Author Topic: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!  (Read 43743 times)

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #50 on: May 02, 2019, 04:38:03 PM »

<snip>

I also don't think there are necessarily economic benefits to having everyone plop their kids into childcare, or encouraging that. I think we'd be better off, if we had to subsidise anything, subsidising parental leave (which we already do) and poor parents with children's expenses (which we already do). If we really have to subsidise childcare expenses, we're better off giving a more generous subsidy to a much smaller set of parents who actually need them. A couple on $150k a year does not need any welfare or subsidies, full stop.

< end snip>

I don't agree that there are no benefits to subsidising childcare.  The problem is that your thinking if not long term.  When we first had children, at the ripe old age of 24, we used child care, and even though I was professional, my wife was still completing her engineering degree.  In a no-subsidy world, she would have had to give up her degree and care for the kids.  There would have been no other option for us.  Instead, we scrimped and saved every penny, and got her through her degree over the next couple of years.  She was then able to enter the workforce as an engineer and contribute to Australia's economy in a significant way.

She now will have enough super to not need government support when she retires (unlike most women in the workforce), primarily because she could finish her degree and get into the workforce as a young woman, rather than having to wait until the youngest was school age, i.e. ten years later.

The effects of child care subsidy are longer term than the immediate effect on the subsidised parents.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #51 on: May 02, 2019, 05:18:17 PM »

<snip>

I also don't think there are necessarily economic benefits to having everyone plop their kids into childcare, or encouraging that. I think we'd be better off, if we had to subsidise anything, subsidising parental leave (which we already do) and poor parents with children's expenses (which we already do). If we really have to subsidise childcare expenses, we're better off giving a more generous subsidy to a much smaller set of parents who actually need them. A couple on $150k a year does not need any welfare or subsidies, full stop.

< end snip>

I don't agree that there are no benefits to subsidising childcare.  The problem is that your thinking if not long term.  When we first had children, at the ripe old age of 24, we used child care, and even though I was professional, my wife was still completing her engineering degree.  In a no-subsidy world, she would have had to give up her degree and care for the kids.  There would have been no other option for us.  Instead, we scrimped and saved every penny, and got her through her degree over the next couple of years.  She was then able to enter the workforce as an engineer and contribute to Australia's economy in a significant way.

She now will have enough super to not need government support when she retires (unlike most women in the workforce), primarily because she could finish her degree and get into the workforce as a young woman, rather than having to wait until the youngest was school age, i.e. ten years later.

The effects of child care subsidy are longer term than the immediate effect on the subsidised parents.

The subsidy may have worked in your case, and I have no issue with a subsidy that is targeted at helping a 'second earner' retain his or her study or job; but you have to remember that the subsidy runs for more than just the length of your wife's degree, and is paid to all parents below a (very high) income level,  and is paid regardless of the parents' working or studying intentions. So it's extremely poorly targeted to achieve the sort of (economically beneficial) result that happily occurred in your case.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #52 on: May 02, 2019, 06:25:44 PM »
Well, look at the case that happy provided - which is all too common. A single parent has very little ability to get a degree when the kids are small. They also need well targeted child care (which will be more available if every child has it), and are more likely to work longer each year, for more years.

I also think, given the stress that children bring to a relationship during the years that they could be having child care, including after school care, that better child care could reduce the numbers of family breakups. On the other hand, someone in an abusive relationship may also feel they have more external support, and be more capable of leaving such a relationship and retaining their employment. Since relationship breakups are a major cause of people not being able to support themselves in retirement, this could reduce the cost of an ageing society to all of us.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #53 on: May 02, 2019, 09:03:49 PM »
We have publicly owned primary schools, secondary schools and universities. Yet do we have public childcare centres? If we do not, is it something worth introducing?
In Australia, we don't. Is it worth it? Welllllll... basically, we can't afford everything.

By their very nature, education and healthcare are things you can always spend more money on. An older gentlemen who came to my gym, his son died in his 40s of a surprise cancer - healthy lifestyle, regular basic checkups, no family history, just has some pain in his lower chest, lots of tests, "woops, you're dying in six months."

Now, if every general practitioner had an MRI and everyone got full-body scans every three months, that would catch a lot of issues early on, and that guy wouldn't have died. But they cost $10 million and require a staff of 12 all of whom require a tertiary education and then spread across the country... so, we decide that it's not worth spending hundreds of billions for a few lives. It would be too expensive to save you. Sorry.

Likewise, if every child had an individual tutor, they would do better than they do in a class of 20. But are we prepared to spend 20 times as much on teacher salaries, and on the tertiary education for them, and so on?

Obviously those are absurd examples, but they illustrate the point that healthcare and education spending really have no upper limit. And so we make decisions based on "bang for the buck." For example, if secondary and primary school were not compulsory, a significant chunk of the population wouldn't send their kids to them - already many schools in lower income areas have huge problems with child absences, there are children who only make 20% of school days. Half the population would be totally illiterate if it weren't compulsory. So we make it compulsory. But it's a bit harsh to make it compulsory and then demand from the parents $14k annually per primary and $18k per secondary student (the current state and federal primary/secondary education budgets divided by the number of students). So we fund it publicly and just ask for token contributions from parents, which low income parents can have waived.

So, absent a primary and at least most of a secondary education, people will be illiterate and innumerate and unable to function in a modern industrial society, let alone a technological society. But take away preschool stuff... and nothing awful happens to the children. It makes no difference to my 3yo whether she plays with blocks at childcare, or plays with blocks during a playdate with other kids.

I mean, if primary school suddenly cost $20k annually, we would find the money somehow, because it's so important. But childcare? We'd just take her out and I'd look after her at home and be less lazy about arranging playdates.

