Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Discuss politics and current affairs here.

Hot topic: The scourge of negative gearing, Friends of the NBN and wrecking lives.  The economy and Poll tracking— all the polls.

Special Feature 1: Peter Costello and our current deficits.
Special Feature 2: Dr Turnbull and the wrong NBN prescription
Special Feature 3: The Denigration of science, technology and education.
.
Forum rules
The rules for this board are in the Charter of Moderation. Politics is for serious discussion of politics, economics and current affairs.

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby Bongalong » 12 Apr 2019, 14:37

SethBullock wrote:Toyota, Hyundai, Volkswagen, and BMW all manufacture in the U.S. Nissan has four U.S. plants. I would think your Labor Party would love to encourage this sort of thing.

yEH, THEY DID BUT CAPITAL "L"-IBS F****** ED IT OFF COS THEY'RE LIKE,.. YA KNOW,.. LIKE,.. HARDCORE AN SHITE... that's their voter base... tryhard nasty c***S!

They know they're all f'd and that copper internet is their legacy- that is why they have given up and it will be a walkover this election because they are so ashamed of themswelves for being absolute c****** after a once in a hundred year mining boom and they gave their kids kids kids copper internet in the asian century this country actually built.

WATCH THIS SPACE : IT WILL BE HISTORIC!!! :tweed :Hi :Hi :Hi :Hi :Hi :Hi :Hi :Hi :Hi :Hi :beer :bgrin :bike :bike :bike :bike :yak yak :zzzz
"Oi!"
Bongalong
Jaguar
 
Posts: 2249
Joined: 25 Jun 2018, 11:48
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby johnsmith » 12 Apr 2019, 15:13

hatty wrote:you can rent ok.[/color]......



Depends on where you are. Good luck being on a single person on a pension and trying to rent any more than one bedroom on the gold coast.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 8348
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 21:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby johnsmith » 12 Apr 2019, 15:34

SethBullock wrote:
hatty wrote:bongs right...... NBN farce

housing affordability coupled with no job security.

climate change, and automation....

Our young people have been completely fucked over by our fortunate boomer generation..... and should be furious about it


Hatty, I don't understand abbreviations that you guys are used to like NBN.

It seems to me that if housing prices are high, there must be people willing and able to pay those prices. And if prices rise too high, the number of buyers will decrease, forcing prices down. The other thing that occurs to me is that a developer could construct a neighborhood of modest lower cost homes and probably do well.



Hi Seth. In order to provide some clarity I'll jump in. The NBN and house prices are two sewperate issues.

NBN = National Broadband Network.

The Australian labor party had a plan to replace all the old copper telephone network with fibre optic cable (to every house). Which would have given us one of the fastest, most reliable internet networks in the world.

The liberal party, for the sake of politics, opposed it and changed it to a mixed technology network. At the time they claimed it would cost less but actual costs have far exceeded forecast costs for the original NBN). So now we have a mix of fibre, copper, coax and wireless.... running to nodes (not the house) across the country. Depending on where you are determines what you get. The problem is that as fast as the new add on's may be, as soon as they join up to the old copper (from node to house) everything chokes up. The further you live from the nearest node, the slower your connection. It is also unreliable as the nodes require electricity and ongoing maintenance. If they get water in them during storms, no internet for anyone down that line. In many cases the service is worse than it was under the old ADSL system. Speeds are also about the same as they were under ADSL. The original NBN would have seen us through for another 50 yrs at least. The mixed technology stuff is already unable to cope with demand in some areas, and it will only get worse.

Now onto house prices.
Housing prices are affected, many believe, by the governments negative gearing laws and Capital gains tax laws. People borrow money to buy houses just to minimise their taxes. Because these people in most cases already own their houses, and often own one or more other investment properties, it is easier for them to get funding. This also means they can, and often do, afford to pay more for the house than a young couple looking to buy their first home.

The boomer people are the group of people born during the 'baby boomer generation, typically those born from 1946 to 1960. These are the ones who were able to benefit the most from negative gearing and capital gains tax laws because property was still fairly cheap when they started buying.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 8348
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 21:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby johnsmith » 12 Apr 2019, 15:44

SethBullock wrote:
Sprintcyclist wrote:yes, it is very unfortunate.

The American attitude is one reason I love Trump.
He is bringing Jobs back.

It is crucial to have a diverse economic base.
We have resources, agriculture and tourism. That is it.


I can't imagine why both the Libs and Labs wouldn't want to do everything in their power to encourage manufacturing in your country.



