Sorry fellas I never included the "carbon tax" and other pet peeves like "boat people" but they are an effect of the problem not a cause. This started long before they did.
Exactly right adult male. As soon as the earnings on the capital is touched or changed, the capital is changed. I think DV needs to read some more year 10 economic books. Not really sure why D.V always wants to portray himself as a vague Vera.
Australians are heading towards a wall doing 200kph, and they are going to hit with an almighty bang. Before the GFC, the housing bubble in other countries were only inflating for short periods 5 - 15 years. The housing bubble in Australia has been inflating uncontrollably for over 40 years on the back of the mining/resource industry, and when it goes, its going to make the GFC hardship other countries experienced look like Childs play in comparison. Sometimes you need to hit the wall before you grow up, and Australians need to hit the wall. Australians have allowed idiots to Govern them, and sell all their profit making assets when things get hard, so they really deserve what happens now. The fools still have not woken-up, and constantly vote in the same clowns that sell of their profit making assets. NO ASSETS, NO INCOME. Could there be a more dumbarse, backward people on the planet? LOL LOL Hell, even "tin-pot" dictatorship run African countries have stopped selling off their profit making assets, or sell-off their prime agricultural land. LMFAO.
You are entitled to receive the offset if your taxable income is below $66,000 odd. The maximum value of $445 begins to be phased out at the reduced rate of 1.5 cents for each dollar of taxable income over $37,000. Of course there are some that wouldn't consider $66k as a low income.
---------------------- Tax cut???? Before 1992, reasonably widespread superannuation arrangements had been in place for many years under industrial awards negotiated by the union movement between wage increases. In 1992, the Keating Labor government introduced a compulsory "Superannuation Guarantee" system as part of a major reform package addressing Australia's retirement income policies. It was calculated that Australia, along with many other Western nations, would experience a major demographic shift in the coming decades, resulting in the anticipated increase in age pension payments placing an unaffordable strain on the Australian economy. The proposed solution was a "three pillars" approach to retirement income: A safety net consisting of a means-tested Government age pension system Private savings generated through compulsory contributions to superannuation Voluntary savings through superannuation and other investments This was matched by employers contributions which were set to increase over time to a proposed 12%.
Ya gripping tight on it buddy! Of course the bloody thing is a loophole! Superannuation was intended to provide those who need it most a nice nest egg that allowed them to live much more comfortably than what was likely, solely on a tax payer funded pension! No, it is not taking away their wealth, it is an attempt to at least take back some taxes that should be owing. Howard changed the dang system to once again benifit the extremely wealthy! Labour should have went further, but unfortunately the current environment is not in their favour especially with how Abbott and news limited blatantly get away with saying whatever they like without solid scrutiny!
You forget one very important point in this area.... It was created to reduce the demand on the pension system thus an attempt to reduce the dependence on welfare. At least one politician acted directly to reduce welfare dependency in the light that increasing welfare has become a major strain and problem for the country. Governments who hit this area in any way are actually increasing the chance of welfare dependency of the future. A side benefit for the government was that they had the opportunity to use that money (in loans) to aid funding. BUT this also has been diluted.
If they where taxing capital, the government would be raking in hundreds of thousands per year, per individual and wouldnt be worth the investment, OBVIOUSLY! Yes it will effect their capital, like any dang tax that obviously effects capital such as income tax. It should be in my opinion as the government initially proposed a 30 % tax during accumulation phase!
That is the low income tax offset, nothing whatever to do with super. last year it was $1,500 Labor has also gutted the super co-contribution for low income earners. Under Howard it was $1.50 (to a maximum co-contribution of $2,000) for every $1 a person earning less than $37,000 contributed. So If a low income earner put $1,000 into super the gov. would match it with $1,500. Now after Kruddy and Juliar have finished with it you get 50 cents co-contribution for each dollar to a maximum of $500! Gee, thanks Labor, don't expect a Christmas card from low income earners now.
So please explain this loophole to us TV and please tell us exactly how Howard changed the system to benefit the extremely wealthy.
I think I have found out just what the changes to super are. If you earn more than $300,000 per year your super contributions will be taxed at 30% instead of 15%.
There are those, who can`t comprehend the damage done by each disincentive against achievement, placed on the citizens of a country. Their agenda of greed and envy, blinds them to the realities of life, to fairness, or any sense of justice. Somehow, there is a delusion that they have the right to dip their hands into the pockets of those who have worked hard and succeeded in life. The old "what`s mine is mine, and what`s yours is ours" mentality of the parasitical feeding frenzy.
