The Australian Politics Thread

[Ellafan]

You’re a stock picker too?

Multi talented.

It has the veneer of being less bogan than a TAB account.

Invest responsibly! <Spoken sotto voce and v. rapidly>

The banks have put .... measures ... in place since the Royal Commission. They are now able to plausibly deny practising asset lending 94% of the time instead of 83%

[Salient]

I guess it was wishful thinking to expect anyone in this thread (except maybe Shanky) to complement the Federal Government on its successful $2 billion program to help first home owners build homes - which is generating a boom for tradies and stimulating the economyat a needed time.

Just doesn't fit with the prevalent anti LNP narrative here, eh?

I'd love you to provide some figures on the takeup of that loan.

The 2 Billion figure is the amount Available, not taken up

Your ABC reported, last night, that at current grant payment rates,the allotted $2billion will be expended by March.

Anyway, I'm glad you lot have the ideological blinkers and ingrained hatred. More Zin Co shares for me

And the long term economic benefits?

One Lib policy I would have to applaud; any of that money going towards stopping absentee foreign property buyers from pushing up property prices beyond what locals can afford? Please note Labor are as much to blame for this river of gold turn up for the Rich as the Liberals, both parties seem to have a "fudge the future generations" approach.

[Ali's Choice]

I guess it was wishful thinking to expect anyone in this thread (except maybe Shanky) to complement the Federal Government on its successful $2 billion program to help first home owners build homes - which is generating a boom for tradies and stimulating the economyat a needed time.

Just doesn't fit with the prevalent anti LNP narrative here, eh?

I'd love you to provide some figures on the takeup of that loan.

The 2 Billion figure is the amount Available, not taken up

Your ABC reported, last night, that at current grant payment rates,the allotted $2billion will be expended by March.

Anyway, I'm glad you lot have the ideological blinkers and ingrained hatred. More Zin Co shares for me

And the long term economic benefits?

One Lib policy I would have to applaud; any of that money going towards stopping absentee foreign property buyers from pushing up property prices beyond what locals can afford? Please note Labor are as much to blame for this river of gold turn up for the Rich as the Liberals, both parties seem to have a "fudge the future generations" approach.

The same ALP that sought to end the negative gearing junket? There are good people on both sides?

[kiwigreg369]

People complain about welfare cheats (rightly) but the cost to the taxpayer of negative gearing is ridiculous...

One day it will change - maybe....

[Ali's Choice]

People complain about welfare cheats (rightly) but the cost to the taxpayer of negative gearing is ridiculous...

One day it will change - maybe....

The cost to taxpayers is very high. And the vast majority of people who voted against scrapping it don't even negatively gear. It's because the Coalition tapped into our aspirations. People had FOMO and didn't want to get rid of negative gearing because they want to jump aboard the gravy train into the future. It's the Australian dream to own 3-4 investment properties when we retire, in the process pricing future generations out of the housing market.

[Pat the Ex Mat]

People complain about welfare cheats (rightly) but the cost to the taxpayer of negative gearing is ridiculous...

One day it will change - maybe....

It will never change - now, all the LNP have to do is raise the spectre of Franking Credits whenever Negative Gearing is tabled....

[Ali's Choice]

Fair to say that Dan Andrews isn't a big fan of Margaret Court?

[ElementFreak]

Nor should anyone be unless they are as homophobic as her. She's a long time removed from her tennis achievements and is now known as the bigot that she is.

[Ali's Choice]

Nor should anyone be unless they are as homophobic as her. She's a long time removed from her tennis achievements and is now known as the bigot that she is.

You'd have to think her being award is purely for political reasons, to wedge progressives or pander to bigoted conservatives.

[ElementFreak]

Which just raises more questions about the current leadership that we have.

[kiwigreg369]

Wait till they announce Pell.

[Ali's Choice]

Wait till they announce Pell.

I just assumed they'll nominate Pell as Governor General once David Hurley retires.

[Shrekles]

People complain about welfare cheats (rightly) but the cost to the taxpayer of negative gearing is ridiculous...

One day it will change - maybe....

It will never change - now, all the LNP have to do is raise the spectre of Franking Credits whenever Negative Gearing is tabled....

Negative gearing is a silly name for an allowable tax deduction for expenses incurred in earning an income.

[Pat the Ex Mat]

People complain about welfare cheats (rightly) but the cost to the taxpayer of negative gearing is ridiculous...

One day it will change - maybe....

It will never change - now, all the LNP have to do is raise the spectre of Franking Credits whenever Negative Gearing is tabled....

Negative gearing is a silly name for an allowable tax deduction for expenses incurred in earning an income.

