Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Pushka]

When you are tired, worried and stressed you can cry at the drop of a hat. Or is it only women who do that?

 

[Danger]

When you are tired, worried and stressed you can cry at the drop of a hat. Or is it only women who do that?

Haha. No, can't just be women. I do that when I'm waiting on an international upgrade request to be processed.

 

[medhead]

SNIP

I recall you were worried about the effect of the $100k limit for capital gains in super. My super fund just send me an email about the budget. It included the following advice on the topic.

Capping the tax exemption status on pension earnings from the Super system
From 1 July 2014, earnings over $100k (indexed to the CPI) from account based pension assets will be taxed at 15%. Special rules will apply to any earnings that result from selling assets over the next 10 years

The special rules are not clear but there is some exemption from the age pension asset and income test related to downsizing the family home, which might give an indication.

"In order to qualify for the exemption at least 80% of the sale proceeds, up to a maximum if $200k must be deposited into a special account with an authorised deposit taking institution. The sale proceeds plus earned interest will be exempt for up to 10 years provided there are no withdrawals during the life of the account"

Maybe the 10 years but is a coincidence. But maybe that gives some sort of indication of what they might do for the 10 year rule in super.

Hope this helps.

 

[drron]

Medhead think you need a colonoscopy preparation kit.The ATO figures you give to say that the poor pay no nett tax exclude those that pay no nett tax.So your argument is invalid.I have given you figures that are from the Government that 10% of the Australian population who are working pay no nett tax.Are you really trying to suggest all those are rich?
And of the figures from the ABS only 50% of the population has a job.And from your quote only 40% are nett tax payers.But let's exclude everyone aged less than 20-26% of the population.The figures are then 66% and 55% respectively.So 45 % of Australia's population over the age of 20 pay no nett tax.I would suggest to you respectfully that most of those are below the poverty line.
For population age breakdown I have used the Government figures as at 30/6/10-
3201.0 - Population by Age and Sex, Australian States and Territories, Jun 2010

Now to your other little dig=

If you followed the context you would also see that I did not say "the top 10% of people by income pay 10% of the tax".

But from post 2448 that I was answering has this-

I see that you've again failed to mention that those people also earn about 10% of the income, IIRC. (again I can't find a reference to this, but given the lack of people rushing out to disprove me I think that shows I do recall that number) 10% of income paying 10% of tax - seems pretty fair to me.

Now that is not saying the top 0.1% are getting 10% of the income.It may be right but we do need a reference.

And while I am at it I love all your references to Alan Jones and news ltd as being beneath contempt.Have you read Mike Carlton in the SMH?What a foul mouthed idiot he is.Or how about the supremely arrogant,legend in his own lunchtime Red bandanna?Or Catherine Deveny?All of course being to the left of centre and therefore above reproach.

 

[Pushka]

The exemption of sale of family home for centre link is totally impractical. In order to qualify you needed to have owned the home for 25 years! What! And have the money in a special account and touch neither it nor interest. Whomever dreams these things up and then tries to sell it as a favour to the aged should be put on the aged pension themselves and not their bureaucratic salary.

 

[TheEmu]

I would also proffer that it is not an easy thing to pretend to fight back tears and choke up to the point your speech becomes impaired. 'Fake crying' is one thing but, in my opinion, the Prime Minister was clearly moved at the time she made the speech.

Sincerity is the key...once a politician can fake that, they've got it made!

 

[amaroo]

I would also proffer that it is not an easy thing to pretend to fight back tears and choke up to the point your speech becomes impaired. 'Fake crying' is one thing but, in my opinion, the Prime Minister was clearly moved at the time she made the speech.

When you are tired, worried and stressed you can cry at the drop of a hat. Or is it only women who do that?

IIRC Hawke wasn't bad with the water works, gasping speeches and shrugging shoulder routine . It was just like turning a tap on & off.

 

[vetrade]

IIRC Hawke wasn't bad with the water works, gasping speeches and shrugging shoulder routine . It was just like turning a tap on & off.