All our manufacturers have moved to china and other Asian countries. What do you suggest they do? reintroduce tariffs? They'd just retaliate and introduce tariffs on goods from Australia. As a country dependent on it's exports we would suffer more than we would gain.

I'm not a believer in dropping tax rates. Companies use the infrastructure govt. provides, they should help pay for it. Besides, what happens when everyone is on zero corporate tax? It's a downhill race.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 8348
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 21:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby SethBullock » 13 Apr 2019, 20:50

johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
hatty wrote:bongs right...... NBN farce

housing affordability coupled with no job security.

climate change, and automation....

Our young people have been completely fucked over by our fortunate boomer generation..... and should be furious about it


Hatty, I don't understand abbreviations that you guys are used to like NBN.

It seems to me that if housing prices are high, there must be people willing and able to pay those prices. And if prices rise too high, the number of buyers will decrease, forcing prices down. The other thing that occurs to me is that a developer could construct a neighborhood of modest lower cost homes and probably do well.



Hi Seth. In order to provide some clarity I'll jump in. The NBN and house prices are two sewperate issues.

NBN = National Broadband Network.

The Australian labor party had a plan to replace all the old copper telephone network with fibre optic cable (to every house). Which would have given us one of the fastest, most reliable internet networks in the world.

The liberal party, for the sake of politics, opposed it and changed it to a mixed technology network. At the time they claimed it would cost less but actual costs have far exceeded forecast costs for the original NBN). So now we have a mix of fibre, copper, coax and wireless.... running to nodes (not the house) across the country. Depending on where you are determines what you get. The problem is that as fast as the new add on's may be, as soon as they join up to the old copper (from node to house) everything chokes up. The further you live from the nearest node, the slower your connection. It is also unreliable as the nodes require electricity and ongoing maintenance. If they get water in them during storms, no internet for anyone down that line. In many cases the service is worse than it was under the old ADSL system. Speeds are also about the same as they were under ADSL. The original NBN would have seen us through for another 50 yrs at least. The mixed technology stuff is already unable to cope with demand in some areas, and it will only get worse.

Now onto house prices.
Housing prices are affected, many believe, by the governments negative gearing laws and Capital gains tax laws. People borrow money to buy houses just to minimise their taxes. Because these people in most cases already own their houses, and often own one or more other investment properties, it is easier for them to get funding. This also means they can, and often do, afford to pay more for the house than a young couple looking to buy their first home.

The boomer people are the group of people born during the 'baby boomer generation, typically those born from 1946 to 1960. These are the ones who were able to benefit the most from negative gearing and capital gains tax laws because property was still fairly cheap when they started buying.


In the U.S. a taxpayer may deduct their mortgage interest from their taxable income. So if you earned $100k but had mortgage interest of $20k, your taxable income is only $80k, thus lowering your taxes. But in the U.S. you may only do this on your primary residence and one other house. The deduction exists to help make home ownership more affordable and to support the construction and banking industries. But again, it only applies to two houses. I suspect that the reasoning is that if one can afford a third, fourth, fifth ... house, that someone like that no longer needs to be subsidized with a mortgage deduction. And while it is important to have some houses for rent in a community, you certainly don't want all the houses to be gobbled up by landlords. So perhaps it would help things in Australia if there were some restrictions on how many houses a person can apply that negative gearing to. By doing that, it might help the first time home buyer to be on a more level playing field with the landlords, thereby lowering the cost of homes.
"At least he's not Hillary" - Hatty

"There's only one solution: MORE guns!" - greggerypeccary

"You must be a muslim, god nutter or apologist for them." - Dax, to greggery peccary
User avatar
SethBullock
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 12:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby SethBullock » 13 Apr 2019, 21:01

johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
Sprintcyclist wrote:yes, it is very unfortunate.

The American attitude is one reason I love Trump.
He is bringing Jobs back.

It is crucial to have a diverse economic base.
We have resources, agriculture and tourism. That is it.


I can't imagine why both the Libs and Labs wouldn't want to do everything in their power to encourage manufacturing in your country.



All our manufacturers have moved to china and other Asian countries. What do you suggest they do? reintroduce tariffs? They'd just retaliate and introduce tariffs on goods from Australia. As a country dependent on it's exports we would suffer more than we would gain.

I'm not a believer in dropping tax rates. Companies use the infrastructure govt. provides, they should help pay for it. Besides, what happens when everyone is on zero corporate tax? It's a downhill race.