Thus, any childcare subsidies are not for the benefit of the children, but the parents, and (we hope) thus indirectly for society generally. Society benefits, the theory goes, from having adults out of the home working and earning money. And if we also subsidise tertiary education there's also an argument there - if society has spent $100,000 educating an engineer, we'd rather have them out there engineering than wiping bums at home.

Of course there are also social and familial benefits to having someone at home with the children. Children of absent parents are more likely to grow up to be teenaged parents, criminal, have mental health issues and so on. Children with a stable and warm household tend to do better, even if the household's not that well-off or educated.

Where to put things in the balance is not clear. So in practice the question is an ideological one. For example, feminism says, "we must have childcare benefits, so women can work." But this assumes that only women can be at home with the children, which is an odd thing for a feminist to assume. Of course that's what we usually see, but feminism like any ideology should surely be about changing things. And in a man-woman couple, "women should go out and do paid work" can be "so there should be childcare benefits," or it can be, "so the man should stay at home." Either fulfil the condition. But ideology doesn't recognise alternatives. Likewise the Liberal Party ideology inspired by conservative Christianity wanting women to stay at home and bake cookies, etc.

And of course ideology is informed by self-interest. Educated professionals earning high salaries believe in government-subsidised childcare. In other news, farmers believe in agricultural subsidies, old retirees believe in franking credits, and real estate agents believe in negative gearing, while the unemployed are quite taken by the idea of an increase in Newstart.

All are reasonable positions to take. But we can't afford everything. I don't know where the balance lies, but I suspect that free public childcare is just too expensive compared to the benefits. Subsidised... well, that's arguable. All I know is that a lot of the babble about it could be silenced if we had more men step up and do their job as fathers. Past the day the baby stops breastfeeding, there's nothing a stay at home mother can do for their child which the child's father can't.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #54 on: May 03, 2019, 03:17:32 AM »
I endorse the above post ^^

Watching the 2nd debate and it's just a bunch of shit answers from both pollies. In response to a question specifically about failing our gifted and talented children, they give canned answers about early childhood education generally, none of which relates to G&T education. The questioner could have asked about diabetic children or ADHD children or American children and gotten the same canned response.

For the record, I think we have an abysmal record of teaching G&T children. I think VCE is stultifying.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #55 on: May 06, 2019, 10:31:57 PM »
So the RBA has left rates on hold, even when at least half of the market was expecting a rate cut.  Is this a political decision?

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #56 on: May 07, 2019, 05:10:01 AM »
So the RBA has left rates on hold, even when at least half of the market was expecting a rate cut.  Is this a political decision?

No. Real rates are already at 0% (presuming inflation is at 1.5%). The RBA have basically said a rate cut probably wouldn't do much so there's no real point in wasting one of the 6 potential moves down that they have left.

I've had enough of politics.  22 years I've been following the damn thing and I've been lied to every single time. My introduction to politics was that muppet Sophie Mirabella ruining the Republic debate. She and that other muppet David Flint went round the country lying and scaring the pants off everyone saying there'll be 56 changes to the constitution, when there had only been 8 in the preceding 100 years. Never mind 55 of those changes were changing the word "Queen" to "President".

Ever since then I've heard politicians be totally disingenuous. Now we have ScoMo shouting about $387 billion of taxes (hey muppet, it's not a tax increase if Bill Shorten doesn't go ahead with your budget busting $240 billion of income tax cuts that are not sustainable without equivalent cuts in spending). It's also over 10 years, so the remaining gap is a blip in the context of $6 trillion of projected revenue). We then also have Bill making promises and handing out money like confetti (hey muppet, remember 2008 when revenue collapsed? yeah... how are you going to pay for your spending when the removal of concessions doesn't raise as much revenue as expected?).

Then we have the Greens who believe money grows on trees, and the rag tag bunch of others who haven't voted for a spending cut in the last 12 years.

I give up. No more politics for me until after the election. It just got to a point where my blood pressure got too high watching the two leaders on the ABC yesterday. I can't do it anymore.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2019, 05:13:18 AM by marty998 »

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2019, 05:13:19 AM »
So the RBA has left rates on hold, even when at least half of the market was expecting a rate cut.  Is this a political decision?

No. Real rates are already at 0% (presuming inflation is at 1.5%). The RBA have basically said a rate cut probably wouldn't do much so there's no real point in wasting one of the 6 potential moves down that they have left.

I've had enough of politics.  22 years I've been following the damn thing and I've been lied to every single time. My introduction to politics was that muppet Sophie Mirabella ruining the Republic debate. She and that other muppet David Flint went round the country lying and scaring the pants off everyone saying there'll be 56 changes to the constitution, when there had only been 8 in the preceding 100 years. Never mind 55 of those changes were changing the word "Queen" to "President".

Ever since then I've heard politicians be totally disingenuous. Now we have ScoMo shouting about $387 billion of taxes (hey muppet, it's not a tax increase if Bill Shorten doesn't go ahead with your budget busting $240 billion of income tax cuts that are not sustainable without equivalent cuts in spending). We then also have Bill making promises and handing out money like confetti (hey muppet, remember 2008 when revenue collapsed? yeah... how are you going to pay for your spending when the removal of concessions doesn't raise as much revenue as expected?).

Then we have the Greens who believe money grows on trees, and the rag tag bunch of others who haven't voted for a spending cut in the last 12 years.

I give up. No more politics for me until after the election. It just got to a point where my blood pressure got too high watching the two leaders on the ABC yesterday. I can't do it anymore.

Lol.  I'm voting Labor.