Even though I voted for Hawke back in those days my opinion of him changed completely in the early 90's when I was doing an MBA and, as part of a session on interviews/PR techniques, we were shown a video of Hawke filming a commercial in support of some charity for disabled people - to demonstrate how you should never forget that the camera could still be rolling.

After several bungled takes where Hawke was trying to show off his most sincere empathy for the disabled, he lost his cool and blurted out "Why in the f^&k am I doing this for just a bunch of F^&king spastics?"

I was scarred for life...........

 

[Pushka]

IIRC Hawke wasn't bad with the water works, gasping speeches and shrugging shoulder routine . It was just like turning a tap on & off.

Yeah. But he was usually tanked at the time.

 

[casanovawa]

Went to write something last night, but lost it and couldn't be bothered rewriting, so will put a few words down now... I think as drron has been writing, those tax bracket stats you provided medhead quite clearly show who is paying most of the tax and supporting the country, demolishing all that tripe about only the poor pay tax and the poor are paying for the middle class etc, etc...

As to my point about the poor paying no net tax, you seem to have responded with a totally different set of stats (the tax brackets) and then believed you actually made some telling point... Putting aside the fact that the tax brackets show that the lower 30% pay a whopping 4% of tax, which in the greater picture of keeping the country running and paying for all the welfare recipients who pay no tax, amounts to about 2/3 of 4% of SFA... I was talking about the poor while your precious 2nd tax bracket includes people earning from $6,000-$37,000.... I don't, and not sure many others would, consider the people near the top of that tax bracket (almost $40,000) as being 'poor', so its relevance eludes me...

Just before rewriting this, i thought i would go and have a quick look for a definition of the poor (coz you have this fetish for citations) and found from some material printed in 2012 that quoted data from 2010, that they had two definitions of the poverty line... http://www.acoss.org.au/uploads/ACOSS%20Poverty%20Report%202012_Final.pdf

"In the case of a single adult, in 2010 this poverty line was $358 per week. In the case of a couple with two children it was $752 (Table 1). This is the main poverty line used in this report.

A less austere but still low poverty line, that is used to define poverty in Britain, Ireland and the European Union, is 60% of median income. In the case of a single adult, this poverty line in Australia was $430 per week in 2010."

So whether you use the more austere one of $358/week or the less austere of $430/week, multiplying by 52 gets me $18,616 or $22,360, all well and truly below the top of that $37,000 tax bracket you seem to think has such significance, and at that level i would surmise that they would largely pay almost no net tax... A few individuals might that may not qualify for much welfare, but as i stated, as a group the poor, would largely contribute no net tax to the Government, do not keep Australia afloat and certainly don't pay anything of any significance to the middle class or the rich...

So stop using only partially or peripherally relevant BS information to try and make a point... The tax brackets quite clearly show who is paying what even if it doesn't necessarily quantify exactly what the 'poor' are paying...

Edit: Actually i thought those numbers looked pretty close to the tax brackets so assumed that's what your were quoting from the ATO, but couldn't figure out the relevance of that $6,000 figure, so after a quick check on the ATO site the real 1st tax bracket is $18,200-$37,000, so no surmising is needed, if the official poverty line according to ACOSS (in 2010 anyway, it might have moved a few bucks by 2013) amounts to $18,600 and no one starts paying any tax till $18,200 then by definition, and you can take it as a given, the poor pay SFA tax of any description net or gross...

 

[Moody]

Went to write something last night, but lost it and couldn't be bothered rewriting, so will put a few words down now... I think as drron has been writing, those tax bracket stats you provided medhead quite clearly show who is paying most of the tax and supporting the country, demolishing all that tripe about only the poor pay tax and the poor are paying for the middle class etc, etc...