It disproportionately helps the well off whilst contributing to moving the price of housing further and further out of reach of younger people.

[Ellafan]

People complain about welfare cheats (rightly) but the cost to the taxpayer of negative gearing is ridiculous...

One day it will change - maybe....

It will never change - now, all the LNP have to do is raise the spectre of Franking Credits whenever Negative Gearing is tabled....

Negative gearing is a silly name for an allowable tax deduction for expenses incurred in earning an income.

It disproportionately helps the well off whilst contributing to moving the price of housing further and further out of reach of younger people.

So basically, you want an exception to the universal and simple revenue law regarding deduction of business expenses, on ideological grounds?

[Pat the Ex Mat]

People complain about welfare cheats (rightly) but the cost to the taxpayer of negative gearing is ridiculous...

One day it will change - maybe....

It will never change - now, all the LNP have to do is raise the spectre of Franking Credits whenever Negative Gearing is tabled....

Negative gearing is a silly name for an allowable tax deduction for expenses incurred in earning an income.

It disproportionately helps the well off whilst contributing to moving the price of housing further and further out of reach of younger people.

So basically, you want an exception to the universal and simple revenue law regarding deduction of business expenses, on ideological grounds?

I generally follow people like Ross Gittins who state quite eloquently that it's inequitable.

As a member of the Law community, of course you're more interested in bait and switch tactics in the interests of arguing

[Ali's Choice]

So basically, you want an exception to the universal and simple revenue law regarding deduction of business expenses, on ideological grounds?

Except owning a home isn't the same as running a business. Shelter, like food and clothing is essential for life. Moreover, all businesses are able to deduct expenses incurred in running a business, so that's equitable. Whereas negative gearing only applies to investment home owners. First home buyers and sole home owners who live in their properties can't access these deductions. So it's inequitable and distorts the market.

[Ellafan]

It will never change - now, all the LNP have to do is raise the spectre of Franking Credits whenever Negative Gearing is tabled....

Negative gearing is a silly name for an allowable tax deduction for expenses incurred in earning an income.

It disproportionately helps the well off whilst contributing to moving the price of housing further and further out of reach of younger people.

So basically, you want an exception to the universal and simple revenue law regarding deduction of business expenses, on ideological grounds?

I generally follow people like Ross Gittins who state quite eloquently that it's inequitable.

As a member of the Law community, of course you're more interested in bait and switch tactics in the interests of arguing

You could have just said "yes, because I agree with the Gittins' et al view that it is inequitable."

[Ellafan]

So basically, you want an exception to the universal and simple revenue law regarding deduction of business expenses, on ideological grounds?

Except owning a home isn't the same as running a business. Shelter, like food and clothing is essential for life. Moreover, all businesses are able to deduct expenses incurred in running a business, so that's equitable. Whereas negative gearing only applies to investment home owners. First home buyers and sole home owners who live in their properties can't access these deductions. So it's inequitable and distorts the market.

"Negative gearing" is defined as "the practice of investing borrowed money in such a way as to result in a loss that can be claimed as a tax deduction." Paying the interest and claiming a tax deduction for the delta between income and expenditure on an investment is doing precisely what is emboldened in your above quote. It is not some intricate accounting fraud. Owning your own home as primary residence is not a business.

If an attempt was made to abolish negative gearing for property investors*, it will simply force rents up.

* A limited class of mom and dad investors apparently. It's a bit like "tax the middle class a bit more and give to the poor". Why don't you guys just admit it is an ideology driven policy change, and stop trying to dress it up as some sort of economically defensible thing?

[MungoMan]

So basically, you want an exception to the universal and simple revenue law regarding deduction of business expenses, on ideological grounds?

Except owning a home isn't the same as running a business. Shelter, like food and clothing is essential for life. Moreover, all businesses are able to deduct expenses incurred in running a business, so that's equitable. Whereas negative gearing only applies to investment home owners. First home buyers and sole home owners who live in their properties can't access these deductions. So it's inequitable and distorts the market.

"Negative gearing" is defined as "the practice of investing borrowed money in such a way as to result in a loss that can be claimed as a tax deduction." Paying the interest and claiming a tax deduction for the delta between income and expenditure on an investment is doing precisely what is emboldened in your above quote. It is not some intricate accounting fraud. Owning your own home as primary residence is not a business.

If an attempt was made to abolish negative gearing for property investors*, it will simply force rents up.

Yes, that's a plausible consequence. But how much of an increase is the question.

if abolition of negative gearing resulted in somewhat lower house prices due to lower demand for investment properties, another plausible consequence is a greater proportion of house sold for primary place of dwelling purposes and a concomitant decrease in demand for rental properties.