I'm in a marginal seat.  I was not last election.

That should help your blood pressure.

It should also help Australia (the nation, not the economy)

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #58 on: May 07, 2019, 05:32:38 AM »
So the RBA has left rates on hold, even when at least half of the market was expecting a rate cut.  Is this a political decision?

No. Real rates are already at 0% (presuming inflation is at 1.5%). The RBA have basically said a rate cut probably wouldn't do much so there's no real point in wasting one of the 6 potential moves down that they have left.

I've had enough of politics.  22 years I've been following the damn thing and I've been lied to every single time. My introduction to politics was that muppet Sophie Mirabella ruining the Republic debate. She and that other muppet David Flint went round the country lying and scaring the pants off everyone saying there'll be 56 changes to the constitution, when there had only been 8 in the preceding 100 years. Never mind 55 of those changes were changing the word "Queen" to "President".

Ever since then I've heard politicians be totally disingenuous. Now we have ScoMo shouting about $387 billion of taxes (hey muppet, it's not a tax increase if Bill Shorten doesn't go ahead with your budget busting $240 billion of income tax cuts that are not sustainable without equivalent cuts in spending). We then also have Bill making promises and handing out money like confetti (hey muppet, remember 2008 when revenue collapsed? yeah... how are you going to pay for your spending when the removal of concessions doesn't raise as much revenue as expected?).

Then we have the Greens who believe money grows on trees, and the rag tag bunch of others who haven't voted for a spending cut in the last 12 years.

I give up. No more politics for me until after the election. It just got to a point where my blood pressure got too high watching the two leaders on the ABC yesterday. I can't do it anymore.

Lol.  I'm voting Labor.

I'm in a marginal seat.  I was not last election.

That should help your blood pressure.

It should also help Australia (the nation, not the economy)

I am too, because I like my local Labor candidate. I just wish she would get in the ear of the party and tell them to for once just shut up shop and stop spending. Just at least try and be responsible with the pursestrings for once...

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7110
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #59 on: May 07, 2019, 06:20:36 AM »


 It just got to a point where my blood pressure got too high watching the two leaders on the ABC yesterday. I can't do it anymore.

Thats how I became apolitical (ignoramus) a long time ago... I just couldn't take it anymore.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #60 on: May 07, 2019, 09:06:50 PM »
I don't watch the debates. I vote based on the stated policies of the parties, the broad thrust of them - once they get into office details will always change, it's daft to get hung up on whether the new tax rate will be 15% or 16%, or they'll buy 36 F-35s or 38, etc.

Debates are just their chance to pretend that the leader of each party is actually a Presidential candidate, and quietly forget that we have a parliamentary system of government. I'm not interested in that.

Plus I voted early anyway.

Fresh Bread

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2315
  • Location: Australia
  • Insert dough/bread/crust joke
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #61 on: May 07, 2019, 11:50:23 PM »
I haven't been watching anything as my vote was decided back in January, but everytime I open social media or try to watch something on YouTube I get a Tiny Abort ad (autocorrect but I left it as it seems apt). He's got a really big war chest and he's spending it up.

There are loads of positive and supportive comments on TA's social media posts/ads but a lot of them are from Queensland. I haven't seen a single TA corflute sign on a house in the electorate and I drive around this area a lot.

There are a lot of Zali Steggall signs on houses and a few Get Up Climate Action ones. Get up have also taken a front page ad on the Manly Daily so their Warringah war chest is even bigger than TA's. Zali Steggall has emailed today asking for more money for a final ad push so I've sent another wodge through.

It's going to be close. Liberal local polling says the tunnel is the most important local issue but Manly Daily polling has it as climate change. I don't know if the Daily asked about the tunnel/ transport and liberal polls have terrible leading questions from what I've seen, so I'm none the wiser as to who will win.

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7110
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #62 on: May 08, 2019, 02:19:37 AM »
I haven't been watching anything as my vote was decided back in January, but everytime I open social media or try to watch something on YouTube I get a Tiny Abort ad (autocorrect but I left it as it seems apt). He's got a really big war chest and he's spending it up.


:D  :D  :D

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2019, 01:41:01 AM »
I haven't been watching anything as my vote was decided back in January, but everytime I open social media or try to watch something on YouTube I get a Tiny Abort ad (autocorrect but I left it as it seems apt). He's got a really big war chest and he's spending it up.


:D  :D  :D

I am laughing at this too. Wonderful!

I wonder if words have been had between the Liberal Party and the Daily Telegraph about how the DT nearly ruined the election chances of ScoMo with the headline attacking Bill's mother.

Bit of an oops moment when your propaganda backfires...

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #64 on: May 10, 2019, 05:15:21 PM »
I'm really not a fan of Labor's rhetoric.

They talk about targeting the top end of town as if only Google and CEOs with incomes of $500k+ will be hit by their tax plans. But actually, anyone over $90,000 will be slightly worse off, anyone over $120,000 will be more than $1k per year worse off, and anyone over $190,000 will be over $10k per year worse off.

These are not exorbitant figures. $90k is about 1/4-1/5 of workers; $120k is about 1/11; $190k is about 1/30th. Hardly outliers.

They're simply choosing to punish professional workers. Who already pay the lion's share of tax.

There's no sense of gratitude in this country, that's the problem. You become modestly successful, earn a low 6 figure income, pay as much in tax each year as the median income and you get no gratitude, only exaltations to pay more. And meanwhile those on very comfortable incomes to begin with (DINKs on, say, $150k) get access to every welfare program, every tax cut, every concession possible.

