably almost bloody everyone.

Things like the Super contribution tax breaks I think should be a more level playing field regardless of income as you say; but don't take it away from those who are receiving them already; adjust it so the lower -income earners are on the same rates.

 

This one.

 

You have got the wrong end of the stick here. I was specifically responding to a proposal by 2340.

Personally, I think that is fairer than taking the non-inflation-adjusted capital gain and discounting is by 50% (in some cases). It is nothing about penalising the greedy, evil rich because in some cases it will result in the "filthy rich" paying less tax, not more. That should make you happy I just think that a consistent method for calculating a capital gain, which applies to all asset classes and all investors is fairer than saying this person gets a 50% discount on a non-real gain and this person doesn't.

I agree, but I could throw your own comment back at you... this

But really, why should a low income earner effectively pay the government to put money in super when higher income earner effectively gets paid by the government to put money in super.

 

so - the whole argument is more taxes for the rich and no concessions for the poorer?

who exactly do these people represent? MP Union movement?

 

I agree.

It certainly looks unfair, but in the end comes back to what the Gubb want to encourage in the form of investment, I think (could be wrong).

What I mean is; the Gubb want to encourage folks to invest in property because it ultimately saves the Gubb a load of money on pensions etc - to provide a basic necessity of housing which would be too big a task for them to take on themselves.

Hence; bigger incentives for property investors as opposed to share investors...similar to the incentives for business owners - it's about incentive to provide what is required (rent, jobs etc)?

 

That's good @Bayview, but are you sure the 50% method doesn't net more tax for the government? I haven't run the numbers either way, but gut feel is that over a typical investment timeframe, the 50% method would actually net more tax, not less.

 

That's not the way I read it, but yes, it appears that whole argument is that lower income earners get a very raw deal out of these proposals.

 

maybe i skimmed too quick but i didn't see any measures to help the average income earner in there.....or is that coming by way of the govt as a default position of middle class welfare....?

 

Most investors would be better off if they swing the campaign against negative gearing. The 50% CG discount on shares and property is a pretty good deal, as are imputation credits, wouldn't like either of those to go. Negative Gearing.... they can have that.

 

I have no doubt the Gubb makes a lot of money from the scheme...otherwise they would have probably canned it before now.

But, we need that to occur. The Gubb (and us) want infrastructure, lifestyle, standard of living etc. This can't happen without revenue - taxes.

So; we all win; the PI's get incentive to create wealth, the then possibly invest in businesses, provide jobs, provide housing for renters who can't afford houses or need temporary housing etc, and the Gubb get the much needed revenue to fund the myriad programs etc we all enjoy.

 

Sorry, I don't understand why the tax system has to be so damn complicated and why every level of government needs to have a finger in the pie.

The burden on resources and costs associated with compliance must impact on all businesses efficiency and everyone's bottom line.

Why is it not possible to remove all current taxes and levies and have a single tax applied whenever you spend money?

You want to buy a property, shares or a loaf of bread, you pay tax.

You want to sell property, shares or a loaf of bread, the person buying pays tax.

No income tax, no payroll tax, no stamp duty, no negative gearing, no land tax, no CGT, no tax concessions (including government, churches and charities), no need for individual tax returns and no tax refunds.

The rate would apply to all domestic purchases whether the goods or services are provided by local or multinational corporations, no need to name and shame.

As there would be no tax refunds the amount collected would be final.

The government could provide funding for infrastructure as well as other worthwhile endeavours or organisations as direct payments. These payments would be tax free but would incur the tax when spent.

Regards

Andrew

 

Sounds a lot like GST