Nah, I don`t dislike anybody. You blokes are just confused, and you need me to educate you, but I don`t dislike you.
I didn't mean personally, your most probably a good bloke besides your absolute blindness and ignorance to common sense. I mean't you don't like hearing the truth
LOL, the truth will set you free, my son. Free from the politics of envy, free from the mind control of the left. Free, free, FREE!
Dom and I are quite well educated, thank you. What you wish to do is put us in a 'camp' and re-educate us.
Abbott would have his way, regardless of the cost to this country. http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16605444/pm-abbott-in-bitter-war-of-words-on-super/ Speaking from a business forum in China, the prime minister called Mr Abbott an "economic simpleton" after his comment last week that the government's super changes had "shades of Cyprus about it". "This is a man who wants to be the prime minister of the country, making economically reckless statements," Senator Wong told Sky News. "For all my criticisms of (John) Howard and (Peter) Costello, can you imagine John Howard trying to damage confidence in the economy and in superannuation to make a political point?" Mr Abbott defended linking the super changes to the economic crisis in Cyprus. "It's very important that all governments understand that money in superannuation accounts doesn't belong to the government, it belongs to the people," he told reporters in Sydney on Sunday. ------- Is this man completely stupid? He can't even work out that Super accounts are NOT being touched. Either that or he is lying his guts out. How much harm is this fool doing to this country on the international scene. I know that Labor leaves a lot to be desired, but if this wanker gets his hands on the controls this country is stuffed. I just ask that people be very, very careful for what they wish......
What? Do you suggest that raising taxes on superannuation as "NOT being touched"? http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16605444/pm-abbott-in-bitter-war-of-words-on-super/ Obviously there were much harder changes that the government wanted to introduce when http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16605444/pm-abbott-in-bitter-war-of-words-on-super/ http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/04/07/10/36/wong-condemns-wrecking-ball-abbott http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ter-war-of-words-on-super-20130407-2hej8.html Take your pick there all the same. So in other words, this government decided against harsher measures due to the fact it would be unpopular with the common man. Will they then move more reform after an election (if they won)? You bet they would, unless they can find somewhere else to get their shortfalls from. But basically, it is you who does not see they are actually touching super funds. You just assume that if it only affects few of the population it is not touching them. If you were in that area of the population, you would be crying foul as well. Tall poppy syndrome... come on down. - - - Updated - - - What? Do you suggest that raising taxes on superannuation as "NOT being touched"? http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16605444/pm-abbott-in-bitter-war-of-words-on-super/ Obviously there were much harder changes that the government wanted to introduce when http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16605444/pm-abbott-in-bitter-war-of-words-on-super/ http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/04/07/10/36/wong-condemns-wrecking-ball-abbott http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pm-abbott-in-bitter-war-of-words-on-super-20130407-2hej8.html Take your pick there all the same. So in other words, this government decided against harsher measures due to the fact it would be unpopular with the common man. Will they then move more reform after an election (if they won)? You bet they would, unless they can find somewhere else to get their shortfalls from. But basically, it is you who does not see they are actually touching super funds. You just assume that if it only affects few of the population it is not touching them. If you were in that area of the population, you would be crying foul as well. Tall poppy syndrome... come on down.
Originally Posted by Wolfie He can't even work out that Super accounts are NOT being touched. Either that or he is lying his guts out. " What? Do you suggest that raising taxes on superannuation as "NOT being touched"? " (garry) This is exactly what constitutes the lie. It is the earnings that are being taxed, NOT the Capital. What do you have against earnings being taxed? Are you also in favour of Abbott's plan to scrap Super tax offsets for low income earners?? ---------------------- "You just assume that if it only affects few of the population....G) I assume nothing of the sort. ------------------ So in other words, this government decided against harsher measures....G) Pure conjecture on your part.