In my humble opinion, it is more important to your economy and your people that they be working at good, full time jobs producing a product. You see, I see a company as simply being an organization of individual people working together to make a living. The company is merely the structure - the organization of those people - that makes that possible. The more people earn, the more they may be taxed on their earnings, and those taxes should be what supports government and infrastructure. But why inhibit the company itself by taxing it? No, I don't think you want a tariff war with other countries, but I do think you want to make Australia as attractive as possible to companies who can produce products. In my opinion, it is better to let a company operate tax free than to have no company at all.
"At least he's not Hillary" - Hatty

"There's only one solution: MORE guns!" - greggerypeccary

"You must be a muslim, god nutter or apologist for them." - Dax, to greggery peccary
User avatar
SethBullock
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 12:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby pinkeye » 13 Apr 2019, 21:04

Bongalong wrote:
SethBullock wrote:I just went to Wiki and read about Australia's economy. It painted a pretty rosy picture. You have one of the highest GDP's per capita in the world.

A wealthy country, Australia has a market economy, a high GDP per capita, and a relatively low rate of poverty. In terms of average wealth, Australia ranked second in the world after Switzerland from 2013 until 2018.[229] In 2018, Australia overtook Switzerland and become the country with the highest average wealth.[229] Australia's poverty rate increased from 10.2% to 11.8%, from 2000/01 to 2013.[230][231] It was identified by the Credit Suisse Research Institute as the nation with the highest median wealth in the world and the second-highest average wealth per adult in 2013.


But it does mention your dependence on exporting commodities rather than manufactured goods.

What restrains manufacturing in Australia?

gREED! :rofl



Sad but true, and not very funny …
Profit is the word...

Government bows to business,
so GREED succeeds.
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Warthog
 
Posts: 3324
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 20:59
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby pinkeye » 13 Apr 2019, 21:05

johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
Sprintcyclist wrote:yes, it is very unfortunate.

The American attitude is one reason I love Trump.
He is bringing Jobs back.

It is crucial to have a diverse economic base.
We have resources, agriculture and tourism. That is it.


I can't imagine why both the Libs and Labs wouldn't want to do everything in their power to encourage manufacturing in your country.



All our manufacturers have moved to china and other Asian countries. What do you suggest they do? reintroduce tariffs? They'd just retaliate and introduce tariffs on goods from Australia. As a country dependent on it's exports we would suffer more than we would gain.

I'm not a believer in dropping tax rates. Companies use the infrastructure govt. provides, they should help pay for it. Besides, what happens when everyone is on zero corporate tax? It's a downhill race.



Yes it is.. and the hill is getting even steeper.
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Warthog
 
Posts: 3324
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 20:59
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby pinkeye » 13 Apr 2019, 21:11

SethBullock wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
hatty wrote:bongs right...... NBN farce

housing affordability coupled with no job security.

climate change, and automation....

Our young people have been completely fucked over by our fortunate boomer generation..... and should be furious about it


Hatty, I don't understand abbreviations that you guys are used to like NBN.

It seems to me that if housing prices are high, there must be people willing and able to pay those prices. And if prices rise too high, the number of buyers will decrease, forcing prices down. The other thing that occurs to me is that a developer could construct a neighborhood of modest lower cost homes and probably do well.



Hi Seth. In order to provide some clarity I'll jump in. The NBN and house prices are two sewperate issues.

NBN = National Broadband Network.

In the U.S. a taxpayer may deduct their mortgage interest from their taxable income. So if you earned $100k but had mortgage interest of $20k, your taxable income is only $80k, thus lowering your taxes. But in the U.S. you may only do this on your primary residence and one other house. The deduction exists to help make home ownership more affordable and to support the construction and banking industries. But again, it only applies to two houses. I suspect that the reasoning is that if one can afford a third, fourth, fifth ... house, that someone like that no longer needs to be subsidized with a mortgage deduction. And while it is important to have some houses for rent in a community, you certainly don't want all the houses to be gobbled up by landlords. So perhaps it would help things in Australia if there were some restrictions on how many houses a person can apply that negative gearing to. By doing that, it might help the first time home buyer to be on a more level playing field with the landlords, thereby lowering the cost of homes.


That has never happened here.

ONLY Investors get to claim INTEREST on a property, against their yearly tax obligations.

Never ever ever.. unless you count INVESTORS... who get to claim all household expense and upkeep in their investment homes. There are some Capital Gains Tax implications when the property is sold, but basically, NEGATIVE GEARING, has only been available to Investment properties. Absolutely NO HELP to those trying to buy a home.
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Warthog
 
Posts: 3324
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 20:59
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby SethBullock » 13 Apr 2019, 21:15

And by the way ....