[Pat the Ex Mat]

Negative gearing is a silly name for an allowable tax deduction for expenses incurred in earning an income.

It disproportionately helps the well off whilst contributing to moving the price of housing further and further out of reach of younger people.

So basically, you want an exception to the universal and simple revenue law regarding deduction of business expenses, on ideological grounds?

I generally follow people like Ross Gittins who state quite eloquently that it's inequitable.

As a member of the Law community, of course you're more interested in bait and switch tactics in the interests of arguing

You could have just said "yes, because I agree with the Gittins' et al view that it is inequitable."

I could have, but perhaps I am as much a provacative fucker as yourself

[Ellafan]

So basically, you want an exception to the universal and simple revenue law regarding deduction of business expenses, on ideological grounds?

Except owning a home isn't the same as running a business. Shelter, like food and clothing is essential for life. Moreover, all businesses are able to deduct expenses incurred in running a business, so that's equitable. Whereas negative gearing only applies to investment home owners. First home buyers and sole home owners who live in their properties can't access these deductions. So it's inequitable and distorts the market.

"Negative gearing" is defined as "the practice of investing borrowed money in such a way as to result in a loss that can be claimed as a tax deduction." Paying the interest and claiming a tax deduction for the delta between income and expenditure on an investment is doing precisely what is emboldened in your above quote. It is not some intricate accounting fraud. Owning your own home as primary residence is not a business.

If an attempt was made to abolish negative gearing for property investors*, it will simply force rents up.

Yes, that's a plausible consequence. But how much of an increase is the question.

if abolition of negative gearing resulted in somewhat lower house prices due to lower demand for investment properties*, another plausible consequence is a greater proportion of house sold for primary place of dwelling purposes and a concomitant decrease in demand for rental properties.

* You assume they (mom and pop investors) won't just keep buying (God isn't making anymore land) and punch the rents up to cover.

It would be simpler to change the policy to extend deductability to primary dwelling owners, who own no other real property, and with a grey stepped area phasing it down/out for household income between $X and $Y - $80K - $100k or whatever you think is equitable.

I have little doubt that all that and much more could be paid for with a 2.5% increase in the GST, but I'm guessing that is not acceptable to your ideology.

[The Optimist]

STFU you Aussie mongs! Daft bunch of carnts! Bickering and squabbling about fvck all. Lost to the Indians! Haven't won the Bled this century. Voted in a science denying mini tRump!

Morrison said: “You know on Australia Day, it’s all about acknowledging how far we’ve come. When those 12 ships turned up in Sydney all those years ago, it wasn’t a particularly flash day for the people on those vessels either.”

Simply WTF?! What is the matter with Aussie politicians! Haven't a braincell between them! The mental dexterity of a goal post.

[Shrekles]

It s a fundamental principle of tax law that expenses occurred in earning an income are tax deductible. Why should investment properties be any different? What next, you want to disallow tax deductions for things like share transaction fees or losses incurred in share trading? Surely these only apply to the more well off?

Negative gearing is a misleading term for an allowable tax deduction.

[Ali's Choice]

It s a fundamental principle of tax law that expenses occurred in earning an income are tax deductible. Why should investment properties be any different? What next, you want to disallow tax deductions for things like share transaction fees or losses incurred in share trading? Surely these only apply to the more well off?

Negative gearing is a misleading term for an allowable tax deduction.

But housing isn't taxed like a business in any other way? If you are saying that houses are a business then they should be taxed like businesses.

[Shrekles]

It s a fundamental principle of tax law that expenses occurred in earning an income are tax deductible. Why should investment properties be any different? What next, you want to disallow tax deductions for things like share transaction fees or losses incurred in share trading? Surely these only apply to the more well off?

Negative gearing is a misleading term for an allowable tax deduction.

But housing isn't taxed like a business in any other way? If you are saying that houses are a business then they should be taxed like businesses.

Investment properties are taxed exactly like a business - that is the point.

[Ellafan]

It s a fundamental principle of tax law that expenses occurred in earning an income are tax deductible. Why should investment properties be any different? What next, you want to disallow tax deductions for things like share transaction fees or losses incurred in share trading? Surely these only apply to the more well off?

Negative gearing is a misleading term for an allowable tax deduction.

But housing isn't taxed like a business in any other way? If you are saying that houses are a business then they should be taxed like businesses.

Yes, investment houses designed to earn rental income are - and most mum and dad investors are looking to the capital gain (taxable) for their real (and taxable) profit to fund retirement.

Primary dwellings are not a business.