The problem in this country does not lie with the upper-middle class (who pay the huge majority of the tax) or the poor (who get shafted with Newstart). It lies with the lazy middle class. Both Labor and Liberals have spent far too much money pandering to the average workers of this country. Time to put more resources into the ones at the bottom and the top.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #65 on: May 10, 2019, 06:09:36 PM »
More resources into the ones at the bottom I agree with.  More resources into the ones at the top? No.  They (I) have the resources anyway.  Why do I need more handouts? I don't need the current ones.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #66 on: May 10, 2019, 07:24:37 PM »
I'm really not a fan of Labor's rhetoric.

They talk about targeting the top end of town as if only Google and CEOs with incomes of $500k+ will be hit by their tax plans. But actually, anyone over $90,000 will be slightly worse off, anyone over $120,000 will be more than $1k per year worse off, and anyone over $190,000 will be over $10k per year worse off.

You do know this is only after 2024 right? Labor could get thrown out after one term, or even two terms, and you'd still get your tax cuts  when the Liberals implement it.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #67 on: May 10, 2019, 07:29:07 PM »
More resources into the ones at the bottom I agree with.  More resources into the ones at the top? No.  They (I) have the resources anyway.  Why do I need more handouts? I don't need the current ones.

You know there's a difference between more resources and less tax. It's about the origin of the money.

If you are talking about 'need', the neither the middle nor the top need tax cuts. If your proposal is to keep tax as is for everyone over $50k/families over $80k and give tax relief to those under $50k/$80k, I'd be quite fine with that. I only object to doing all the heavy lifting and letting the average earners off nearly scot-free.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #68 on: May 10, 2019, 08:15:21 PM »
They talk about targeting the top end of town as if only Google and CEOs with incomes of $500k+ will be hit by their tax plans. But actually, anyone over $90,000 will be slightly worse off, anyone over $120,000 will be more than $1k per year worse off, and anyone over $190,000 will be over $10k per year worse off.
Not sure about your figures. But we'll be fine. I know it's a middle-class hobby, but stop whinging.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #69 on: May 10, 2019, 08:24:41 PM »
I sort of see your point. But, I'm not sure why when a middle class person whinges about not being able to buy a first home it's okay, but when someone with slightly more money whinges about not being able to buy a second or third home it's whinging! It's all first world problems.

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #71 on: May 11, 2019, 12:42:58 AM »
Comparing yourself to someone on median/average earnings is appropriate if you have median/average qualifications, work median/average hours (which I believe is about 30 hours per adult), etc

If you are working 40+ hours a week, have a job which required you to get great marks in school, do well in uni etc, then the median/average income stat is meaningless.

MrThatsDifferent

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2089
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #72 on: May 12, 2019, 05:51:45 AM »
https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/how-much-do-you-need-to-earn-to-be-rich-in-australia/news-story/cd7e6647199773c56ad5a9270c7aab87

I read this and a little confused, do they factor your salary with super included or minus the super and just your take home?

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #73 on: May 12, 2019, 09:02:03 AM »
The Libs' first-home owner thing (match by Labor) is god-awful policy.

We really should be forcing the property bubble to burst, rather than propping it up. The recent deflation in house prices, leading to economic slowdown, has been fantastic for everyone who lives by MMM principles (i.e., not buying into a bubble).


marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #74 on: May 12, 2019, 03:04:32 PM »
The Libs' first-home owner thing (match by Labor) is god-awful policy.

We really should be forcing the property bubble to burst, rather than propping it up. The recent deflation in house prices, leading to economic slowdown, has been fantastic for everyone who lives by MMM principles (i.e., not buying into a bubble).

I haven't been able to get any details on it... seems to be the Government will guarantee the additional 15% loan required?

If a first home buyer can't afford to save a proper deposit, chances are they cannot pay back a 95% loan.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #75 on: May 12, 2019, 07:57:34 PM »
I sort of see your point. But, I'm not sure why when a middle class person whinges about not being able to buy a first home it's okay, but when someone with slightly more money whinges about not being able to buy a second or third home it's whinging! It's all first world problems.
No, it's all whinging. The sense of entitlement in Australians is strong. But as I have noted before, the poor are made to jump through many hoops to get their handouts, the middle class few, and the rich none. Ideally everyone would get the same amount of hassle to get their handouts.

If an unemployed person wants $250 a week in dole, they must attend many appointments, fill in a form each fortnight, and if paid too much it's taken straight from their bank accounts straight away.

If a middle-classed person wants $250 a week in childcare rebate, they can fill out a form online once a year, and if paid too much they're asked nicely to pay it back later at their convenience.

A large business doesn't even need to ask, let alone fill out any paperwork, it's just given $250 million by the government, like the auto companies just before they left Australia.

Given that as we go down that list the need decreases but so does the hassle, my sympathies lie more on the poorer side. But basically nobody should whinge.

Little Aussie Battler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #76 on: May 12, 2019, 08:47:01 PM »
What handouts do high-earning individuals receive?

MrThatsDifferent

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2089
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #77 on: May 12, 2019, 11:09:41 PM »
The Libs' first-home owner thing (match by Labor) is god-awful policy.

We really should be forcing the property bubble to burst, rather than propping it up. The recent deflation in house prices, leading to economic slowdown, has been fantastic for everyone who lives by MMM principles (i.e., not buying into a bubble).

I haven't been able to get any details on it... seems to be the Government will guarantee the additional 15% loan required?

If a first home buyer can't afford to save a proper deposit, chances are they cannot pay back a 95% loan.