If you have an Australian-owned company producing its products in China, you ought to tax the profits of that company plenty. If you have a company producing that same product in Australia, don't tax it. I feel the same way about American companies producing cheap crap in China. I'm not talking about tariffs. I'm talking about corporate income tax.
"At least he's not Hillary" - Hatty

"There's only one solution: MORE guns!" - greggerypeccary

"You must be a muslim, god nutter or apologist for them." - Dax, to greggery peccary
User avatar
SethBullock
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 12:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby SethBullock » 13 Apr 2019, 21:29

pinkeye wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
hatty wrote:bongs right...... NBN farce

housing affordability coupled with no job security.

climate change, and automation....

Our young people have been completely fucked over by our fortunate boomer generation..... and should be furious about it


Hatty, I don't understand abbreviations that you guys are used to like NBN.

It seems to me that if housing prices are high, there must be people willing and able to pay those prices. And if prices rise too high, the number of buyers will decrease, forcing prices down. The other thing that occurs to me is that a developer could construct a neighborhood of modest lower cost homes and probably do well.



Hi Seth. In order to provide some clarity I'll jump in. The NBN and house prices are two sewperate issues.

NBN = National Broadband Network.

In the U.S. a taxpayer may deduct their mortgage interest from their taxable income. So if you earned $100k but had mortgage interest of $20k, your taxable income is only $80k, thus lowering your taxes. But in the U.S. you may only do this on your primary residence and one other house. The deduction exists to help make home ownership more affordable and to support the construction and banking industries. But again, it only applies to two houses. I suspect that the reasoning is that if one can afford a third, fourth, fifth ... house, that someone like that no longer needs to be subsidized with a mortgage deduction. And while it is important to have some houses for rent in a community, you certainly don't want all the houses to be gobbled up by landlords. So perhaps it would help things in Australia if there were some restrictions on how many houses a person can apply that negative gearing to. By doing that, it might help the first time home buyer to be on a more level playing field with the landlords, thereby lowering the cost of homes.


That has never happened here.

ONLY Investors get to claim INTEREST on a property, against their yearly tax obligations.

Never ever ever.. unless you count INVESTORS... who get to claim all household expense and upkeep in their investment homes. There are some Capital Gains Tax implications when the property is sold, but basically, NEGATIVE GEARING, has only been available to Investment properties. Absolutely NO HELP to those trying to buy a home.


Well, that's not fair. Pure and simple, not fair. People who own only one home (the one they live in) ought to be able to deduct their mortgage interest just like the investors who buy multiple homes can. That seems like a self-defeating policy to me.
"At least he's not Hillary" - Hatty

"There's only one solution: MORE guns!" - greggerypeccary

"You must be a muslim, god nutter or apologist for them." - Dax, to greggery peccary
User avatar
SethBullock
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 12:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby Sprintcyclist » 13 Apr 2019, 21:53

SethBullock wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
Sprintcyclist wrote:yes, it is very unfortunate.

The American attitude is one reason I love Trump.
He is bringing Jobs back.

It is crucial to have a diverse economic base.
We have resources, agriculture and tourism. That is it.


I can't imagine why both the Libs and Labs wouldn't want to do everything in their power to encourage manufacturing in your country.



All our manufacturers have moved to china and other Asian countries. What do you suggest they do? reintroduce tariffs? They'd just retaliate and introduce tariffs on goods from Australia. As a country dependent on it's exports we would suffer more than we would gain.

I'm not a believer in dropping tax rates. Companies use the infrastructure govt. provides, they should help pay for it. Besides, what happens when everyone is on zero corporate tax? It's a downhill race.


In my humble opinion, it is more important to your economy and your people that they be working at good, full time jobs producing a product. You see, I see a company as simply being an organization of individual people working together to make a living. The company is merely the structure - the organization of those people - that makes that possible. The more people earn, the more they may be taxed on their earnings, and those taxes should be what supports government and infrastructure. But why inhibit the company itself by taxing it? No, I don't think you want a tariff war with other countries, but I do think you want to make Australia as attractive as possible to companies who can produce products. In my opinion, it is better to let a company operate tax free than to have no company at all.


in essence, I agree
Sprintcyclist
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1624
Joined: 16 Jul 2018, 07:14
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby pinkeye » 14 Apr 2019, 03:00

SethBullock wrote:
pinkeye wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
hatty wrote:bongs right...... NBN farce

housing affordability coupled with no job security.

climate change, and automation....

Our young people have been completely fucked over by our fortunate boomer generation..... and should be furious about it


Hatty, I don't understand abbreviations that you guys are used to like NBN.

