CaptainQuintero Posted May 20, 2014 Posted May 20, 2014 A friend sent me this today, is there any truth in this? Seems a little extreme if true. I thought you lot were in the midst of a huge mining boom/soaring economy? ------------------ Australia is to become the first country in the world with a retirement age of 70. The ability to see a doctor without an up-front payment will be ended. Unemployed people under 30 years of age will be left destitute, without income for six months, and then forced into work-for-the-dole schemes. The incomes of millions of working-class families will be slashed by over 10 percent as increased taxes and cuts to welfare benefits take effect. From 2016, students will be charged tens of thousands of dollars in annual fees as the university system is fully deregulated. http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014.../budg-m17.html Australia: Budget to cut youth off welfare - http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014.../welf-m13.html Australian budget ends Age of Entitlement - http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014.../pers-m15.html
paulF Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Unfortunately yes. We need lots of reforms but this is not the way to go about it...
El Presidente Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Right now, 8000,000 (yes Million) Australians out of a population of 23 Million are receiving some form of handout. It can't continue or come 2030 we will be in a ton of strife. And I agree with Paul that the solution proposed is overall wrong. 1
Maplepie Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Unfortunately yes. We need lots of reforms but this is not the way to go about it... how much support is it getting, though? i mean, it's hard to imagine full public support of an entire pendulum swing...
Ken Gargett Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 how much support is it getting, though? i mean, it's hard to imagine full public support of an entire pendulum swing... 3 year electoral cycle. so if they see the need to make the tough cuts, they have to do it first year. support has collapsed but the public is fickle. they'll forget. amazes me that they have not pushed the 'we had to do it because of the last lot' button more often. both sides usually do it to justify the tough budgets early. and in truth, we would not have such a crappy tough budget if not for the previous morons. the current morons will try and fix it though who knows where we'll end up. what this has shown is how truly appalling - and really stupid - our media is. we had all that crap about a bloke smoking a cigar. like people on all sides don't smoke and drink. holy crap. and he was doing it in private. then we have brekkie tv ambush the prime minister with vilma. i remember vilma from the 70s and 80s as a very pro labor activist. and she was later revealed as a strong rudd supporter. but she is put up as some poor fragile suffering 85 year pensioner. what a load of crap. i have no problem with them using her but at least be honest. and finally, our supposedly most respected political journo - an aussie jim lehrer, if you like - laurie oakes. first question to the treasurer was not about the budget details or anything relevant. instead, why were you dancing the day before the budget was delivered. sensational muck raking and as far as i am concerned, i could not have less respect for the old grub. he was dancing with his 9 year old son who he had not seen for three weeks. politicians, both sides, and journos - the vast majority have about as much integrity as serial killers and paedophile priests. mind you, one journo did come up with a great line. hockey and abbott have done what bill shorten could never do. make shorten the preferred option for PM. 1
Ken Gargett Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 oh wowsers, that's quite a lot to digest, Ken... hey, i got politician, journos and priests in the one post. toss in guns and i'd have the slam!
Maplepie Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 toss in guns and i'd have the slam! : oh let's not get back into that, now... unless one of you jackana out there wants to get him started again
sengjc Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Right now, 8,000,000 (yes Million) Australians out of a population of 23 Million are receiving some form of handout... Wow! That many? Seriously? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
polarbear Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Wow! That many? Seriously? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD When you consider there is currently A single Parent pension An retired pension A disability pension A carrers allowance Youth allowance Unemployment benefits and prob a few more I've forgotten It's not hard to see where that figure comes from.
kwsaw63 Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Personally I think all countries would do well to adopt Singapore's system where the Government is required by the Constitution to have a balanced budget over it's term in office. Would put a stop to all the crazy populist policies that allow politicians to bribe their way into getting elected/re-elected.
Bulldog4 Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 british columbia canada has the balanced budget it doesn't do anything they just pull numbers from there to add here its just like being an accountant move some here add this subtract that add potential earning bingo presto chango
dicko Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 They should abolish negative gearing. The taxpayer pays for people's poor investments. Also public policy issue it drives up prices for other would be purchasers i.e first home owners like me. 2
Ken Gargett Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 They should abolish negative gearing. The taxpayer pays for people's poor investments. Also public policy issue it drives up prices for other would be purchasers i.e first home owners like me. i think you are right re the second part of that. not so much the first part - the idea is to use those purchases for tax. always remember the story of some bloke with a tax problem back in the day when investing in aussie films gave huge tax breaks. the bloke's accountant put him into the latest offering. usual story - film costs XX, makes a big loss, investor gets a big tax deduction. the problem was the offering was for a little film called 'crocodile dundee'. he ended up with a massive tax problem!