[shanky]

Yeah, but AC is right about one aspect of this

The ability to set your taxable loss (from investing) off against your general (usually salary) income, is where the rort lies

It doesn’t happen anywhere else in the tax law, where profits and losses are required to be constrained to the ‘same’ type of business. To stop people moving their losses around for tax benefits. Like bottom-of-the-harbour schemes that Sluggy probably defended in court back in the day

Edit: didn’t realise those schemes have been illegal since 1980. Apologies for suggesting you’re that old sluggy

[Ellafan]

Yeah, but AC is right about one aspect of this

The ability to set your taxable loss (from investing) off against your general (usually salary) income, is where the rort lies

It doesn’t happen anywhere else in the tax law, where profits and losses are required to be constrained to the ‘same’ type of business. To stop people moving their losses around for tax benefits. Like bottom-of-the-harbour schemes that Sluggy probably defended in court back in the day

Edit: didn’t realise those schemes have been illegal since 1980. Apologies for suggesting you’re that old sluggy

Gar Barwick hated the tax office almost as much as he hated oil companies Wasn't hard to get up.

[Ali's Choice]

It's great to see far-right posters engaging with this thread again

It's important that this thread is representative of the full political spectrum.

[shanky]

Yeah, but AC is right about one aspect of this

The ability to set your taxable loss (from investing) off against your general (usually salary) income, is where the rort lies

It doesn’t happen anywhere else in the tax law, where profits and losses are required to be constrained to the ‘same’ type of business. To stop people moving their losses around for tax benefits. Like bottom-of-the-harbour schemes that Sluggy probably defended in court back in the day

Edit: didn’t realise those schemes have been illegal since 1980. Apologies for suggesting you’re that old sluggy

Gar Barwick hated the tax office almost as much as he hated oil companies Wasn't hard to get up.

[shanky]

It's great to see far-right posters engaging with this thread again

It's important that this thread is representative of the full political spectrum.

Pink jizz!

[Ellafan]

Yeah, but AC is right about one aspect of this

The ability to set your taxable loss (from investing) off against your general (usually salary) income, is where the rort lies

It doesn’t happen anywhere else in the tax law, where profits and losses are required to be constrained to the ‘same’ type of business. To stop people moving their losses around for tax benefits. Like bottom-of-the-harbour schemes that Sluggy probably defended in court back in the day

Edit: didn’t realise those schemes have been illegal since 1980. Apologies for suggesting you’re that old sluggy

Gar Barwick hated the tax office almost as much as he hated oil companies Wasn't hard to get up.

I can't remember the name of the case, but did you hear about, or remember one of the last appeals the Commissioner ever made to the Privy Council, basically being an appeal against a very erudite Barwick CJ decision downing them (yet again)?

The ATO representatives were horrified at breakfast, to discover in The Times law list that Barwick CJ had decided to exercise his occasional right, as Chief Justice of Her Majesty's Commonwealth dominions, to sit on the judicial committee of the Council. Immediately after oral submissions were presented, the bloke in the middle seat (possibly Diplock LJ announced that "Sir Garfield Barwick will give the first opinion", and all the English chaps concurred.

It was after that that the Commissioner decided legislative change was a better option than litigation.

[shanky]

I hadn’t heard that story, but it’s a good one.

I was aware that he’d characterised the difference between tax evasion and Australia’s national sport, tax avoidance, thereafter making it something virtuous, something to be strived for.

[Pat the Ex Mat]

If it's such an equitable tax scheme, why are there financial specialists on the side of grandfathering it?

[Ellafan]

If it's such an equitable tax scheme, why are there financial specialists on the side of grandfathering it?

It's not a "tax scheme", whatever that phrase implies, it's an application of the standard principle that applies across the board to all expenditures* made for the purpose of generating income.

[*Recurrant, not capital.]

[Ali's Choice]

I predict another round of harsh funding cuts to teach the ABC a lesson.


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/busine ... 60b36dad53

ABC defends use of ‘Invasion Day’ to mark Australia Day celebrations
STEVE JACKSON
NSW CHIEF REPORTER

The ABC has defended its decision to officially refer to January 26 as “Invasion Day”, maintaining it would be inappropriate to insist that staff only call it Australia Day or “use any one term over others in all contexts”.

The national broadcaster attracted a barrage of criticism — and was accused of stoking national disunity and promoting its own political agenda — after publishing a story on its ABC News website in which the terms “Invasion Day” and “Australia Day” were used interchangeably.

Scores of Australians were quick to register their disapproval online after the article — an otherwise unassuming guide to activities taking place in capital cities around the country on Australia Day this week — was uploaded on Sunday morning.

