Abbott in Government

[Alanslegal]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

New car demand did drop when salary sacrificing to cars was abandoned. The price of cars would not/did not drop. It just meant less cars were purchased. The theoretical price drop with less demand is just that in this case.

If dealers have excess/surplus cars and weakening demand, prices fall. Yes it is true that less cars were purchased in that time but luckily the major manufacturers knew ALP was going to be removed at the election in two months time anyway, that the LNP would restore the FBT benefits and demand would be restored. There was no need to panic then. If Labor was still in government and FBT for cars were removed, those main manufacturers who ship thousands of cars in each month, would have excess cars in the short term until they were able to sell those vehicles or adjust their incoming inventory to match the 'new' demand. Those excess cars plus a decrease in demand, would mean cheaper cars in the short term.

 

[medhead]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Hmmm. In Australia ~9% of ~13m taxpayers are ~5% of the total citizens.

Right so you admit that it is a misleading number then. Should my 9 year old child be out sweeping chimneys or down a coal mine, or should I be paying tax for them?

You're the king of ignoring statistics. Why aren't your saying anything about the sudden use of population based statistics by a number of people to paint a false picture. Because those statistic suit your political bias?

 

[coyote25]

Yes I like the police etc just not the welfare society and the open arms welcome for economic migrants.

I think TA has the balance about right, didn't the majority vote for him? Or are you twisting that.

I thought Tony promised not to deal with a minor party? Why is there a coalition government then? Surely the Libs can get a majority vote and MPs for themselves?

More seriously we still can't judge the new government, they are still to tackle the big issues. Let's see how they go when Parliament starts.

 

[Pushka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

If dealers have excess/surplus cars and weakening demand, prices fall. Yes it is true that less cars were purchased in that time but luckily the major manufacturers knew ALP was going to be removed at the election in two months time anyway, that the LNP would restore the FBT benefits and demand would be restored. There was no need to panic then. If Labor was still in government and FBT for cars were removed, those main manufacturers who ship thousands of cars in each month, would have excess cars in the short term until they were able to sell those vehicles or adjust their incoming inventory to match the 'new' demand. Those excess cars plus a decrease in demand, would mean cheaper cars in the short term.

No, they will just make less cars and import less cars.

 

[knasty]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

It's not misleading, it's just a fact that a very large number of people are supported by a very small number of people. Just like it's a fact that I support my wife and kids and if I didn't they would struggle. The political question is whether the amount they pay is too little, too much or just right. But whatever your political view if you suggest high income earners leave those left behind have to do considerably more to make up for the lost contribution.

 

[Pushka]

I thought Tony promised not to deal with a minor party? Why is there a coalition government then? Surely the Libs can get a majority vote and MPs for themselves?

It was formed in around 1922.

 

[medhead]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

It's not misleading, it's just a fact that a very large number of people are supported by a very small number of people. Just like it's a fact that I support my wife and kids and if I didn't they would struggle. The political question is whether the amount they pay is too little, too much or just right.

It is misleading because you're trying to suggest it shows some people pay too much tax.

But whatever your political view if you suggest high income earners leave those left behind have to do considerably more to make up for the lost contribution.

As I said try reading. I did not say high incomes earners should leave. Once again your comment is misleading. Just try reading what is written instead of making it up.

 

[drron]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

The usage of 'rort' I am familiar with does not require a law (or even a rule) to be broken.

Like I said, if you have another word you'd prefer, let me know.


Or maybe not:

"work (a system) to obtain the greatest benefit while remaining within the letter of the law."

Sorry you are just digging yourself further into a hole.
You used the term a rort-ie the noun which I gave the dictionary meaning of.
You gave the meaning of the verb to rort.So not applicable.
Splitting hairs?
Yes but it is what you fellows do all the time in your attacks.

 

[Pukka]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

It's not misleading, it's just a fact that a very large number of people are supported by a very small number of people. Just like it's a fact that I support my wife and kids and if I didn't they would struggle. The political question is whether the amount they pay is too little, too much or just right. But whatever your political view if you suggest high income earners leave those left behind have to do considerably more to make up for the lost contribution.

Oh it's good to read common sense now & again

 

[alieninperth]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

On the ALP plan to reform the FBT rules for salary sacraficing cars. My understanding of this was that the only thing that was changing was that the ALP wanted you to prove that you were allowed the deduction, and that it was charged at the correct rate. So they were going to abolish the stat formula method and replace it with the operating cost method. IMO this was a perfectly rational and proper thing to do. As I have said previously, if you are entitled to claim something then fine, but if you're not and you are exploiting a loophole then said loophole should be closed.

Oversimplified: '80,000 charity workers' would be affected by FBT changes - Fact Check - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

As it happens I have claimed FBT exemptions previously and I used the operating cost method. It saved me more money and keeping a log book is hardly difficult.

 

[medhead]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

The increase in the tax free threshold. It seems many around here have totally ignored that the low income rebate has been removed/reduced and the effect is negligible for this change.


Amaroo seems to have forgotten that removing welfare means policing costs more as people go on the rob. It's a system, things can not be taken in isolation. But go on you for rejecting welfare. I look forward to you repaying the private health insurance rebate from Abbott. I look forward to you rejecting the Paid parental leave scheme.

It's also probably worth noting that according to ABS data the P90 income level for households was about $1,575 per week in 2011, or just under $82,000pa.

You NEED to post a reference for this data. I think we will then find it is not income level but equivalised income.