As to my point about the poor paying no net tax, you seem to have responded with a totally different set of stats (the tax brackets) and then believed you actually made some telling point... Putting aside the fact that the tax brackets show that the lower 30% pay a whopping 4% of tax, which in the greater picture of keeping the country running and paying for all the welfare recipients who pay no tax, amounts to about 2/3 of 4% of SFA... I was talking about the poor while your precious 2nd tax bracket includes people earning from $6,000-$37,000.... I don't, and not sure many others would, consider the people near the top of that tax bracket (almost $40,000) as being 'poor', so its relevance eludes me...

Just before rewriting this, i thought i would go and have a quick look for a definition of the poor (coz you have this fetish for citations) and found from some material printed in 2012 that quoted data from 2010, that they had two definitions of the poverty line... http://www.acoss.org.au/uploads/ACOSS%20Poverty%20Report%202012_Final.pdf

"In the case of a single adult, in 2010 this poverty line was $358 per week. In the case of a couple with two children it was $752 (Table 1). This is the main poverty line used in this report.

A less austere but still low poverty line, that is used to define poverty in Britain, Ireland and the European Union, is 60% of median income. In the case of a single adult, this poverty line in Australia was $430 per week in 2010."

So whether you use the more austere one of $358/week or the less austere of $430/week, multiplying by 52 gets me $18,616 or $22,360, all well and truly below the top of that $37,000 tax bracket you seem to think has such significance, and at that level i would surmise that they would largely pay almost no net tax... A few individuals might that may not qualify for much welfare, but as i stated, as a group the poor, would largely contribute no net tax to the Government, do not keep Australia afloat and certainly don't pay anything of any significance to the middle class or the rich...

So stop using only partially or peripherally relevant BS information to try and make a point... The tax brackets quite clearly show who is paying what even if it doesn't necessarily quantify exactly what the 'poor' are paying...

Edit: Actually i thought those numbers looked pretty close to the tax brackets so assumed that's what your were quoting from the ATO, but couldn't figure out the relevance of that $6,000 figure, so after a quick check on the ATO site the real 1st tax bracket is $18,200-$37,000, so no surmising is needed, if the official poverty line according to ACOSS (in 2010 anyway, it might have moved a few bucks by 2013) amounts to $18,600 and no one starts paying any tax till $18,200 then by definition, and you can take it as a given, the poor pay SFA tax of any description net or gross...

I think we are getting bogged down in meaningless statistics, so how about agreeing on a few things for a change :-

1. The definition of being in work is quite liberal, due to both sides of politics wanting to put the best spin on the unemployment figures. So the apparent gap in tax-payers vs. workers is partly made up of those that earn SFA.
2. For those below the poverty line it is a waste of time taxing them when you would just have to up the family benefits and other welfare to make their life at least bearable. These would make up the bulk of the remaining gap (along with those with no conscience and morals who hire unscrupulous accountants to avoid paying tax. Allegedly...)
3. People who moan about paying huge amounts of tax and supporting those bludging poor are on obscene amounts of income and have very, very comfortable lifestyles. I work reasonably hard and have a good income. Does a dentist on 6 times my income work 6 times as hard or provide 6 times the value to society? I suppose it depends on your view of life ..... I would say that in the lucky country there is no excuse for everyone to not have a basic standard of living. I guess that "out's" me as a tree-hugging chardonnay socialist. I can live with that just as easily as those that are comfortable being soul-less zealots of elitism.

And painting Julia Gillard's honest emotion as she announced the NDIS scheme as being an affectation or a symptom of being a female is misogyny to a level that even Tony Abbott wouldn't stoop to. This thread really has illuminated some [self redacted insulting term] ... hasn't it?

 

[Pushka]

And painting Julia Gillard's honest emotion as she announced the NDIS scheme as being an affectation or a symptom of being a female is misogyny to a level that even Tony Abbott wouldn't stoop to. This thread really has illuminated some [self redacted insulting term] ... hasn't it?

I know, I know, I am such a misogynist, aren't I! I hate my own gender so much!

 

[Moody]

I know, I know, I am such a misogynist, aren't I! I hate my own gender so much!

No - you just use gender to score points against people you don't like. Maybe we need a new term - lipstick misogyny.