It seems to me that if housing prices are high, there must be people willing and able to pay those prices. And if prices rise too high, the number of buyers will decrease, forcing prices down. The other thing that occurs to me is that a developer could construct a neighborhood of modest lower cost homes and probably do well.



Hi Seth. In order to provide some clarity I'll jump in. The NBN and house prices are two sewperate issues.

NBN = National Broadband Network.

In the U.S. a taxpayer may deduct their mortgage interest from their taxable income. So if you earned $100k but had mortgage interest of $20k, your taxable income is only $80k, thus lowering your taxes. But in the U.S. you may only do this on your primary residence and one other house. The deduction exists to help make home ownership more affordable and to support the construction and banking industries. But again, it only applies to two houses. I suspect that the reasoning is that if one can afford a third, fourth, fifth ... house, that someone like that no longer needs to be subsidized with a mortgage deduction. And while it is important to have some houses for rent in a community, you certainly don't want all the houses to be gobbled up by landlords. So perhaps it would help things in Australia if there were some restrictions on how many houses a person can apply that negative gearing to. By doing that, it might help the first time home buyer to be on a more level playing field with the landlords, thereby lowering the cost of homes.


That has never happened here.

ONLY Investors get to claim INTEREST on a property, against their yearly tax obligations.

Never ever ever.. unless you count INVESTORS... who get to claim all household expense and upkeep in their investment homes. There are some Capital Gains Tax implications when the property is sold, but basically, NEGATIVE GEARING, has only been available to Investment properties. Absolutely NO HELP to those trying to buy a home.


Well, that's not fair. Pure and simple, not fair. People who own only one home (the one they live in) ought to be able to deduct their mortgage interest just like the investors who buy multiple homes can. That seems like a self-defeating policy to me.


Seems unfair to me too.
Australia is a composite nation. We talk the talk, but our government doesn't walk the walk. Scumbags.

So much promise and so little leadership or vision.
sleeping is good for you
User avatar
pinkeye
Warthog
 
Posts: 3324
Joined: 01 Oct 2017, 20:59
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby DonDeeHippy » 14 Apr 2019, 06:05

I think its even worse that you can loose your job and if you have a mortgage you get no assistance but if you rent you get assistance, so if you have your act together and trying to buy your own home the gov wont help, but if you rent they will help pay your landlords mortgage..... madness :purple
Bongalong... for some reason women are just so superior to anything that ever existed or will ever exist!
User avatar
DonDeeHippy
Cheetah
 
Posts: 1314
Joined: 25 Apr 2018, 20:18
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby johnsmith » 14 Apr 2019, 10:07

SethBullock wrote:
In the U.S. a taxpayer may deduct their mortgage interest from their taxable income. So if you earned $100k but had mortgage interest of $20k, your taxable income is only $80k, thus lowering your taxes. But in the U.S. you may only do this on your primary residence and one other house. The deduction exists to help make home ownership more affordable and to support the construction and banking industries. But again, it only applies to two houses. I suspect that the reasoning is that if one can afford a third, fourth, fifth ... house, that someone like that no longer needs to be subsidized with a mortgage deduction. And while it is important to have some houses for rent in a community, you certainly don't want all the houses to be gobbled up by landlords. So perhaps it would help things in Australia if there were some restrictions on how many houses a person can apply that negative gearing to. By doing that, it might help the first time home buyer to be on a more level playing field with the landlords, thereby lowering the cost of homes.


The Australian labor party is now running for election (an election was called a couple of days ago for May 18 ... if polls are correct we will have a change of government soon and the labor party will win easily) under the platform that they will abolish negative gearing on existing houses, in the future only those who purchase or build a new house can negatively gear (claim the interest as a tax deduction). Their reasoning is that this will increase demand for new houses, which in turn increases housing stock and in turn reduces prices.

Personally, I would have preferred they limit negative gearing to one or two houses per couple. Old or new. Making interest repayments on the primary residence is also something that is worth looking at as it will make housing more affordable for many first home buyers.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 8348
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 21:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby johnsmith » 14 Apr 2019, 10:36

SethBullock wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
Sprintcyclist wrote:yes, it is very unfortunate.

The American attitude is one reason I love Trump.
He is bringing Jobs back.

It is crucial to have a diverse economic base.
We have resources, agriculture and tourism. That is it.


I can't imagine why both the Libs and Labs wouldn't want to do everything in their power to encourage manufacturing in your country.



All our manufacturers have moved to china and other Asian countries. What do you suggest they do? reintroduce tariffs? They'd just retaliate and introduce tariffs on goods from Australia. As a country dependent on it's exports we would suffer more than we would gain.

