Anthony Albanese - How long?

[SaintsSeptember]

Gee do you think housing affordability because of investment properties and lack of investment in public housing could have something to do with that?

I think people with too much money have confused what a house is worth, with how much they can afford to pay.
Auctions are the method of choice.

It was kind of stunning ( in a bad way ) that people continued to pay more for houses during the last decade.
They invested , assuming that prices would "increase", somehow due to pure blind luck they did.

To buy a house now , can you assume it will go up in value. Logic says it can't unless wages catch up.
Negative gearing is only attributed to around 4% of the house prices. So a million dollar house would only cost $960 000 without it. Big deal.
If you reduced interest back to 1% people who could get the right loan would bump it up to 1.2 million.

Shares used to be a reasonable alternative for those wanting to invest, but now the sheer volume of the superannuation investments are eliminating a lot of the great deals that used to be in the share market.

 

[Gralin]

I think people with too much money have confused what a house is worth, with how much they can afford to pay.
Auctions are the method of choice.

It was kind of stunning ( in a bad way ) that people continued to pay more for houses during the last decade.
They invested , assuming that prices would "increase", somehow due to pure blind luck they did.

To buy a house now , can you assume it will go up in value. Logic says it can't unless wages catch up.
Negative gearing is only attributed to around 4% of the house prices. So a million dollar house would only cost $960 000 without it. Big deal.
If you reduced interest back to 1% people who could get the right loan would bump it up to 1.2 million.

Shares used to be a reasonable alternative for those wanting to invest, but now the sheer volume of the superannuation investments are eliminating a lot of the great deals that used to be in the share market.

It's not negative gearing it's all of the tax minimisation linked to owning residential property, negative gearing is only one outcome of it if your balance sheet ends up a certain way.

As I keep saying, housing should not be a commodity that can be used for profit. End of.

 

[Power Raid]

disappointing from albo this.

whether Albo made the offer or rejected the offer, I would have accepted the decision

Although we have our views on the church, its tax status and or pell; Albo had to make a call and the $s are so small it doesn't matter. I just hope the decision is in line with every other Aussie family faced with the same situation.

 

[Not Important]

whether Albo made the offer or rejected the offer, I would have accepted the decision

Although we have our views on the church, its tax status and or pell; Albo had to make a call and the $s are so small it doesn't matter. I just hope the decision is in line with every other Aussie family faced with the same situation.

it's the principal, not the $, that offends me. and, in many respects, sets a precedent.

 

[Power Raid]

it's the principal, not the $, that offends me. and, in many respects, sets a precedent.

agree

if this is how it is for ALL Aussies, I don't have an issue

if not, I'd suggest it is the wrong decision

 

[Donakebab]

I love your posting but I just struggle to get my head around that mate.

Trust me, I’m not in support of the Australian media, but I still think it’s a huge problem if that is indeed his current mindset.

I’d much rather him say fu** the media, this is what I think is needed for Australians and if there’s backlash, then so be it. Most Australians can see through the media garbage anyway.
I’m sick to death of politicians choosing their own image first and needing to chase swing voters/power.

The fact that we just suffered through a horrendous three term LNP government says otherwise.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

so you disagree with norway's and sweden's tax system? and or calling their tax system neo-liberal trickle down economics?

or you feel their tax system makes sense but you want others to pay high consumption taxes, but don't actually want to pay high consumption taxes yourself, and thus give it a bad name?

I'm unfamiliar with the taxation systems of foreign countries but what I do know is that imposing taxes on consumption rather than income punishes those who can least afford it and gives even bigger handouts to those who have a large amount of wealth already exacerbating wealth inequity.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

the same unfair outcome occurs for those who work as well as business owners. The only difference is workers may have holidays or sick leave which may give them a buffer.

but nevertheless the same unfair outcome occurs where the wealthy maintain status quo and the ordinary would be penalised under law. Do you feel that is fair?

I think other social safety nets should be in place rather than the government giving handouts to those that don't need it (eg TAC/workers comp for those injured in those circumstances, jobseeker welfare for those who need it etc) as well as income protection which most self employed people should have as a matter of course and many people have as part of their super.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The use of the word subsidised in not accurate

It is accurate.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Hard to change much from opposition….ask Bill Shorten.

Or even Peter Dutton. So happy to see the realisation dawning on him that he now has next to zero power and influence.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

you only have to look at nations without negative gearing (or limits) or the period in Australia when we didn't have it, to know your statement is not correct

You only have to look at the current situation in Australia to know that my statement is correct.

 

[adogsfan5]

The fact that we just suffered through a horrendous three term LNP government says otherwise.

Still doesn’t change the fact that we can’t have a PM hiding away from making big decisions in fear of what the herald sun will say/to get voters.

 

[Chief]

under the proposals put forward by the Greens and Labor were:

• only the wealthy can continue to negative gear

Only the wealthy DO negative gear right now.

 

[Power Raid]

You only have to look at the current situation in Australia to know that my statement is correct.

you see your position is not correct.

we know from assessing property prices globally, we can understand Australia's negative gearing policy is not the issue. Rather something else much bigger and more global is the issue. Otherwise you wouldn't see other jurisdictions face the same pressures at the same time.

but I guess reality doesn't suit your agenda (what ever that is)

 

[Power Raid]

Only the wealthy DO negative gear right now.

well if that was the case, then Labor's policy wouldn't have impacted anyone. Given that's not the case, then we know this statement is false.