The news story, entitled “Australia Day/Invasion Day 2021 events for Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart and Darwin”, described the January 26 public holiday as “one of the most polarising dates on the Australian calendar”.

“January 26 marks Australia Day or Invasion Day, typically seen as a celebration of the nation or a day of sorrow for the colonisation of an ancient culture,” it added.

“For many First Nations people, it is a day to mourn the past and galvanise the community to address ongoing systemic racial injustice. For others, it’s a chance to spend time with family and friends at the beach or around barbecues.”

Under the ABC’s Editorial Policies, the national broadcaster has a statutory obligation to “ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial”.

One Nation’s Mark Latham said labelling January 26 “Invasion Day” was needlessly incendiary in an events guide and described it as “part of an ongoing pattern” of political activism masquerading as journalism at the ABC.

“There is a determination in there (at the ABC) to rewrite our national history to fit in with their own left-wing biases and agendas,” the NSW upper house member said.

“It’s disappointing but I’m not surprised. If you can find one conservative voice or centrist voice discussing issues like this on the national broadcaster it’s a fluke. Instead, the ABC is intent on broadcasting political propaganda and left-wing ideologies and making the facts fit their own narrative.”

Mr Latham’s sentiments were echoed across social media, with one user, Geoff Keogh, tweeting: “The ABC is a government service. ‘Invasion Day’ has not been adopted by the parliament or the people/ Sure let’s debate but not adopt before approval.”

Another user, Adam Brown, added: “Geez @abcnews invasion day, really? Lost me as a reader.”

However, leading Aboriginal activist Stephen Hagan applauded the ABC’s use of the term “Invasion Day”.

Dr Hagan, who this month won a 21-year fight to have Australian cheese brand Coon renamed, said that research conducted by the Australian National University suggested only about 20 per cent of Australians supported “the ambitions and goals” of their Indigenous counterparts.

“That means that any survey of the population will only ever garner 20-25% support for the official adoption of Invasion Day and the term will never win approval by general consensus,” Dr Hagan said.

“So I applaud the ABC’s decision to call it Invasion Day because it is the correct term even if it is not the most popular term with everyone.”

An ABC spokeswoman said the broadcaster acknowledged the response generated by its use of the term “Invasion Day” and said that, while “Australia Day” remained the preferred terminology, staff members were free to use other titles for the public holiday at their discretion.

“Some audience members have been asking about the ABC’s terminology in stories and coverage around Australia Day. This is a perennial issue,” she said.

“The default terminology for the ABC remains “Australia Day. We also recognise and respect that community members use other terms for the event, including ‘26 January’, ‘Invasion Day’ and ‘Survival Day’, so our reporting and coverage reflect that.

“It is important to note, though, that both the Macquarie and the Australian Concise Oxford dictionaries list ‘Survival Day’ and ‘Invasion Day’ as roughly synonymous with ‘Australia Day’, either as ‘viewed by Indigenous people and their supporters’ (Macquarie), or ‘especially in Aboriginal Australian contexts’.

“Given the variety of terms in use, and the different perspectives on the day that the ABC is going to cover over the course of the long weekend, it would be inappropriate to mandate staff use any one term over others in all contexts.”

Federal Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said the terminology used by the ABC was ultimately a matter for the broadcaster.

“The Morrison Government’s position on Australia Day is very clear,” Mr Fletcher said. “The position taken by the ABC is a matter for which the ABC must take accountability, as the ABC, by statute, has editorial independence from government.”

[Ellafan]

Five minutes ago you were saying that the ABC was pro LNP. Or was that in another thread?

By the way, please don't call me 'far right'. No need for personal insults.

[grievous]

Five minutes ago you were saying that the ABC was pro LNP. Or was that in another thread?

By the way, please don't call me 'far right'. No need for personal insults.

So as a flag bearing LNP man in here and AC's go to when wanting to vent against the LNP please confirm if you believe the ABC are now siding with the LNP in their reporting according to Guy, AC and Pat Exmat.
Genuinely interested.

[Ellafan]

Five minutes ago you were saying that the ABC was pro LNP. Or was that in another thread?

By the way, please don't call me 'far right'. No need for personal insults.

So as a flag bearing LNP man in here and AC's go to when wanting to vent against the LNP please confirm if you believe the ABC are now siding with the LNP in their reporting according to Guy, AC and Pat Exmat.
Genuinely interested.

Doesn't look like it, does it?

For what it's worth, 26 January is proving divisive and is seen as an insult by our First Nation people, so let's just ditch it. There are plenty of other, more significant days available. 3 March, 3 September, or 9 May, in that order of preference.

I expect a senior educator such as Ali's Choice to understand the historical significance of those dates without the need for further explanation.