Libs Just Lost the Election with this Policy

Does that mean you're changing your username to LabGS?

 

Was an observation on tone of comments you made ...not defending anything

Nope - never said this ... please re-read.

Shown a lot of considered "should"s - none of which show any means of accountability or plans of implementation

Hmmm - methinks the term "lie" is a little strong ... all they are asking for is a plan and accountability before investing significant amounts of $$ ... rather realistic and rational and no different than what you would expect. The government shouldn't invest significant amounts of money in anything - whether it be major infrastructure - or educational - based on airy fairy "should"s ... any more than you would invest your life savings in a friend's promises of maybe - perhaps - will try - just give me the damn money and it might - perhaps - maybe - um - ...

 

What on earth do you mean that Malcolm (continuity with change) Turnbull is not making sense?

I thought the same thing when I saw those ads.

But then I saw the Billy Bob ads and just thought 'I really don't trust this guy'.

I feel like this election is between Rudd lite and uncharismatic Gillard.

 

Might be time to get onto Labor at 3.25...

Silly question about Negative Gearing?

 

Chatting to a few quality high school teachers this week and they completely agree - guess they don't want their taxes wasted either

 

Couldn't even fathom voting for Bill Shorten.

 

No, they promised to deliver on the budgeted gonski funding and have kept that promise. Same with Health funding. They've removed nothing and have in fact increased spending. They never signed up to the unfunded bribes (far beyond the forward estimates) of a desperate government trying to cling to power with a con they never would have delivered.

The Australian people knew that and made their choice.

 

T

I call BS on this. They used the phrase "lockstep with Labor".

 

Would be great if both could be chosen that way the sharks will clean-up the bodies.

 

Well, unless you live in the Division of Maribyrnong, you won't have to

Personally, I can't fathom voting for my local Labor candidate, who is actually a Green. That's ridiculous IMO.

 

I just read this in The Guardian. Is this true?

The Coalition plan to change the definition of small business to include businesses with a turnover of up to $1bn. These are not small-businesses, Labor says.

The Coalition wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 30% to 25% by 2026-27, and the tax rate for small businesses from 28.5% to 25% by 2026-27

The 10 big issues of election 2016: how Coalition, Labor and Greens policies compare

How are we going to fund the tax cuts to "small businesses" with turnover up to 1 billion dollars?
Sell Medicare?
I really want to know the answer to this.
I am all in favour of cuts to small businesses as the definition stands now but to change the definition of small businesses to include businesses with a turnover of up to 1 billion dollars?
I had to sit down, move away and take a breather after reading that information.

 

Lie. Seems to work every other time.

 

The only lie is that it is limited to $1b. Libs plan to cut the tax rate for all companies to 25% over time. Their proposal is to start cutting the tax rate on small companies and extending the definition of small business over time so all companies are taxed at 25%.

 

I keep hearing from Labor that the Libs are redefining small business as Companies with a turnover of $1bn.but have not seen where the Libs have stated this as their policy.
Looking at The Libs website the policy is

From 1 July 2016, businesses with annual turnover less than $10 million will have a company tax rate of 27.5 per cent. The company tax rate will be progressively lowered to 25 per cent by 2026-27 for all companies.


The Government will also extend a range of concessions already available to small businesses with turnover less than $2 million to all businesses with turnover less than $10 million from 1 July 2016.

Budget 2016

Beanie girl as you looking for the answer perhaps some research from yourself would be in order.

 

I see. Thanks for that information @Ed Barton.

 

Reading that makes me not want to vote for any of them.

 

It's a blatantly misleading and false headline based on a real and brilliant change for Australia that realistically hasn't gone far or enough or happened quick enough but baby steps...

The truth is that we are finally changing our archaic company tax rate towards a more reasonable and globally competitive rate and it begins with the smallest companies before expanding annually to larger ones before eventually applying to them all.

It's by far the best policy that any party has announced to date, like if it's the 10 of policies nothing else has hit a 5 so far as far as actually improving Australia.

It's just a shame that they've been insanely cowardly with pretty much every other policy to date so as to actively counteract their one master piece (even if it's not half as good as it should be).

 

The scary part is finding that you agree with the Greens on more topics than anyone else, of course the fact that we all know they'd annihilate the economy removes them from any non-donkey ballot as a reasonable option but still goes to show just how bad the other parties are.

I'd vote for the government who actually admits that the problem is expenditure and addresses that side instead of focusing on the revenue side that actually is very good.

 

But this is the whole conundrum with the current pale imitation of each other major party system.
For example:- I actually think the Greens have a good policy on super, but then they support "free" higher education, which overwhelmingly benefits children of high income earners. Then Liberals want to lower company tax, which is supposed to be good for the economy, but want to make retrospective changes to super, which I don't support. Then Labor want to make changes to negative gearing, which I support, but have a model which will advantage high income earners and disadvantage lower income earner investors, which I don't support. At least with my local candidates there is a clear choice.

 

Exactly, though I disagree strongly on the super changes, the changes they made were excellent in that they were targeted only at abusers of the system rather than everyone but that's another story.

Labor's design of the NG attack is terrible (Greens actually have this one spot on, NG and CGT discount should go (on all asset classes), 100% no grand fathering none of that rubbish just flat out gone).

Unfortunately politics has become too much about the politics and not remotely enough about governance or improving the country. It's become a job where the main focus is remaining in power not in improving the country which is why the entire focus is on the revenue side instead of the spending side. Instead of doing the right thing by the country and greatly reducing who can access the aged pension (this topic is done to death but for the country it's the right option to require property wealthy pensioners to pay their own way) we focus on increasing the revenue on the superannuation system to pay it, we're literally robbing Peter to pay Paul instead of telling Paul to pay himself and encouraging Peter who is more or less doing the right thing.

You can go through a ton of other areas where the excessive spending is what forces the changes at both state and federal level. You could argue that the government is just a symptom of the greater population (debt crisis anyone?) but the government should be spending within it's means but because of the age of entitlement (we have two generations locked in a battle for which one is the more entitled but lets agree they're both making a real run at the title) we can't tell anyone "no, you can't have that" instead we just mortgage the future to get it and continue to tax such excessive amounts that the economy is literally grinding itself to a halt.

Again though, when the main focus is staying in government and ensuring that pension why would you actually do the right thing or the hard thing when it costs you as a politician and unfortunately that applies equally to both sides so we keep growing that age pension and ignoring that the elephant has now bred his own little family over in that corner and we'll keep pilfering from other areas to justify it (as I said, plenty of other areas this one is just a very easy and massive example of the problem).