I think itís insanely unfair to give a scheme that beneficial to only people making less than $150k. Even if you make more, it can take years for people to save up 20% but others can get in the door with 5%? Iím all about helping people but that seems so incredibly unfair. And the arguments about paying it back apply less to people who are making it more. Iíd sure as shit buy a place if I only had to pay 5% deposit and no LTI!!! If itís a $700k place, one group gets to save $35k, while another has to come up with $140k? Thatís insane.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #78 on: May 13, 2019, 12:29:04 AM »
What handouts do high-earning individuals receive?
Depends what you call "high-earning." But negative gearing, franking credits, family tax credits and childcare rebates are all things which are available to people on well-above median household incomes. Further on up the chain, as I mentioned the government has regularly given grants, tax rebates and subsidies to larger companies as incentives to remain in the country - money which ultimately goes to shareholders, including the majority shareholders, who tend not to be poor.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #79 on: May 13, 2019, 12:55:34 AM »
What handouts do high-earning individuals receive?
Depends what you call "high-earning." But negative gearing, franking credits, family tax credits and childcare rebates are all things which are available to people on well-above median household incomes. Further on up the chain, as I mentioned the government has regularly given grants, tax rebates and subsidies to larger companies as incentives to remain in the country - money which ultimately goes to shareholders, including the majority shareholders, who tend not to be poor.
Negative gearing is available to everyone. The only reason it is more effective for high-income earners is because only high-income earners pay a substantial amount of income tax. So I think that's a bad example.

Franking credits - agree with you. It's good policy to get rid of them.

Family tax/childcare rebates - disagree. They are available to families earning up to something like $150k. I wouldn't call that high-income. It's one median earner plus one median earner.

Further up the chain, yes, when you look at multimillionaires and companies, they get tax lurks.

It leaves unfortunately "normal" high earners, i.e. moderately high income achievers on $200k or $300k, in the lurch. They get nil handouts whatsoever. It is well known (see the OECD stats) that our welfare system is well targeted. There's little leakage at the high end, except among corporations.

Anyway, this whole election campaign being run on "working families" is just stultifying. Can someone for once think about the successful people in this country who drive its achievements. I'm tired of populism and shit like that.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #80 on: May 13, 2019, 01:20:42 AM »
What handouts do high-earning individuals receive?

I would call the income splitting bullshit that many high earners engage in via family trusts a form of handout.

A loophole like that should have been closed down decades ago.


Little Aussie Battler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 229
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #81 on: May 13, 2019, 01:49:14 AM »
I guess you can debate the specifics, but at the end of the day the only 2 questions that matter are - how much tax should be collected by the Australian government(s), and where should that tax burden sit?

I am obviously conflicted in this discussion - as we all are - but I think that high-income employees already carry enough of that tax burden and any additional taxes (if absolutely necessary) should be levied  elsewhere.

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7110
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #82 on: May 13, 2019, 03:48:02 PM »
What handouts do high-earning individuals receive?
Depends what you call "high-earning." But negative gearing, franking credits, family tax credits and childcare rebates are all things which are available to people on well-above median household incomes. Further on up the chain, as I mentioned the government has regularly given grants, tax rebates and subsidies to larger companies as incentives to remain in the country - money which ultimately goes to shareholders, including the majority shareholders, who tend not to be poor.
Negative gearing is available to everyone. The only reason it is more effective for high-income earners is because only high-income earners pay a substantial amount of income tax. So I think that's a bad example.

Franking credits - agree with you. It's good policy to get rid of them.

Family tax/childcare rebates - disagree. They are available to families earning up to something like $150k. I wouldn't call that high-income. It's one median earner plus one median earner.

Further up the chain, yes, when you look at multimillionaires and companies, they get tax lurks.

It leaves unfortunately "normal" high earners, i.e. moderately high income achievers on $200k or $300k, in the lurch. They get nil handouts whatsoever. It is well known (see the OECD stats) that our welfare system is well targeted. There's little leakage at the high end, except among corporations.

Anyway, this whole election campaign being run on "working families" is just stultifying. Can someone for once think about the successful people in this country who drive its achievements. I'm tired of populism and shit like that.

Well franking credits are available to everyone also...in fact I'd argue more available than negative gearing since you don't have to have enough to buy a property. The franking credit issue will affect self funded retirees...just another reason to go onto the OAP.

The family tax benefit was derived  from a previous system of allowing an additional tax free portion of income if you had a dependent ie per child and for a dependent spouse. This was scrapped and when family tax benefit came in it actually put a cap on eligible income for the first time. Although its common to describe it as middle class welfare its actually tougher than what was there before and discriminates against single parents.

I do agree that  moderately high income achievers on $200k or $300k or so are being caned. High tax burden and not wealthy enough to get into fancy manoeuvres. Its one of the reasons I worked part-time to keep my income below 200k for many years. The trade off with loss of quality of life from working full-time wasn't worth it, whilst 50% of the extra income would be taxed.

Sadly election campaigns are targeted to where the votes are. Thats not the top end.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #83 on: May 13, 2019, 03:55:56 PM »
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/13/labors-tax-policies-to-have-virtually-no-impact-on-wealth-of-bottom-50-of-households

analysis shows average earners in the top decile will be about $11k worse off than Labor, each year. That's a lot of money. And remember, we're not talking about actual rich people, just moderately above average earners with a 1 or 2 or 3 in front.

Don't expect any sympathy from those who are on median incomes and only pay about $12-$15k in tax a year to begin with. People only know what they see.

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7110
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #84 on: May 13, 2019, 04:14:00 PM »
I'm laughing at the bit where the pollies are objecting to a group with vested interests is attempting to influence the election. Does this mean we should only hear from politicians? I mean they don't have a vested interest do they? My cheeks are bleeding.