LOL... That would be very misleading. After all if you detract from the super fund (by any account) reduces superannuation. Also, that fact that you do not understand what the government introduced with this tax, would change your mind. The reasons behind superannuation are more important than using it to fund income shortfalls of bad policies is simply underling the destructive quality of this government. Do you suggest that superannuation is capital? The problem you have is that you do not actually understand what is occurring here. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ls-super-changes/story-fn59niix-1226613060015 As you can see these two issues are entirely different. If you consider in any way that super tax offsets are the same as taxing the other end of the spectrum then I am guessing you don't really understand the situation. Perhaps you could ask yourself, what is the level of superannuation most people expect to have when they retire? Perhaps you realise that superannuation is already taxed in several ways. This is simply another tax grab, totally ignoring the fact that in future the government will need to fund the shortfall in superannuation they have taken to support their inability to raise the revenue they required. So, short term benefit with long term losses. Again, this is only the start of government interfering in superannuation, as demonstrated by their co-conspirators.
Smoke and mirrors: Fony Abbott "We will make NO ADVERSE changes in our FIRST TERM!" - Hmmmm Tax the low income earner! God save Australia from this turkey!
But Garry, earnings become capital so they are effectively taxing the capital by reducing the capital by the tax amount. If my super fund earnt $100,000 then my capital would increase by $100,000 but thanks to Juliar my capital will now only increase by $85,000 so that is effectively 15% tax on my capital. Because it flys in the face of the whole idea of superannuation being savings for retirement. I assume you are talking about the super co-contribution for low income earners, Kevy already gutted it.
If the tax rate on superannuation earnings is going to be raised. Doesn’t that logically indicate that the superannuation (capital) is going to be therefore disturbed and touched from what it is now? Are you suggesting that a higher tax rate on superannuation (earnings) WILL NOT have any effect on the superannuation (capital)? As soon as the “capital” has been disturbed in any way from its current position, you do understand, its been effected and touched? They might not directly be taxing superannuation which is the capital, but by increasing tax on the earnings of the capital, they have directly effected and touched the capital, which is superannuation. Hell, a year 10 economic student could figure that out!! Abbott really has his work cut out for him, when this kind of basic math is over the heads of some “Aussies” who advocate they are intelligent. LOL LOL
and they would be wrong. The earnings of the capital is not capital it's earnings. The earnings of a shop is earnings too, not a shop. Abbott couldn't work anything out. LOL LOL LOL
Ok basic math for Mr Abbott and his Rabbits. $100K capital earns 10% = $10K (note earns therefore it's earnings) - 15% tax (note tax, therefore it's tax) = $8.5K. Add that to the capital and now we have $108.5K capital. The only time I touched the capital was to add the earnings to it, after tax of course, der. At no other time have I affected or touched the capital.
No, it's a new one on me Wolfie. Please explain what the 'Super Tax Offset for low income earners' is.
But if it wasn't for the 15% tax we would now have $110K capital. So the tax did affect the capital at the end of the day. Super was set up with the idea of creating a nest egg to retire on. It was the tax cut that was L.A.W. remember? We were all going to spend our retirement living in the lap of luxury, remember? But since it was introduced governments have fiddled with it every year, including Keating who introduced it, now it is far from creating enough to retire on. At best, thanks to the changes over the years, and the fact it is not guaranteed in anyway, super will only prevent you from getting the age pension for a few years, that's after you retire at 67, up from 65 thanks to Labor and Kruddy Clown!! Now bloody Juliar and Swandive are picking at it again!
I know and understand all that, and I agree for the most part. But there is a whole nest of problems and this tax is only a small one. Governments over the years have created ways, as have those in private enterprise that enables people to find ways of minimising there taxable incomes and super funds are not any different. The problem is that the more you have or make, the greater the opportunity you have to minimise your tax RATE overall. So those that can afford to pay the most taxes, have at their disposal more ways of avoiding paying them. Those at the "coal face" though,have very little opportunity, this creates a great divide in society, a divide which grows further every day. A divide that could and most probably will cause changes to society such as neither side will benefit, only those few in power whether that be in public office or private enterprise. This is what is happening. We have to pay taxes one way or another. It's like when your child spills the milk, you can take a strap out and you can flog him, doesn't matter, he knows he did wrong, and someone has to clean up the milk.
This is the crux! It is a loophole that needed closing and reason why abbott supports it bar the politics he is playing on the issue! I don't think too many would be overly concerned with the 15% tax, when you consider without the loophole it would be far worse. I suppose many will look to exploit other loopholes but none will be easier and as straight forward as this one! The capital/earnings debate is what fony wanted people to focus on and not the inequity of the overall issue!