LexG Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 They should abolish negative gearing. The taxpayer pays for people's poor investments. Also public policy issue it drives up prices for other would be purchasers i.e first home owners like me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't abolishing negative gearing mean less people can afford to buy investment properties, and lead to a real estate slump, and even more people relying on the shakey super industry?
dicko Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 i think you are right re the second part of that. not so much the first part - the idea is to use those purchases for tax. always remember the story of some bloke with a tax problem back in the day when investing in aussie films gave huge tax breaks. the bloke's accountant put him into the latest offering. usual story - film costs XX, makes a big loss, investor gets a big tax deduction. the problem was the offering was for a little film called 'crocodile dundee'. he ended up with a massive tax problem! No doubt it's a good idea to use an investment property to reduce your taxable income (particularly if you're on good coin). I just don't think that option should be available to people though. if you want to invest in property, go for it, but why get a tax break as well as your normal rental income and capital growth?
dicko Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't abolishing negative gearing mean less people can afford to buy investment properties, and lead to a real estate slump, and even more people relying on the shakey super industry? Yes it would. I don't see that as a problem. If you can't afford to buy an investment property...don't. The rules are the rules though and I have no issue with people taking advantage of it. I do think the government should close the loophole though. I have no idea whether there would be a resulting slump in the market but to be honest that wouldn't be a problem with me (as a younger person looking at buying a property I compete directly as a buyer with people looking to invest in cheaper property).
El Presidente Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 They should abolish negative gearing. The taxpayer pays for people's poor investments. Also public policy issue it drives up prices for other would be purchasers i.e first home owners like me. What scares them Dicko is that some 70+ % of all new unit purchases (currently) are from investors. Remove that (negative gearing) from the equation and we won't see anything of scale built for a decade. 30% GST on Soda drinks/fast food would be a start. 10% GST on all food items that are not Fresh (farm to grocer unprocessed excluding unflavoured milk). 1
sblevit Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Do you guys realize that 15% of Americans (45 million people - more than the entire population of Australia) are on food stamps? You've just cracked the surface Down Under. . . 1
Ken Gargett Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 No doubt it's a good idea to use an investment property to reduce your taxable income (particularly if you're on good coin). I just don't think that option should be available to people though. if you want to invest in property, go for it, but why get a tax break as well as your normal rental income and capital growth? dicko, the problem is that the electorate won't cop it. so politicians have no interest in it. i think i'm right in saying that if you go back to an election early 80's, i think, when labor were in opposition and bill hayden leading them, and heavy favourites. part of the government scare campaign, a day or two before voting day, was that labor would dump negative gearing (more to it than that, of course). they got annihilated in the polls. and rob's point re investment valid as well. it may cause a property slump - the problem with that is that it will devastate a great many families, not just investors. banks revalue and a lot of struggling families suddenly have to come up with a lot of dosh, that they don't have, simply to cover the mortgage and keep their homes. needless to say, no politician on either side will go there. our politicians, on both sides, are largely spineless.
paulF Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 NG is not all bad for example it does help keep rents down due to many reasons just like Rob mentioned above.one possible solution would be to keep NG but only for new dwellings...Massive subject to cover ... What baffles my mind is that only around 0.13% of the country is urbanised and yet we have the second most overvalued property market in the Southern Hemisphere after New Zealand.Councils should free up more land, that would help too.
El Presidente Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 What baffles my mind is that only around 0.13% of the country is urbanised and yet we have the second most overvalued property market in the Southern Hemisphere after New Zealand.Councils should free up more land, that would help too. As an old property development banker, the problem here is that Councils are broke. They charge the developer for all "Headworks Charges" ....sewer/power/curbing/roads + mandated parkland development. The average margin on a land subdivision for a developer is 16% and 4 years to bring it to market. Our avarage property cycle is 8 years in this country. Musical chairs. 1
tippexx Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 I'm not Australian so maybe my comment is unwelcome. Your politics are much like ours, an endless comedy of errors that compound and get exponentially worse with each successive Government, but unlike the UK, Australia is (or should be) 'resources rich' so health, pensions, education, welfare etc should be easily affordable for you. But something is going massively wrong .... I think Australia has been selling your children's birthright to cheaply, and much of what should have been theirs is now in controlled by corporates or other countries. 1
Guest rob Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 if you want to invest in property, go for it, but why get a tax break as well as your normal rental income and capital growth? Correct me if I'm wrong, Dicko - but are you're saying its appropriate to pay tax on profit..... but bad luck on any loss incurred trying to chase profit?
Duxnutz Posted May 21, 2014 Posted May 21, 2014 Correct me if I'm wrong, Dicko - but are you're saying its appropriate to pay tax on profit..... but bad luck on any loss incurred trying to chase profit? How bout evening up the stakes and allowing interest to be claimed on tax so the first home buyers can have a crack at property ownership. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now