The top decile are an easy target but if the average is 11k worse off, I wouldn't have thought that would raise an enormous amount of tax (maybe I'm wrong...someone can correct me). It smacks more of  a very far  left ideology that everyone should earn the same regardless.

Since the largest cost in the budget is welfare, and of that the largest part is OAP, and we are facing a huge increase in the aged proportion of the population, I would think the most urgent policy reform economically  is to get more people saving more. Targeting strategies used by self-funded retirees is just plain dumb. Of course I know nothing about economics and we need people to keep spending to maintain growth don't we?

deborah

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12073
  • Location: Australia or another awesome area
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #85 on: May 13, 2019, 04:23:14 PM »
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/13/labors-tax-policies-to-have-virtually-no-impact-on-wealth-of-bottom-50-of-households

analysis shows average earners in the top decile will be about $11k worse off than Labor, each year. That's a lot of money. And remember, we're not talking about actual rich people, just moderately above average earners with a 1 or 2 or 3 in front.

Don't expect any sympathy from those who are on median incomes and only pay about $12-$15k in tax a year to begin with. People only know what they see.
People in the top 10% are not average earners. Or just moderately above average earners. They earn at least several times what the average earner earns.

Gremlin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #86 on: May 13, 2019, 05:31:21 PM »
Well franking credits are available to everyone also...in fact I'd argue more available than negative gearing since you don't have to have enough to buy a property. The franking credit issue will affect self funded retirees...just another reason to go onto the OAP.

I find it fascinating that retirees impacted by this would classify themselves as "self-funded" when the income stream we're talking about (excess franking credits) comes in the form of a handout from government.  It doesn't offset tax that the individual has already paid.  It's just a cash payout from government coffers.  I know of a couple of cases where so-called "self-funded" retirees currently receive more government handouts in the form of excess franking credits than someone on the OAP.  My taxes are being used to pay for that.  Hardly "self-funded" in my view.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #87 on: May 13, 2019, 06:36:24 PM »
Well franking credits are available to everyone also...in fact I'd argue more available than negative gearing since you don't have to have enough to buy a property. The franking credit issue will affect self funded retirees...just another reason to go onto the OAP.

I find it fascinating that retirees impacted by this would classify themselves as "self-funded" when the income stream we're talking about (excess franking credits) comes in the form of a handout from government.  It doesn't offset tax that the individual has already paid.  It's just a cash payout from government coffers.  I know of a couple of cases where so-called "self-funded" retirees currently receive more government handouts in the form of excess franking credits than someone on the OAP.  My taxes are being used to pay for that.  Hardly "self-funded" in my view.

Yep.  Government handouts, whether increaeed pension or franking credit gifts, are handouts.  Franking credit refunds are a poorly targetted form of welfare.

happy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7110
  • Location: NSW Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #88 on: May 13, 2019, 08:01:14 PM »
Well franking credits are available to everyone also...in fact I'd argue more available than negative gearing since you don't have to have enough to buy a property. The franking credit issue will affect self funded retirees...just another reason to go onto the OAP.

I find it fascinating that retirees impacted by this would classify themselves as "self-funded" when the income stream we're talking about (excess franking credits) comes in the form of a handout from government.  It doesn't offset tax that the individual has already paid.  It's just a cash payout from government coffers.  I know of a couple of cases where so-called "self-funded" retirees currently receive more government handouts in the form of excess franking credits than someone on the OAP.  My taxes are being used to pay for that.  Hardly "self-funded" in my view.

Yep.  Government handouts, whether increaeed pension or franking credit gifts, are handouts.  Franking credit refunds are a poorly targetted form of welfare.

Hmmm, happy to disagree. 

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #89 on: May 13, 2019, 08:30:14 PM »

Negative gearing is available to everyone.
Everyone who can afford an investment property. This is not everyone in the country, or else investments would be worthless - if everyone owned, nobody would rent.

Quote
Franking credits - agree with you. It's good policy to get rid of them.
I didn't say we should get rid of anything at all. I merely note that well-off people get handouts equal to or greater than those received by poorer people, and that poorer people have to jump through more hoops to get them. This is unjust.

Quote
Family tax/childcare rebates - disagree. They are available to families earning up to something like $150k. I wouldn't call that high-income. It's one median earner plus one median earner.
$350k. [https://www.education.gov.au/child-care-subsidy-combined-annual-family-income-0]

Median gross household income in Australia is some $110k. [https://mccrindle.com.au/insights/blog/australias-household-income-wealth-distribution/] If you get more than that (as our household does), you are above median.

Currently, people with household incomes of $341,248  to under $351,248 receive a 20% rebate with a cap of $10,190. That is, someone whose household was on $345,000 could be simply given, at merely the cost and effort of filling out a form online once a year, $10,190 annually. And sympathetic news stories about the terrible struggle these people go through.

A family on $250,000 receives a 50% rebate with no cap. So they could send their child to childcare for 5 days a week 50 weeks a year (most close Christmas/New Year) at $120 a day and receive $60 a day back, or $15,000 annually. If they go for Gucci-style childcare with baby yoga and organic gluten-free pillows to nap on, they might get $30,000 or more. One form online annually, and sympathetic news stories about the terrible struggle these people go through.

By contrast, unemployment benefit is $14,500 annually, with many, many hoops to jump through. And adversarial news stories about the struggles these people go through (unless you read communist newspapers like the Guardian online).

In other words, households on a quarter of a million dollars or more annually are receiving handouts equal to or greater than someone with no income of their own is expected to live on. Why is giving someone with $0 some $15k a year bad, and giving someone with $250,000 some $15k a year good?