Gee DV, take a breath mate! How much tax does someone on $35K pay? It's a little less than $3,000 less of course any deductions they might have, say laundry, union fees, work boots etc. Without doing anything else they will probably get a refund of $500. You do believe that everyone should pay some tax don't you? This person will pay less than $2,500 or about 7%.You're saying there is something wrong if this person can't reduce this even further? Stop and think DV. Firstly the ability to 'negative gear' on property was introduced, along with first home owners grants, for a very good reason. Australia has always had a housing shortage, we still do. These measures were introduced to incourage people to build houses in order to help aleviate that shortage. I heard a fellow on the news a week or so ago saying that this year about 20,000 fewer houses will be built than are needed. The spiraling price of houses is driven by demand, nothing else. What do you think negative gearing means? Yep, it means you make a loss, you are out of pocket! Sure this loss can be claimed as a deduction so you get a bigger tax refund but what is happening is you are spending $10 to get $4 back! Lets do another little exercise. Joe Blow earns $120K and pays $34,000 in tax on his wages. He has an investment property that has a loss of $12,000. His tax rate at $120K is 38.5% so the $12,000 loss will give him a refund of $4,620. So what is Joe's situation, he pays $29,380 tax, about 24%, and he is OUT of pocket $7,380 ($12,000 - $4,620) from the loss on the investment property! You are saying this is somehow unfair to the bloke on $35K who pays less than $2,500 tax at 7%, and gets to put $500 IN his pocket??? Wake up DV!
--------------------------- Are you also in favour of Abbott's plan to scrap Super tax offsets for low income earners?? (Me) I assume you are talking about the super co-contribution for low income earners, Kevy already gutted it. (You) Last edited by Adultmale; Apr 08 2013 at 09:00 AM. -------------------------- Well, gee wizikens!!!! Was you got it confused, not me!!
Refer to above post. "No, it's a new one on me Wolfie. Please explain what the 'Super Tax Offset for low income earners' is." Adultmale....8/4/2013....8:46pm.
You still haven't explained what the 'Super Tax Offset for low income earners' is. What you told me about was the low income offset which has nothing to do with super. You are getting yourself all confused Wolfie. There is no such thing as a 'Super Tax Offset' for low income earners. There is a low income tax offset and a super co-conribution, two different things.
Are you serious???? You are either playing dumb or really have absolutely no idea! Firstly, do you have your head around the system or are you just taking a stab in the dark hoping for the best!
Apologies!!! I was quoting direct from the article and did NOT check wording. (Refer C&P in OP.) I meant to include (LITO) as part of my post, but failed to do so. The question should have been put along the lines of..... " If you object to Labor's taxing the higher Super bracket earnings, do you also object to Abbott's proposal to scrap the LITO??
As I thought, you were just giving voice to two more of your fantasies. There is no loophole and Howard didn't make any changes to super to benefit the extremely wealthy.
No problem Doesn't really matter does it, Juliar has all but scrapped it anyway. $1,500 down to $445. She has also scrapped the education refund and the dependent spouse rebate and dropped the super co-contribution for low incomers from $2,000 down to $500. She also increased the lowest marginal tax rate from 15% to 19%. Who is being hard on low income earners now?
All but scrapped is not completely scrapped. Tony wants to axe any tax on high-end super earnings and at the same time wipe what little benefit low income earners get. 19% it may be, but O% up to $18,200. Will Abbott also scrub that?? I could claim only about 25% of what my father was able to claim during his working years. Think it's too late to have a b!tch about it???
Can you give a little more detail please. Exactly what tax on high end super earnings is Abbott planing to scrap? The red witch has tricked you Wolfie. Prior to her changes, with the low income offset at $1,500 you could earn just over $16,500 without paying any tax, then after that you started paying just 15%. Let's compare before and after, for Joe Blow earning $30,000 with a wife to support. Assuming his employer withholds the correct amount of tax; Before: Tax on $30,000 is $3600 less low income offset $1,500 = $2,100 less dependent spouse offset $2,350 = -250. Joe gets a full refund of his $3,600 tax paid. After: Tax on $30,000 is $2,242 Less low income offset $445 = $1,797. There is now no dependent spouse offset so Joe gets a refund of $445. Guess what? The red witch is now taking more off low income earners than before. The tripling of the tax free threshold to $18,200 was a big con job. As I said before, I run a business as a sole trader and as such I take a keen interest in tax because at the end of the year I always get a tax bill. Don't know what you are talking about, I don't know of anything that I could claim in the past that I can't still claim today.