I'm not a believer in dropping tax rates. Companies use the infrastructure govt. provides, they should help pay for it. Besides, what happens when everyone is on zero corporate tax? It's a downhill race.


In my humble opinion, it is more important to your economy and your people that they be working at good, full time jobs producing a product. You see, I see a company as simply being an organization of individual people working together to make a living. The company is merely the structure - the organization of those people - that makes that possible. The more people earn, the more they may be taxed on their earnings, and those taxes should be what supports government and infrastructure. But why inhibit the company itself by taxing it? No, I don't think you want a tariff war with other countries, but I do think you want to make Australia as attractive as possible to companies who can produce products. In my opinion, it is better to let a company operate tax free than to have no company at all.


That may sound nice in theory, but the facts remain that Countries need tax revenue. You're country is in so much debt because you can't raise enough revenue to meet your needs. You will never raise enough revenue if you exempt corporations. Cutting the revenue you collect further will only lead to more pain further down the road. The US's time as the worlds economic super power will come to an end. Global trade won't always be conducted in US dollars. Sooner or later you will need to pay the piper and it won't be pretty.

If corporations use the services govt. provides, they rely on them, then they can help pay to maintain them. When the US and all it's competitors are all on zero corporate tax rates, what happens then? Because ultimately that's what will happen if the neo liberals get their way.

Personally I think that if countries move manufacturing overseas, they should pay to import their products back into the country but I haven't figured out a way to make that work without it ending up in a tariff war

The only viable alternative to corporate taxes, as far as I can see, is a transaction tax. That way it doesn't matter where the product comes from, or where you move the profits after, if the money moves into, in, or out of Australia you pay tax in Australia. There is no tax benefit to manufacturers moving off shore.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 8348
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 21:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby johnsmith » 14 Apr 2019, 10:43

SethBullock wrote:Well, that's not fair. Pure and simple, not fair. People who own only one home (the one they live in) ought to be able to deduct their mortgage interest just like the investors who buy multiple homes can. That seems like a self-defeating policy to me.


It is fair when you look at our tax laws. Although I agree that it is not fair in the social setting.

In Australia, tax deductions are only allowable for legitimate expenses incurred in obtaining your taxable income. If your taxable income includes, for example, $20 000 of rental income from your investment property, then it is only fair that the interest expense you pay to obtain that income (ie. interest on loan) is also allowed as a deduction.

The primary residence does not contribute to your taxable income (you derive no income from it). Therefore any expenses related to your primary residence are not tax deductible.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 8348
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 21:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby johnsmith » 14 Apr 2019, 10:44

DonDeeHippy wrote:I think its even worse that you can loose your job and if you have a mortgage you get no assistance but if you rent you get assistance, so if you have your act together and trying to buy your own home the gov wont help, but if you rent they will help pay your landlords mortgage..... madness :purple



now that is a problem that should be addressed.
FD.
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
User avatar
johnsmith
Mastodon
 
Posts: 8348
Joined: 25 Sep 2017, 21:39
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby SethBullock » 14 Apr 2019, 13:01

johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
In the U.S. a taxpayer may deduct their mortgage interest from their taxable income. So if you earned $100k but had mortgage interest of $20k, your taxable income is only $80k, thus lowering your taxes. But in the U.S. you may only do this on your primary residence and one other house. The deduction exists to help make home ownership more affordable and to support the construction and banking industries. But again, it only applies to two houses. I suspect that the reasoning is that if one can afford a third, fourth, fifth ... house, that someone like that no longer needs to be subsidized with a mortgage deduction. And while it is important to have some houses for rent in a community, you certainly don't want all the houses to be gobbled up by landlords. So perhaps it would help things in Australia if there were some restrictions on how many houses a person can apply that negative gearing to. By doing that, it might help the first time home buyer to be on a more level playing field with the landlords, thereby lowering the cost of homes.


The Australian labor party is now running for election (an election was called a couple of days ago for May 18 ... if polls are correct we will have a change of government soon and the labor party will win easily) under the platform that they will abolish negative gearing on existing houses, in the future only those who purchase or build a new house can negatively gear (claim the interest as a tax deduction). Their reasoning is that this will increase demand for new houses, which in turn increases housing stock and in turn reduces prices.

Personally, I would have preferred they limit negative gearing to one or two houses per couple. Old or new. Making interest repayments on the primary residence is also something that is worth looking at as it will make housing more affordable for many first home buyers.