This document has a very similar figure for P90 in 10/11 of $1465 Equivalised income

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/B0530ECF7A48B909CA257BC80016E4D3/$File/65230_2011-12.pdf

But if we look up the meaning of Equivalised income we find:

Equivalence scales have been devised to make adjustments to the actual incomes ofhouseholds in a way that enables analysis of the relative wellbeing of households ofdifferent size and composition.


Equivalised household income is an indicator of the economic resources available toeach member of a household.

That measure is not income of an individual. It is the equivalent economic resource available to a member of a household. Income tax is not an economic resource available to a household. Therefore that equivalised income is after tax, they do not pay tax on that amount.

In a single person household that number represents the income of that individual, after adjustment. In a multiple person household the Equivalise income is available to each member of the household. So in a 4 person household with 1 income earner the income of that one person is 4 times the equivalised income. Hence anyone trying to apply this number of the total population of australia will be misleading the real situation.

Now if we refer to actual income, I'll reference the productivity commission, we can see that the top deciles of gross income in selected years since 88/89 has always exceeded $3000 per week before tax (the report is not clear but I think this has to be an average). Page 62 figure 3.2. In 09/10 the top deciles starts at over $5000 per week. The next decile down, the ninth, still hasn't even cracked the $3000 mark.

$5000 per week is $260000 per annum. Hence why it must be an average of all incomes in that decile. NATSEM gives a table showing income distribution but for the 95th percentile not the 90th. http://www.natsem.canberra.edu.au/s...b-R13-1-Typical_Low_and_Middle_Income_FBT.pdf

The same figure also shows us that the grow rate of income in the top deciles is at least 0.5% better than any other decile.

 

[alieninperth]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

You NEED to post a reference for this data. I think we will then find it is not income level but equivalised income.

This document has a very similar figure for P90 in 10/11 of $1465 Equivalised income

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/auss...8B909CA257BC80016E4D3/$File/65230_2011-12.pdf

You are quite correct. it is for equivilised income, my mistake not picking that up. Here it the doc that I got it from 6523.0 - Household Income and Income Distribution, Australia, 2011-12

The other figures that I mention are from the downloads section of that page. They do cover individual income as well as total household.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

And you would be able to defer losses to future years where the property is making profit?

Seems reasonable on the face of it.

Negative gearing is much simpler. Get it out of the way now and not worry about it later.

Not paying tax at all would be "simpler" as well, but it wouldn't be right.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

But whatever your political view if you suggest high income earners leave those left behind have to do considerably more to make up for the lost contribution.

Why is it a given their jobs will leave with them ?

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Sorry you are just digging yourself further into a hole.
You used the term a rort-ie the noun which I gave the dictionary meaning of.
You gave the meaning of the verb to rort.So not applicable.
Splitting hairs?
Yes but it is what you fellows do all the time in your attacks.

Just...wow.

You really think insisting on the accurate use of a legal term, when talking about a legal situation, is comparable to this semantic stupidity ?

 

[knasty]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Why is it a given their jobs will leave with them ?

It's not a given, but for highly skilled and technical knowledge-based jobs which typically command higher salaries it's often the case that the job follows the skilled/experience resource. My job role should be in HK but because I wanted to live in Sydney my company was happy to transfer me rather than have me resign. The highly paid jobs typically involve skills and experience which are easily transferable and I've seen many colleagues (and their roles) follow the incentives away from Australia which means much less tax revenue.

My comments are in response to the assertion that those who don't like Australia's tax regime should F off to the USA....I think Australia should encourage and attract talent both locally and from the global marketplace, rather than viewing those who have worked hard and educated themselves as cash cows.

 

[drsmithy]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

It's not a given, but for highly skilled and technical knowledge-based jobs which typically command higher salaries it's often the case that the job follows the skilled/experience resource. My job role should be in HK but because I wanted to live in Sydney my company was happy to transfer me rather than have me resign. The highly paid jobs typically involve skills and experience which are easily transferable and I've seen many colleagues (and their roles) follow the incentives away from Australia which means much less tax revenue.

I put it to you that these kinds of easily relocatable, remote-workable, jobs are a very small proportion of high-paying jobs.

CEOs, for example, are generally not going to be domiciled overseas.

My comments are in response to the assertion that those who don't like Australia's tax regime should F off to the USA....I think Australia should encourage and attract talent both locally and from the global marketplace, rather than viewing those who have worked hard and educated themselves as cash cows.

The point is not to regard them as cash cows, it is to put the costs of maintaining our kind of society on the people a) most able to afford it and b) who have benefited most from it.

The attitude of "well if you don't like paying taxes here then leave" is a sentiment related to this. Australia does not have particularly high taxes on a global scale, especially in the context of the services delivered to the public. We also don't have a particularly large or inefficient Government on a global scale. Despite these facts, there are a whole lot of quite well-off individuals who believe they should reap all the benefits of our kind of society, without having to deal with any of the costs and responsibilities inherent to it.

 

[amaroo]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

My comments are in response to the assertion that those who don't like Australia's tax regime should F off to the USA....I think Australia should encourage and attract talent both locally and from the global marketplace, rather than viewing those who have worked hard and educated themselves as cash cows.

Amen to that.....

 

[JohnK]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Not paying tax at all would be "simpler" as well, but it wouldn't be right.

Actually I would prefer it that way.

Time for the new immigrants to keep the country going. I need to put my feet up and relax. I will spend all the money I have in a couple of years and then rely on the government to give me a pension for the rest of my life.

 

[Alanslegal]

Re: Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

Good to see Tony Abbott upholding of Labor's ban on Huawai, does that mean he agrees with Labor? Unfortunately for Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Trade Minister Andrew Robb, Tony's unequivocal ban meant those two were literally slapped on their faces with a smelly fish.

Tony Abbott rules out change to Huawei ban