 

[vetrade]

No - you just use gender to score points against people you don't like. Maybe we need a new term - lipstick misogyny.

Sorry, "lipstick misogyny" is already patented by Barak Obama: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." (re Sarah Palin, Lebanon, VA, 9/9/08)

 

[casanovawa]

You can invent all your own terms you want moods, no one really gives a rat's rear orifice... Similar to your attempt to try pidgeon hole people who may see the world slightly differently into those stupid cliches of yours while reserving for yourself a slot just slightly below sainthood...

And i think largely that they were saying if they were put on emotions she was just a skillful manipulator, like the silver budgie could be... There was a small wise crack about her gender, but no need to inflate yourself in outraged indignation... But good to see after being so churned up in inside she could return to having a good belly laugh so soon after, they do say laughter is the best medicine don't they and no doubt she will be feeling better after that knee slapper...

As she is rapidly fading into yesterday's PM status, i'm still annoyed more by that village idiot Swan doing the rounds.... Or hang on, am i still capped misandrist?? We'll let moods spout out more of what he decides is appropriate or not...

 

[Pushka]

No - you just use gender to score points against people you don't like. Maybe we need a new term - lipstick misogyny.

Actually no. But I do detest people using gender as a means of avoiding scrutiny. Which is a Gillard trademark.

 

[lovestotravel]

View attachment 15648

I'll just pop this here.

Just more pathetic acting in a desperate attempt to win some votes

 

[Moody]

Sorry, "lipstick misogyny" is already patented by Barak Obama: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." (re Sarah Palin)

"Lipstick on a pig" is an old saying that pre-dates Obama by a couple of decades. "Lipstick on a pig's portal" is a variation I have been using for about 10 years. "Lipstick misogyny" gets no hits that I can find on Google so I am officially claiming it.


<redacted>

 

[amaroo]

And painting Julia Gillard's honest emotion as she announced the NDIS scheme as being an affectation or a symptom of being a female is misogyny to a level that even Tony Abbott wouldn't stoop to.

Correct, pity cabinet ministers don't have the same high standards as TA. Tweeting belittling messages about his volunteering work is a very low stooping level!

 

[medhead]

Medhead think you need a colonoscopy preparation kit.The ATO figures you give to say that the poor pay no nett tax exclude those that pay no nett tax.So your argument is invalid.

Oh FFS! It also says that other "poorer people" DO PAY TAX. Which is exactly my argument and the figure DO support my argument that it is absolutely wrong to claim that NO poorer people pay tax, as per the post that I have quoted about a thousand times now.

Here is the quote DRRON to which I replied. Please try to take it in. It clearly says that not a single "poorer person" pays tax. The figures that I present clearly show that statement is wrong.

Originally Posted by casanovawa
Hmm, i love this mentality... As i think has been establish several times, "poorer people" pay no net tax, they suck out of the system rather than contribute into it so there is a complete inability for them to "pay" middle class people anything...


The fact that you keep going on about this makes me really worry about you, sincerely. I really hope your just being obtuse. But the fact that you continue to completely misunderstand my point suggests that you might have some other serious problem. I really hope that is not the case. Either way you have completely failed to understand my argument.

Now to your other little dig=

But from post 2448 that I was answering has this-


Now that is not saying the top 0.1% are getting 10% of the income.It may be right but we do need a reference.

NO DRRON I am actually saying EXACTLY the same thing as before. That you failed to follow is your problem. Given I've quoted that number twice now and no one has bother to challenge it I can only assume you accept it.

And while I am at it I love all your references to Alan Jones and news ltd as being beneath contempt.Have you read Mike Carlton in the SMH?What a foul mouthed idiot he is.Or how about the supremely arrogant,legend in his own lunchtime Red bandanna?Or Catherine Deveny?All of course being to the left of centre and therefore above reproach.

WTF has that got to do with anything? I read widely and then make my own judgement. Unlike your typical Alan Jones listener, who probably can't read and who thinks a judgement is given in court.