Agree.
"At least he's not Hillary" - Hatty

"There's only one solution: MORE guns!" - greggerypeccary

"You must be a muslim, god nutter or apologist for them." - Dax, to greggery peccary
User avatar
SethBullock
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 12:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby SethBullock » 14 Apr 2019, 13:34

johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
Sprintcyclist wrote:yes, it is very unfortunate.

The American attitude is one reason I love Trump.
He is bringing Jobs back.

It is crucial to have a diverse economic base.
We have resources, agriculture and tourism. That is it.


I can't imagine why both the Libs and Labs wouldn't want to do everything in their power to encourage manufacturing in your country.



All our manufacturers have moved to china and other Asian countries. What do you suggest they do? reintroduce tariffs? They'd just retaliate and introduce tariffs on goods from Australia. As a country dependent on it's exports we would suffer more than we would gain.

I'm not a believer in dropping tax rates. Companies use the infrastructure govt. provides, they should help pay for it. Besides, what happens when everyone is on zero corporate tax? It's a downhill race.


In my humble opinion, it is more important to your economy and your people that they be working at good, full time jobs producing a product. You see, I see a company as simply being an organization of individual people working together to make a living. The company is merely the structure - the organization of those people - that makes that possible. The more people earn, the more they may be taxed on their earnings, and those taxes should be what supports government and infrastructure. But why inhibit the company itself by taxing it? No, I don't think you want a tariff war with other countries, but I do think you want to make Australia as attractive as possible to companies who can produce products. In my opinion, it is better to let a company operate tax free than to have no company at all.


That may sound nice in theory, but the facts remain that Countries need tax revenue. You're country is in so much debt because you can't raise enough revenue to meet your needs. You will never raise enough revenue if you exempt corporations. Cutting the revenue you collect further will only lead to more pain further down the road. The US's time as the worlds economic super power will come to an end. Global trade won't always be conducted in US dollars. Sooner or later you will need to pay the piper and it won't be pretty.

If corporations use the services govt. provides, they rely on them, then they can help pay to maintain them. When the US and all it's competitors are all on zero corporate tax rates, what happens then? Because ultimately that's what will happen if the neo liberals get their way.

Personally I think that if countries move manufacturing overseas, they should pay to import their products back into the country but I haven't figured out a way to make that work without it ending up in a tariff war

The only viable alternative to corporate taxes, as far as I can see, is a transaction tax. That way it doesn't matter where the product comes from, or where you move the profits after, if the money moves into, in, or out of Australia you pay tax in Australia. There is no tax benefit to manufacturers moving off shore.


I wouldn't mind a two-tiered corporate tax. One for American companies who manufacture overseas - a high tax on the profits. The other for companies that manufacture inside the U.S. Tax them at a low rate or not at all.

- You want your country to be as competitive as possible.
- It is better to have manufacturing and low or no taxes on those manufacturers than to not have them at all.

- And this ... Government should only exist to make our lives better. We must not think of ourselves as having a subordinate place to government, wherein it is more important that we support government than it is that government serves us. So if a measure would be good for the people, that should outweigh whether or not it is good for government income. Rather than casting aside a good idea for that reason, adopt the good idea and think about replacing the lost revenue. For example, underemployment costs the government money. It represents a lost potential, for the more money people make, the more financially independent they become, and the more taxes are extracted from their incomes. To illustrate, the Hyundai plant in Alabama employs 3000 people with good jobs and benefits. Their company does pay a corporate tax, but even if it paid no tax at all, I would rather have that manufacturing plant there than to not have it all. The good that it does outweighs the importance of it paying the federal government. Furthermore, if you can manufacture both for domestic consumption and export, you are bringing even more money to the country. And a piece of that money will end up as government income. So the point is, turn your country into a good place for a company to set up and manufacture, and the government income will take care of itself. Don't discourage that domestic production with onerous taxes that drive them away to other countries.

This is what we're trying to do in the U.S. since 2016. We lost a huge percentage of our manufacturing base starting in the 90s, and now we are trying to get some of it back.
"At least he's not Hillary" - Hatty

"There's only one solution: MORE guns!" - greggerypeccary

"You must be a muslim, god nutter or apologist for them." - Dax, to greggery peccary
User avatar
SethBullock
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 12:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby Aussie » 14 Apr 2019, 13:37

I wouldn't mind a two-tiered corporate tax. One for American companies who manufacture overseas - a high tax on the profits. The other for companies that manufacture inside the U.S. Tax them at a low rate or not at all.


