Politics Thread

General Gibberish Forums The nickyd News Room
11839

Quoted Post

What solutions do you or the Libs offer though DT? Removing funding isn't offering a solution, all it is doing is trying to save money from the budget.

Meanwhile companies, especially mining ones, continue to minimise the amount of tax they pay thereby robbing Australia of an opportunity to balance the budget. Then, on top of that, you have a loop-hole in the super laws that allow a person to put however much money into their super and only be taxed at 15%, even if they were to put in millions, which is what is happening. So instead of this millionaire paying 48% tax, they end up paying only 15%.

There are many other ways to raise revenue or protect the budget other than slamming minorities and the less fortunate.

This is not a financial issue.
Its a potential solution to a long standing problem.

Besides which, what has pouring money into the problem actually achieved.
Its made things worse.

11840

Oh, forgot family trusts and negative gearing.
Can someone tell me why the ■■■■ we are giving tax breaks to people buying their eleventh property over those buying their first?

Anyone.

11841

It’s OK to sink money into white marginal communities though, isn’t it? Take the time to read the lead article in the Guardian, white camp versus black. DT, you seem to completely ignore the fundamental thing about the autochthonous connection to the land. It’s like the Catholics and their transubstantiation-a deeply held belief that they are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus. You can’t have two rules based on ethnicity.

11842

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
It's not an unlimited amount that can be put into super that has the concessional tax rate of 15%.

No but the amount can be rather high

$30,000 cap for anyone aged 48 or under as at 30 June 2014
$35,000 cap for anyone aged 49 years or over as at 30 June 2014.

There was one transition year though where it was $1M. We had a lot of clients take advantage of that.

11843

Quoted Post

Oh, forgot family trusts and negative gearing. Can someone tell me why the ■■■■ we are giving tax breaks to people buying their eleventh property over those buying their first?

Anyone.

To me it’s not the tax break. The the ability to offset losses against personal income instead of simply only the property income.

11844

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
What solutions do you or the Libs offer though DT? Removing funding isn't offering a solution, all it is doing is trying to save money from the budget.

Meanwhile companies, especially mining ones, continue to minimise the amount of tax they pay thereby robbing Australia of an opportunity to balance the budget. Then, on top of that, you have a loop-hole in the super laws that allow a person to put however much money into their super and only be taxed at 15%, even if they were to put in millions, which is what is happening. So instead of this millionaire paying 48% tax, they end up paying only 15%.

There are many other ways to raise revenue or protect the budget other than slamming minorities and the less fortunate.

This is not a financial issue.
Its a potential solution to a long standing problem.

Besides which, what has pouring money into the problem actually achieved.
Its made things worse.

Is it a financial issue for the mining companies wanting access to their land?

11845

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Oh, forgot family trusts and negative gearing. Can someone tell me why the ■■■■ we are giving tax breaks to people buying their eleventh property over those buying their first?

Anyone.

To me it’s not the tax break. The the ability to offset losses against personal income instead of simply only the property income.

You’re a company now?
What do you produce?

11846

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
It's not an unlimited amount that can be put into super that has the concessional tax rate of 15%.

No but the amount can be rather high

These remarks are pazza-esque. He continually makes ignorant remarks about super.

Maybe he thinks he’s Joe Hockey.

11847

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Oh, forgot family trusts and negative gearing. Can someone tell me why the ■■■■ we are giving tax breaks to people buying their eleventh property over those buying their first?

Anyone.

To me it’s not the tax break. The the ability to offset losses against personal income instead of simply only the property income.

You’re a company now?
What do you produce?

You don’t need to produce anything to be a company. If I had property in my company I could be called a land lord.

11848

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Oh, forgot family trusts and negative gearing. Can someone tell me why the ■■■■ we are giving tax breaks to people buying their eleventh property over those buying their first?

Anyone.

To me it’s not the tax break. The the ability to offset losses against personal income instead of simply only the property income.

You’re a company now?
What do you produce?

You don’t need to produce anything to be a company. If I had property in my company I could be called a land lord.

No, I could understand ‘offsetting losses’ if you were a company producing something and that property was somehow part of supplying something, but you’re not.
You’re just a guy buying another house.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against guys buying another house, I just don’t see why you should get a tax break for it.

11849

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Oh, forgot family trusts and negative gearing. Can someone tell me why the ■■■■ we are giving tax breaks to people buying their eleventh property over those buying their first?

Anyone.

To me it’s not the tax break. The the ability to offset losses against personal income instead of simply only the property income.

You’re a company now?
What do you produce?

You don’t need to produce anything to be a company. If I had property in my company I could be called a land lord.

No, I could understand ‘offsetting losses’ if you were a company producing something and that property was somehow part of supplying something, but you’re not.
You’re just a guy buying another house.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against guys buying another house, I just don’t see why you should get a tax break for it.

To me it’s not so much the negative gearing, it’s how it gets filtered through down the line for the tax deductions. Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Oh, forgot family trusts and negative gearing. Can someone tell me why the ■■■■ we are giving tax breaks to people buying their eleventh property over those buying their first?