Again, I do not say that anyone should have any of these payments stopped. I simply note that middle-class welfare is as or more generous than lower-class welfare, and is made easy to get with no dramas, and is supported by media etc.

Quote
Anyway, this whole election campaign being run on "working families" is just stultifying. Can someone for once think about the successful people in this country who drive its achievements. I'm tired of populism and shit like that.
The successful people take care of themselves. This is why (for example), if you become unemployed and have savings, you are expected to run through those savings before anyone gives you the dole; the benefits are based, we are told, on need. If you have savings you don't need help. Interestingly, this does not apply to negative gearing, franking credits or childcare benefit.

Again: you can argue the value of this or that rebate etc at various incomes and in various circumstances. My point is simply that people with well-above median household incomes do in fact receive generous public handouts - by "generous" I mean "at least as much as someone on the dole is expected to live on".

And in the long-term, we must balance our books. This requires raising taxes or dropping spending. Typically, parties are elected by promising lower taxes and more spending. This can't go on forever, either we make cuts or increase taxes. I am happy to pay more taxes, at the moment I just give it to charity instead. If there are to be cuts, then logically the cuts must be to those on higher incomes; cut the dole and people are homeless and starving, and I don't want to live in the US. Cut franking credits and childcare benefit and so on and nobody loses their home or starves, they just whinge a lot.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #90 on: May 13, 2019, 08:31:55 PM »
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/13/labors-tax-policies-to-have-virtually-no-impact-on-wealth-of-bottom-50-of-households

analysis shows average earners in the top decile will be about $11k worse off than Labor, each year. That's a lot of money. And remember, we're not talking about actual rich people, just moderately above average earners with a 1 or 2 or 3 in front.

Don't expect any sympathy from those who are on median incomes and only pay about $12-$15k in tax a year to begin with. People only know what they see.
People in the top 10% are not average earners. Or just moderately above average earners. They earn at least several times what the average earner earns.

No, at the bottom of the top 10% which is approx $115k they earn about 1.3x the average earner.

I don't have the figure for the average of the top 10% but even if we assume it's something like $225k, that's still only 2.5x the average earner.

I would call that moderately above average.

It's sort of like - the average person saves about 8-10% of their income. Someone who saves 1.5 or 2.5x that, i.e. has a savings rate of say 15-20%, is a moderately above average saver but has a savings rate far below everyone on this board.

Let's not set our sights too low.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #91 on: May 13, 2019, 08:34:56 PM »
Kyle - I had no idea childcare rebates went up in to the $300k's. I thought they cut off at $150k like the Family Tax Benefit.

I agree entirely with you - there is no reason to give any family on more than, say, $100k combined, any childcare rebate, family tax benefit, etc etc. In fact there is no reason to subsidise children, full stop, other than the usual welfare reasons (of indigence and helping with education). The emphasis on puffing up very comfortable families - at the expense of singles and poor families - is ridiculous.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #92 on: May 13, 2019, 09:29:23 PM »
Poorer families receive generous childcare subsidies too. For example, it's 85% rebate for up to $66,958. So you could have someone on minimum wage of $37k, and they might have to pay only $20 a day for childcare - $100 a week of their $600-odd after-tax income, still tough but better than the dole or sole parent's benefit.

Again, I don't say these handouts should stop. That is a wider question. For example, if $15k of handouts mean someone goes and does full-time work and pays $50k in tax, then there is an obvious net benefit to revenue. And of course, there are indirect benefits, for example if society has already paid a stack of money for someone to do a medical degree, we would rather they be out there practising medicine than wiping their child's bum.

And of course we apply asset tests to unemployment benefit but not to old aged pensions; but then, we want the unemployed to have an incentive to take any job that'll have them, and we want to reward older people for a frugal and/or very financially-productive life.

So it's complicated. All I am saying is that,

1. the well-off do receive handouts, and
2. get them with far less drama and hassle than the poor, and
3. that whoever gets the money, at some point we as a society have to pay our bills.

These are truths not generally-acknowledged. Every party speaks sympathetically of the middle class (and only ALP/Greens of the lower classes) and promises only more spending and lower taxes.

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #93 on: May 13, 2019, 11:14:38 PM »
Kyle - I had no idea childcare rebates went up in to the $300k's. I thought they cut off at $150k like the Family Tax Benefit.

I agree entirely with you - there is no reason to give any family on more than, say, $100k combined, any childcare rebate, family tax benefit, etc etc. In fact there is no reason to subsidise children, full stop, other than the usual welfare reasons (of indigence and helping with education). The emphasis on puffing up very comfortable families - at the expense of singles and poor families - is ridiculous.

While I agree that the subsidies (middle class welfare) may be too high at the upper ends of the spectrum as Kyle said, subsidies have, in the past, led to higher birth rates.  I don't want to live in a country like Italy, Spain or Japan where the low birth rates are causing all sorts of issues for the tax system as less people enter the workforce, more leave, and ultimately the productivity of society takes a huge hit.  I want to see educated couples deciding to procreate, so they raise educated children who will work and be taxed in the future. 

Maybe I just look too far into the future?

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #94 on: May 13, 2019, 11:20:51 PM »
The problem is that, even if a subsidy did induce well-educated couples to procreate, it might have the same (or even greater) effect on less educated couples - especially given that the subsidies are higher at the lower end of the spectrum - which then defeats the purpose.

The main reason that our tax system is over-stretched is middle class welfare, and in particular, the age pension. We could solve all our problems by just forcing oldies to sell their homes before they were entitled to an age pension.