TV, you are a fool. You do not know what you are talking about. There is no loophole and there is no inequity, the tax is just the labor party trying to take even more off those they consider to be rich. You see, under labor ideaology 'rich' people must have their wealth taken off them and as many disinsentives as possible placed in the way of anybody aspiring to become rich. They punish hard work, sacrifice and thrift while rewarding sloth, wantenness and wastfullness.
Rubbish DV. Everbody has the same opportunities to minimise their tax, it is not dependent on your income. The ability to minimise tax does not "create a great divide in society", what a load of codswollop! Everybody tries to minimise their tax and get a big refund every year, I certainly do and I bet you do to! No matter what, those on higher incomes pay more tax than those on lower incomes even after any tax minimisation stratagies they may have employed. I really get peeved with those who live on welfare handouts, those who do not contribute anything towards the production of the goods and services they consume, those who are a burden on society, start complaining that those who work hard, make sacrifices and take risks, those who produce the goods and services, should pay more tax than they already are.
The other day in respect too one of your posts I said that for the most part I agreed with you, well today I am saying for the most part I disagree. I agree that everyone tries to minimise their taxes and that everyone can, however. Your average Joe on around $35K doesn't get much options. He is lucky to be able to afford to rent a decent home unless he bought one years ago, you know, say 30 years ago when a house and land package in Sydney's West was around $40 to $50 K. Let's look at what happens. Negative gearing is introduced and fairly unfettered. Negative gearing is available to anyone who can afford a second home and a mortgage. This created an upwards spiral in the price of house and land which in turn created an upwards trend in rental prices which in turn reduced the number of people who could afford to do it. It also made property investment a great way to not only minimise your taxes (for those that could afford it) as well as increase the investment potential of property investment. This created a dog chasing it's tail effect, the more house prices rose, the greater the investment return, the less people that could afford home ownership. One of the so called benefits to negative gearing was to increase the number of rental properties, (homes have to be rented out for NG to work) and at lower rents (the owner needs to make a loss to claim tax deductions). It however only forced higher income people to consider renting, those forced out of the housing market due to increased purchase costs and a change in our society switch away from home ownership to renting. A spiraling decade and home prices rose to ridiculous prices. Those fortunate enough to inherit homes or those that had purchased before the boom quickly grabbed at their new found wealth in the homes capital value. The money market was flooded with lenders desperately trying to capture these people, offering second mortgages so they too could invest in second homes to use negative gearing or at least the rising market values as investment. The average household debt sky rocketed creating more fiscal problems so we turned more and more to cheaper imported goods such as white goods, cars and furniture (enter companies like Ikea). This lead to a mass exodus from investment into Australian manufacturing and retail, investors finding property a "safer" and "quicker" return and more tax concessions. One by one our companies folded or moved offshore to be competitive and more than should have were sold to foreign investors. Foreign investors had no social stakes in Australia so more and more imported gods and services were use, exit Australian call centres and small manufacturing businesses etc. Decreased tax payments to the government (personal income tax dropped $600 million in the 2001-02 tax year and $3.9 billion in 2004-05). This placed pressure on the government so they started selling assets and finding ways to cut costs. Combined with advances in technology, rising prices and the governments decreased tax revenue services like health and education were gutted. Increased shipping of jobs offshore, changes in technology and cost factors increased unemployment placing further strain on the system. Coupled with an aging population, the current and forecasted welfare costs also skyrocketed and the increased numbers on welfare created a greater reliance on cheap imported food and goods and industry capitalised on it by increasing their offshore component. Imported Chinese and Indian clothes for instance were once the things in Go-Lo and Target. Today it's also in Myers and David Jones. These factors have created a merry-go-round effect except that it's spiraling upwards like those fast chairs and horses, the faster the ride goes the high they go. Except there is a limit, the chairs and horses can only go so high, then the speed increases and the only change is people get scared or sick. Our merry-go-round has just about reached the speed of maximum height and the scared and sickness is creating things like the demonstrations we are seeing here and globally, things like the GFC and what is happening to Greece et al. Eventually the roundabout will be going so crazy that the chairs and horses will come off and the riders will be flung around helplessly smashing into the crowds that are watching on. Comments ................ quickly think about other factors like financial institution deregulation, greed, loss of identity due to immigration and racism and gross corporate miss management.