Anyone.

To me it’s not the tax break. The the ability to offset losses against personal income instead of simply only the property income.

You’re a company now?
What do you produce?

You don’t need to produce anything to be a company. If I had property in my company I could be called a land lord.

No, I could understand ‘offsetting losses’ if you were a company producing something and that property was somehow part of supplying something, but you’re not.
You’re just a guy buying another house.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against guys buying another house, I just don’t see why you should get a tax break for it.

So if it was only commercial property, say a portfolio of offices would it make any difference?

What if the person owned 30 residential properties and their only income was from the rent? Isn’t that a legitimate job/business?

11850

(sorry for the odd quote, not sure what happened there)

11851
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Go and visit a remote community. Your fantasised notion of how these remote communities live will soon be destroyed. Why you would want people to continue to exist in this way beggars belief.
You demonstrate your complete ignorance, time and time again. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Is there any chance you can ever make a comment without abusing someone?
Just once would be nice.

ironic

Thats not ironic Alanis… :wink: Thats just being a total hypocrite. Pot calling the kettle … um black.

11852

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Oh, forgot family trusts and negative gearing. Can someone tell me why the ■■■■ we are giving tax breaks to people buying their eleventh property over those buying their first?

Anyone.

To me it’s not the tax break. The the ability to offset losses against personal income instead of simply only the property income.

You’re a company now?
What do you produce?

You don’t need to produce anything to be a company. If I had property in my company I could be called a land lord.

No, I could understand ‘offsetting losses’ if you were a company producing something and that property was somehow part of supplying something, but you’re not.
You’re just a guy buying another house.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against guys buying another house, I just don’t see why you should get a tax break for it.

To me it’s not so much the negative gearing, it’s how it gets filtered through down the line for the tax deductions. Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Oh, forgot family trusts and negative gearing. Can someone tell me why the ■■■■ we are giving tax breaks to people buying their eleventh property over those buying their first?

Anyone.

To me it’s not the tax break. The the ability to offset losses against personal income instead of simply only the property income.

You’re a company now?
What do you produce?

You don’t need to produce anything to be a company. If I had property in my company I could be called a land lord.

No, I could understand ‘offsetting losses’ if you were a company producing something and that property was somehow part of supplying something, but you’re not.
You’re just a guy buying another house.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against guys buying another house, I just don’t see why you should get a tax break for it.

So if it was only commercial property, say a portfolio of offices would it make any difference?

What if the person owned 30 residential properties and their only income was from the rent? Isn’t that a legitimate job/business?

a) If you’re using the offices, sure.
b) About as much as buying old albums on ebay is.

11853

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
What solutions do you or the Libs offer though DT? Removing funding isn't offering a solution, all it is doing is trying to save money from the budget.

Meanwhile companies, especially mining ones, continue to minimise the amount of tax they pay thereby robbing Australia of an opportunity to balance the budget. Then, on top of that, you have a loop-hole in the super laws that allow a person to put however much money into their super and only be taxed at 15%, even if they were to put in millions, which is what is happening. So instead of this millionaire paying 48% tax, they end up paying only 15%.

There are many other ways to raise revenue or protect the budget other than slamming minorities and the less fortunate.

This is not a financial issue.
Its a potential solution to a long standing problem.

Besides which, what has pouring money into the problem actually achieved.
Its made things worse.

So you think pulling money from education for Indigenous Australians is a solution to a “long standing problem”? Never realised that education was a problem. Maybe we should all stop having it.

11854
Quoted Post
Might I suggest that people read the context of his remarks instead of browsing the headline of The Guardian or Green Left Weekly or Twitter or whatever.

Laughable that Abbott gets branded as some sort of racist. Probably does more for the indigenous community on his own than the rest of the Parliament combined.

You get the feeling that the ‘outrage’ community would prefer they live in squalor so they have a little cause to shout about at dinner parties.

for example???

He does a week volunteering in remote Aboriginal communities once a year and has been doing it for a decade.
He doesn’t publicize it.

Perhaps someone can let me know what the likes of Rudd. Gillard, Plibersek, Shorten and Wong do.

Don’t think it’s been a decade, & it has been publicised, particularly since he has been lib leader. Call me a cynic, but it has always been a complete mocked up for purpose political exercise to counter the view that he really doesn’t care about our indigenous peoples, which, IMO, he doesn’t, & that is now becoming obvious to all.

It’s in the same vein as Phoney being the “Minister for women”.

11855

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
What solutions do you or the Libs offer though DT? Removing funding isn't offering a solution, all it is doing is trying to save money from the budget.

Meanwhile companies, especially mining ones, continue to minimise the amount of tax they pay thereby robbing Australia of an opportunity to balance the budget. Then, on top of that, you have a loop-hole in the super laws that allow a person to put however much money into their super and only be taxed at 15%, even if they were to put in millions, which is what is happening. So instead of this millionaire paying 48% tax, they end up paying only 15%.