#factcheck

 

[Chief]

well if that was the case, then Labor's policy wouldn't have impacted anyone. Given that's not the case, then we know this statement is false.

#factcheck

We know the vast majority of people who use negative gearing are wealthy.

We know that we have housing shortages all over the country despite negative gearing supposedly encouraging investment.

 

[Power Raid]

I think other social safety nets should be in place rather than the government giving handouts to those that don't need it (eg TAC/workers comp for those injured in those circumstances, jobseeker welfare for those who need it etc) as well as income protection which most self employed people should have as a matter of course and many people have as part of their super.

it is a shame you want to enshrine tax benefits for the wealthy and penalise the ordinary

if that's your position.......fine

I personally don't like the idea of enshrining a class system in taxation or our society as a whole.

 

[Power Raid]

We know the vast majority of people who use negative gearing are wealthy.

We know that we have housing shortages all over the country despite negative gearing supposedly encouraging investment.

Personally I would prefer we look globally on property price increases, to understand and appreciate property prices have also gone up in jurisdictions where they don't have negative gearing or limits. This helps isolate the actual cause of the issue.

Once being informed we can then implement solutions to what is otherwise a serious issue.

Enshrining a class system is hardly a solution.

Nor is tackling the wrong issues.

Without even bothering to understand the actual cause, kind of makes a mockery of not only the affordability of housing but the people left out of the market. I would have thought these people deserve a little respect.

 

[Power Raid]

I'm unfamiliar with the taxation systems of foreign countries but what I do know is that imposing taxes on consumption rather than income punishes those who can least afford it and gives even bigger handouts to those who have a large amount of wealth already exacerbating wealth inequity.

but this is a myth or more accurately exaggeration

we know this not only due to the laws of elasticity in economics. Essentially this myth requires the mistaken belief income taxes are paid by the recipient of the income and consumption taxes paid by the recipient of the goods and services.

When in realty we know both parties in a transaction be it income (company and the employee) or the consumption of goods (the buyer and seller) share the burden. The % is determined by elasticity.

Another way to think about it is, does a company oncost income tax costs to the consumer of products? The answer is yes!



We can also look at high GSTs in action by assessing Norway and Sweden. They have high standards of living and equality.

One of the key benefits overlooked is high GST prevents transfer pricing issue and results in higher tax collection from multinationals.

I do accept that the dole, the minimum wage and other social welfare measures need to be increased when GST increases as they were when GST was first introduced. I would punt my life we will have a 20-25% GST by 2050 just Sweden, Finland and Norway or a variable GST like the UK which goes as high as 28%.

 

[peetoo]

disappointing from albo this.

Maybe Albo knows the wish is unlikely

 

[Demonic Ascent]

you see your position is not correct.

we know from assessing property prices globally, we can understand Australia's negative gearing policy is not the issue. Rather something else much bigger and more global is the issue. Otherwise you wouldn't see other jurisdictions face the same pressures at the same time.

but I guess reality doesn't suit your agenda (what ever that is)

Australia's negative gearing policy is part of the issue. It is not the sole issue.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

it is a shame you want to enshrine tax benefits for the wealthy and penalise the ordinary

if that's your position.......fine

I personally don't like the idea of enshrining a class system in taxation or our society as a whole.

That's the complete opposite of what I said.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

but this is a myth or more accurately exaggeration

we know this not only due to the laws of elasticity in economics. Essentially this myth requires the mistaken belief income taxes are paid by the recipient of the income and consumption taxes paid by the recipient of the goods and services.

When in realty we know both parties in a transaction be it income (company and the employee) or the consumption of goods (the buyer and seller) share the burden. The % is determined by elasticity.

Another way to think about it is, does a company oncost income tax costs to the consumer of products? The answer is yes!



We can also look at high GSTs in action by assessing Norway and Sweden. They have high standards of living and equality.

One of the key benefits overlooked is high GST prevents transfer pricing issue and results in higher tax collection from multinationals.

I do accept that the dole, the minimum wage and other social welfare measures need to be increased when GST increases as they were when GST was first introduced. I would punt my life we will have a 20-25% GST by 2050 just Sweden, Finland and Norway or a variable GST like the UK which goes as high as 28%.

I'm sure that having a higher GST isn't the only difference between our taxation/economic systems and theirs. Without the other social measures in place raising the GST will only penalise those who can least afford and let the wealthy off the hook. Plenty of other ways to ensure multinationals pay the tax they should without penalising the least well off in society - if a government actually had the will to do so.

 

[Cmarsh]

American defence companies keep getting good business from us.

Australian Army to replace European fleet with 40 American-made UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters

On Wednesday the government will announce it will acquire 40 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters for the Australian Army for an estimated $2.8 billion.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Rob R]

American defence companies keep getting good business from us.

Australian Army to replace European fleet with 40 American-made UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters

On Wednesday the government will announce it will acquire 40 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters for the Australian Army for an estimated $2.8 billion.

www.abc.net.au

Would have been nice if we hadn't wasted billions and years on the French lemons that they are replacing. I guess that's what happens when military kit is chosen by project staff in Canberra who don't have a clue about how they are used but definitely know how to enjoy parties anf overseas junkets thrown by lobbyists for them and pollies.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app