I do agree that we should try to focus on increasing capability in society.  I saw a Guardian report the other day that said academic streaming was bad because it set back below-average students but raised the standards of high-achieving students. While I agree that setting back below-average students is a bad thing, it's at least balanced out by raising the standard at the top end, and I would have thought that a more nuanced policy proposal would be to try to alleviate the disadvantage at the low end while maintaining the advantage at the top end, rather than just shelving the proposal altogether.

Kyle Schuant

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1310
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #95 on: May 14, 2019, 01:42:46 AM »
Here's an example of a large company getting things dealt with in an afternoon, vs some guy on a dole having to wait weeks.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-14/adani-csiro-emails-foi-melissa-price/11107276

Maybe it's because I run a (very) small business, but paying money is less offensive to me than having to deal with bureaucracy.

bigchrisb

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #96 on: May 14, 2019, 04:09:16 AM »
Well franking credits are available to everyone also...in fact I'd argue more available than negative gearing since you don't have to have enough to buy a property. The franking credit issue will affect self funded retirees...just another reason to go onto the OAP.

I find it fascinating that retirees impacted by this would classify themselves as "self-funded" when the income stream we're talking about (excess franking credits) comes in the form of a handout from government.  It doesn't offset tax that the individual has already paid.  It's just a cash payout from government coffers.  I know of a couple of cases where so-called "self-funded" retirees currently receive more government handouts in the form of excess franking credits than someone on the OAP.  My taxes are being used to pay for that.  Hardly "self-funded" in my view.

Yep.  Government handouts, whether increaeed pension or franking credit gifts, are handouts.  Franking credit refunds are a poorly targetted form of welfare.

What's a gift about taxing investment income at marginal tax rates?  Refundable franking credits are actually one of the most equitable forms of company taxation, as distributed profits are taxed at an individuals' marginal tax rate.   The gift is having 0% marginal tax rates for super funds. It speaks volumes to Australia's structural problems that the maths of this is lost on most voters.   

middo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Location: Stuck in Melbourne still. Dreaming of WA
  • Learning.
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #97 on: May 14, 2019, 04:25:21 AM »
Well franking credits are available to everyone also...in fact I'd argue more available than negative gearing since you don't have to have enough to buy a property. The franking credit issue will affect self funded retirees...just another reason to go onto the OAP.

I find it fascinating that retirees impacted by this would classify themselves as "self-funded" when the income stream we're talking about (excess franking credits) comes in the form of a handout from government.  It doesn't offset tax that the individual has already paid.  It's just a cash payout from government coffers.  I know of a couple of cases where so-called "self-funded" retirees currently receive more government handouts in the form of excess franking credits than someone on the OAP.  My taxes are being used to pay for that.  Hardly "self-funded" in my view.

Yep.  Government handouts, whether increaeed pension or franking credit gifts, are handouts.  Franking credit refunds are a poorly targetted form of welfare.

What's a gift about taxing investment income at marginal tax rates?  Refundable franking credits are actually one of the most equitable forms of company taxation, as distributed profits are taxed at an individuals' marginal tax rate.   The gift is having 0% marginal tax rates for super funds. It speaks volumes to Australia's structural problems that the maths of this is lost on most voters.

So this practice of handing out money to people who haven't paid tax occurs in how many countries?


marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7254
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #98 on: May 14, 2019, 04:43:01 AM »
Well franking credits are available to everyone also...in fact I'd argue more available than negative gearing since you don't have to have enough to buy a property. The franking credit issue will affect self funded retirees...just another reason to go onto the OAP.

I find it fascinating that retirees impacted by this would classify themselves as "self-funded" when the income stream we're talking about (excess franking credits) comes in the form of a handout from government.  It doesn't offset tax that the individual has already paid.  It's just a cash payout from government coffers.  I know of a couple of cases where so-called "self-funded" retirees currently receive more government handouts in the form of excess franking credits than someone on the OAP.  My taxes are being used to pay for that.  Hardly "self-funded" in my view.

Yep.  Government handouts, whether increaeed pension or franking credit gifts, are handouts.  Franking credit refunds are a poorly targetted form of welfare.

What's a gift about taxing investment income at marginal tax rates?  Refundable franking credits are actually one of the most equitable forms of company taxation, as distributed profits are taxed at an individuals' marginal tax rate.   The gift is having 0% marginal tax rates for super funds. It speaks volumes to Australia's structural problems that the maths of this is lost on most voters.

So this practice of handing out money to people who haven't paid tax occurs in how many countries?

Well the argument is that a franking credit is actually withholding tax (which is correct in my view). But lets suspend logic for a thought experiment....

Assume the entire stockmarket and all private companies were owned by SMSFs in pension phase (zero tax rate).

What would be the point of having a corporate tax imposition (of any rate)? You could have a company tax rate of zero and the country would be no better or worse off.

So ask yourself a question folks. Why do we have a company tax rate at all? You may wonder if it is to capture tax on profits generated by foreign investors, and you may be right however this could be done by a withholding tax mechanism on dividends to foreign shareholders.

@middo I agree that whether someone is on the OAP or getting franking credits they are essentially getting the same dollar from the taxpayer. I've never given it a thought before (because I thought it was a ridiculous outcome) but the government budget is probably better off if that investment in Australian shares is held by someone else (like me) who does pay tax, and the angry old person sells their shares and goes on the OAP.

Ridiculous, but probably true.

bigchrisb

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: #Auspol - Australia Votes 2019!
« Reply #99 on: May 14, 2019, 04:43:32 AM »
I don't disagree that the outcome is a rort. However, the outcome is 0% tax being paid, not negative tax.  Either way, the distortion is caused by having 0% marginal tax rates, not franking.

Most other countries have some form of concession to remove or reduce double taxation on company profits.  Most of which are less progressive than refundable franking credits.