Ok here it is
Labor’s Plan For Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share - I agree with this policy (and I believe this has support form the Liberals. This will make a material difference to the budget, a vote winner and getting the likes of Apple etc to pay their share. This should of been a key item, not hidden.
Labor’s Banking Fairness Fund - Labor require 9 biggest banks to contribute, $160 million to a Banking Fairness Fund. Stupid policy, the banking sector all ready pay their income, payroll and other local taxes. If you look at the make up of corporate tax collection, banking is key contributor. This policy would turn off the business vote.
Reforming Dividend Imputation -Firstly they called this a ‘cash refund’. Nope as a shareholder and part owner of said company, you get a credit for the tax that was paid on behalf of that income by the company. That dividend is then assessed at shareholder level (and the dividend is then grossed up to income the imputation credit and assessed on tax return).
Firstly on this- The $8 billion on this - is a lie. For the ‘cashed up pensioners with millions in their fund’ - they will simply move said investments into other asset classes, bonds/ETFs/overseas companies. Do they care? Nope oh and because they are in pension phase no capital gains tax and also the Australian economy and ASX - well now there is a capital flight to other assets/overseas assets. So what happens when you short sell at once?
So who gets caught up in this? Small business owners operating a PTY LTD and low to medium income owners
Tom is 25, owns some CBA shares and works part-time whilst at TAFE. Currently his taxable income is $30,000 per year and receives $500 in franking credits, under that proposal he would lose those credits as his marginal effective tax rate is 7.5% and the franking credits result in a yearly refund
This was really poorly worded and sold and impact low-to-medium income earners, the millionaire boomers would adjust.
This turned off accountants/financial advisers/lawyers/boomers across the board. This was also seen as a free kick to industry (union) superfunds.
Reforming Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax Arrangements - Horrible policy, underestimated how many Australians own 1 investment property (nurses, teachers etc) and the future impact that would have on their investment property value
This was drawn up and the hight of the property boom, surely someone from the party would of seen
- It was the top of the housing market (and like a market they move in cycles)
- The credit slowdown from 2015 was going to have a flow-on impact on future investment growth
Fast-forward and Melbourne and Sydney (let’s be honest this was pushed together in response to the strong housing markets in those two citites) are down 15% - this policy does not have the same sting
Negative gearing
This policy was to limit towards new buildings only. So quickly you really only negatively gear a property if you anticipate future capital growth. That strikes out new apartments as apartments are seen as cash flow positive and general offer limited capital growth.
Those as the policy stands, you could only negative gear new HOUSE AND LAND builds. The EXACT property that first home buyers looking to purchase, so now you have an inflated property (with a price set by a developer and not market) that has investors and first home buyers competing. It would turn into a new car transaction as developers would inflate the price (and instant depreciation on hand over of keys). The investor would then not be able to re-sell into the same market (as it becomes old and the future buyer cannot negatively gear)
It was also seen as a free kick to developers and unions.
Ticking off RE Agents, brokers, investors, and boomers
Capital Gains Tax
This was going to be grandfathered, to existing properties would still get the full discount - so no real impact on the current boomers - but once those properties float down to the next generation the millennials, cop this policy.
This also applies to shares (mid-term traders) and those buying and selling businesses. Last point really important.
Again financial institutions, business, accountants, bankers, lawyers, boomers, millennial voters.
Deduction Cap For Managing Tax Affairs - $3k deduction for cost, of managing tax affairs D10 label, this was stupid policy from Labor. This includes cost of preparing tax return, deduction of any ATO interest expense and also cost of defending yourself against the ATO.
This was just stupid stupid policy
Rattled the cage of all accountants and their clients
As I said weeks ago (and got shouted down) these poor policies would get the people voting. I didn’t expect that to happen to this extent. But speaking with alot of the above categories, I kept hearing the same response - terrified of Labors plan of class warfare and more and more taxes. Of course, these conversations didn’t play out in the media. These people just took the time to understand the personal and business impact and vote for their personal future.
But
You know what will make the other side feel better. Just call those people biggots, racist, homophones, backwards - every name under the sun (examples in this thread)
So my question is, are the pollsters this wrong? Similar to the UK and the US or is the media picking and reporting on the data that follows their opinion?
I jumped onto twitter earlier for a read (and the responses didn’t disappoint) and journalists from the ABC, Guardian, 7, 10, Sydney morning - you could TASTE their disappointment. I don’t care if they have an opinion, but don’t dress it up as facts when reporting.
I watched The Drum post-election, it was a great show - but all of them were on the LEFT. Seriously where was the perspective in reporting and NONE of them mention my above analysis. Seriously, they got blindsided by this, because they didn’t take the time to understand the issues that motivated the people to vote.
This is like ground hog day. Go back to the media in the lead up to SSM vote. It was the white liberal Christian vote that was going push for a No, that was the media narrative. But the final result was FAR from that.
I will finish on this. Bill was never electable, even his departure speech was a reminder of why he didn’t get int.
But Chris Bowen - when he said ‘if you don’t like the policy, you don’t have to vote for us’
That was the death knock
I also wonder who the media will blame this week?
Clive? Rupert? SMS? Russia? China? The Greens? - we should do a poll