There are many other ways to raise revenue or protect the budget other than slamming minorities and the less fortunate.

This is not a financial issue.
Its a potential solution to a long standing problem.

Besides which, what has pouring money into the problem actually achieved.
Its made things worse.

So you think pulling money from education for Indigenous Australians is a solution to a “long standing problem”? Never realised that education was a problem. Maybe we should all stop having it.

Education is the problem as far as the Tories are concerned. It should remain the domain for only wealthy white folks. This has always been thier mantra.

Who the hell will clean thier homes & pick up thier garbage if everyone went to Uni? They need to

11856
Speaking as someone in a household with two incomes relying on salary sacrifice, it's a friggin' rort. Super and SS has to be reeled in. Slowly, not like farkstick Rudd who called a significant amount of middle Australia tax cheats and they were going to go from everything to nothing overnight.

There’s crap like this everywhere, not just super and SS, but the mining tax that the Liberals stole from the nation (might be too friggin’ late now), the garbage tax the highest earning Australian companies are paying, the even more garbage tax international companies are paying in Australia, rebates, handouts, and apparently gold-plated maternity leave (does my head in against this economic backdrop, it really does)…

It’s there. It’s everywhere.
Which is why the Libs make me so friggin’ angry.
They’re just so intellectually lazy.

Cut health, education, ABC, R&D, tax petrol, alcohol, cigarettes…

I COULD ■■■■■■■ DO THAT!
I COULD HAVE COME UP WITH THAT WHEN I WAS 20!

Completely agree with all of this. SS maybe has a place. But I keep getting called up offering more and more stuff. Oh, meals and entertainment on top? K. New car? Why not! Car servicing? Sure, chuck that in too. Phone? don't mind if I do! And that's on top of the $8 or $9k or whatever it is on mortgage/rent.

I take and use it cos it’s offered. But it’s really just pinching tax that by definition people working FT (ie people who can probably afford it better) are paying, and I can’t help thinking all these new inclusions are only because of an accountant somewhere spitballin’ what he/she can get through, and getting away with it.

11857
Speaking as someone in a household with two incomes relying on salary sacrifice, it's a friggin' rort. Super and SS has to be reeled in. Slowly, not like farkstick Rudd who called a significant amount of middle Australia tax cheats and they were going to go from everything to nothing overnight.

There’s crap like this everywhere, not just super and SS, but the mining tax that the Liberals stole from the nation (might be too friggin’ late now), the garbage tax the highest earning Australian companies are paying, the even more garbage tax international companies are paying in Australia, rebates, handouts, and apparently gold-plated maternity leave (does my head in against this economic backdrop, it really does)…

It’s there. It’s everywhere.
Which is why the Libs make me so friggin’ angry.
They’re just so intellectually lazy.

Cut health, education, ABC, R&D, tax petrol, alcohol, cigarettes…

I COULD ■■■■■■■ DO THAT!
I COULD HAVE COME UP WITH THAT WHEN I WAS 20!

Completely agree with all of this. SS maybe has a place. But I keep getting called up offering more and more stuff. Oh, meals and entertainment on top? K. New car? Why not! Car servicing? Sure, chuck that in too. Phone? don't mind if I do! And that's on top of the $8 or $9k or whatever it is on mortgage/rent.

I take and use it cos it’s offered. But it’s really just pinching tax that by definition people working FT (ie people who can probably afford it better) are paying, and I can’t help thinking all these new inclusions are only because of an accountant somewhere spitballin’ what he/she can get through, and getting away with it.

EDIT: Actually, now I think about it, pretty much the last 80% of the pages on a tax return, scheme X, offset Y, off-shore Z.
I dunno how much it’s worth, in toto. But frigging scrap it. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck…

11858

Quoted Post

Quoted Post
Quoted Post
Quoted Post
What solutions do you or the Libs offer though DT? Removing funding isn't offering a solution, all it is doing is trying to save money from the budget.

Meanwhile companies, especially mining ones, continue to minimise the amount of tax they pay thereby robbing Australia of an opportunity to balance the budget. Then, on top of that, you have a loop-hole in the super laws that allow a person to put however much money into their super and only be taxed at 15%, even if they were to put in millions, which is what is happening. So instead of this millionaire paying 48% tax, they end up paying only 15%.

There are many other ways to raise revenue or protect the budget other than slamming minorities and the less fortunate.

This is not a financial issue.
Its a potential solution to a long standing problem.

Besides which, what has pouring money into the problem actually achieved.
Its made things worse.

So you think pulling money from education for Indigenous Australians is a solution to a “long standing problem”? Never realised that education was a problem. Maybe we should all stop having it.

Education is the problem as far as the Tories are concerned. It should remain the domain for only wealthy white folks. This has always been thier mantra.

Who the hell will clean thier homes & pick up thier garbage if everyone went to Uni? They need to

Where on earth do you get this nonsense from?