Either way, the product will cost the consumer exactly the same.
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 8358
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 17:25

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby SethBullock » 14 Apr 2019, 13:40

johnsmith wrote:
SethBullock wrote:Well, that's not fair. Pure and simple, not fair. People who own only one home (the one they live in) ought to be able to deduct their mortgage interest just like the investors who buy multiple homes can. That seems like a self-defeating policy to me.


It is fair when you look at our tax laws. Although I agree that it is not fair in the social setting.

In Australia, tax deductions are only allowable for legitimate expenses incurred in obtaining your taxable income. If your taxable income includes, for example, $20 000 of rental income from your investment property, then it is only fair that the interest expense you pay to obtain that income (ie. interest on loan) is also allowed as a deduction.

The primary residence does not contribute to your taxable income (you derive no income from it). Therefore any expenses related to your primary residence are not tax deductible.


Yes, but it does sound to me like this gives a landlord an unfair advantage over a buyer who just wants to buy their own house. And if landlords, by virtue of this advantage, can outbid non-landlords, that does sound like it could raise the price of houses, making it more difficult for that non-landlord buyer. I think it would be better to just put everyone on a level playing field.
"At least he's not Hillary" - Hatty

"There's only one solution: MORE guns!" - greggerypeccary

"You must be a muslim, god nutter or apologist for them." - Dax, to greggery peccary
User avatar
SethBullock
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 12:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby SethBullock » 14 Apr 2019, 13:46

Aussie wrote:
I wouldn't mind a two-tiered corporate tax. One for American companies who manufacture overseas - a high tax on the profits. The other for companies that manufacture inside the U.S. Tax them at a low rate or not at all.


Either way, the product will cost the consumer exactly the same.


Market forces (supply, demand, competition) will determine the price. The point is to encourage producing the product in the U.S. rather than elsewhere. From what you guys have told me and from what I have read independently about Australia's economy, you could use more of this in your country.
"At least he's not Hillary" - Hatty

"There's only one solution: MORE guns!" - greggerypeccary

"You must be a muslim, god nutter or apologist for them." - Dax, to greggery peccary
User avatar
SethBullock
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 12:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby Aussie » 14 Apr 2019, 13:52

SethBullock wrote:
Aussie wrote:
I wouldn't mind a two-tiered corporate tax. One for American companies who manufacture overseas - a high tax on the profits. The other for companies that manufacture inside the U.S. Tax them at a low rate or not at all.


Either way, the product will cost the consumer exactly the same.


Market forces (supply, demand, competition) will determine the price. The point is to encourage producing the product in the U.S. rather than elsewhere. From what you guys have told me and from what I have read independently about Australia's economy, you could use more of this in your country.


The point is that in both the USA and in Australia, we cannot compete with SE Asian labour cost, and that is why manufacturers abandon their domestic labour force and move overseas.

Make a yoyo in Vietnam and retail (if there were no tariffs) in Australia for $1.00. Make the same yoyo in Australia, you'd have to retail it for $5.00.00

It is a merry go round.
User avatar
Aussie
Minister for Foreign Affairs
 
Posts: 8358
Joined: 13 Mar 2010, 17:25

Re: Federal Election 2019—the campaign

Postby SethBullock » 14 Apr 2019, 13:58

Aussie wrote:
SethBullock wrote:
Aussie wrote:
I wouldn't mind a two-tiered corporate tax. One for American companies who manufacture overseas - a high tax on the profits. The other for companies that manufacture inside the U.S. Tax them at a low rate or not at all.


Either way, the product will cost the consumer exactly the same.


Market forces (supply, demand, competition) will determine the price. The point is to encourage producing the product in the U.S. rather than elsewhere. From what you guys have told me and from what I have read independently about Australia's economy, you could use more of this in your country.


The point is that in both the USA and in Australia, we cannot compete with SE Asian labour cost, and that is why manufacturers abandon their domestic labour force and move overseas.

Make a yoyo in Vietnam and retail (if there were no tariffs) in Australia for $1.00. Make the same yoyo in Australia, you'd have to retail it for $5.00.00

It is a merry go round.


Which pisses me off - at ourselves. We are, in effect, modern day slave owners so we can have our cheap shit. We just aren't the ones cracking the whips anymore.

FFS, they've got suicide nets outside Asian manufacturing plants. Suicide nets!!
"At least he's not Hillary" - Hatty

"There's only one solution: MORE guns!" - greggerypeccary

"You must be a muslim, god nutter or apologist for them." - Dax, to greggery peccary
User avatar
SethBullock
Jaguar
 
Posts: 1912
Joined: 22 Oct 2018, 12:37
Location: Oregon, USA
spamone: Animal

PreviousNext

Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bongalong and 2 guests