|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. Yes. And if you give, for example, every first home owner say $20 000 each all that happens is the price of houses goes up by $20 000. For a mob who's mantra is 'let the market decide' / 'small government' this is a weird policy.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. So now new homer buyers in Sydney Melbourne only need 50k, and will still have to deal with LMI. LOL. -PB The pettiness is strong in this one How is that petty lol? It's being realistic. Good thing the banks will still have to run through the usual checks and balances on the loans. -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. So now new homer buyers in Sydney Melbourne only need 50k, and will still have to deal with LMI. LOL. -PB The pettiness is strong in this one How is that petty lol? It's being realistic. Good thing the banks will still have to run through the usual checks and balances on the loans. -PB How is it not petty? The government is offering to cover 75% of your deposit and your only response is to have a whinge. People wont be satisfied until the government is giving housing away for free.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. Yes. And if you give, for example, every first home owner say $20 000 each all that happens is the price of houses goes up by $20 000. For a mob who's mantra is 'let the market decide' / 'small government' this is a weird policy. And all that happens with removing negative gearing is rents go up making it harder to save for a deposit.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. Yes. And if you give, for example, every first home owner say $20 000 each all that happens is the price of houses goes up by $20 000. For a mob who's mantra is 'let the market decide' / 'small government' this is a weird policy. And all that happens with removing negative gearing is rents go up making it harder to save for a deposit. Well we'll see. You can still negatively gear new homes so in theory that should increase supply as investors would be wiser to maximise their returns by taking advantage of that. The problem with housing is a matter of supply. I would imagine this should increase supply. Full explanation here. https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. Yes. And if you give, for example, every first home owner say $20 000 each all that happens is the price of houses goes up by $20 000. For a mob who's mantra is 'let the market decide' / 'small government' this is a weird policy. And all that happens with removing negative gearing is rents go up making it harder to save for a deposit. Well we'll see. You can still negatively gear new homes so in theory that should increase supply as investors would be wiser to maximise their returns by taking advantage of that. The problem with housing is a matter of supply. I would imagine this should increase supply. Full explanation here. https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing It's not going to work, see here for a full explanation https://www.liberal.org.au/stop-labors-housing-taxFor any further information please visit https://www.liberal.org.au
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. Yes. And if you give, for example, every first home owner say $20 000 each all that happens is the price of houses goes up by $20 000. For a mob who's mantra is 'let the market decide' / 'small government' this is a weird policy. And all that happens with removing negative gearing is rents go up making it harder to save for a deposit. Well we'll see. You can still negatively gear new homes so in theory that should increase supply as investors would be wiser to maximise their returns by taking advantage of that. The problem with housing is a matter of supply. I would imagine this should increase supply. Full explanation here. https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing It's not going to work, see here for a full explanation https://www.liberal.org.au/stop-labors-housing-taxFor any further information please visit https://www.liberal.org.au That's fine. Time will tell. As for that link that tells me nothing except that Labour's policy is 'bad'. There's no 'full explanation' of any sort. The link to the other page doesn't even hyperlink the MBA report so there's no way of confirming anything they wrote. Odd given that if they believe what they're saying you 'd think they'd put up as many references as they could.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. So now new homer buyers in Sydney Melbourne only need 50k, and will still have to deal with LMI. LOL. -PB The pettiness is strong in this one How is that petty lol? It's being realistic. Good thing the banks will still have to run through the usual checks and balances on the loans. -PB How is it not petty? The government is offering to cover 75% of your deposit and your only response is to have a whinge. People wont be satisfied until the government is giving housing away for free. They're not covering it, they're going guarantor for 5%, out of the usual 20% required by banks, which won't change. It's not being petty, its pointing out how back patting over such a measure as some kind of fix for the housing crisis, is stupid. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. Yes. And if you give, for example, every first home owner say $20 000 each all that happens is the price of houses goes up by $20 000. For a mob who's mantra is 'let the market decide' / 'small government' this is a weird policy. And all that happens with removing negative gearing is rents go up making it harder to save for a deposit. Based on what? -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. Yes. And if you give, for example, every first home owner say $20 000 each all that happens is the price of houses goes up by $20 000. For a mob who's mantra is 'let the market decide' / 'small government' this is a weird policy. And all that happens with removing negative gearing is rents go up making it harder to save for a deposit. Well we'll see. You can still negatively gear new homes so in theory that should increase supply as investors would be wiser to maximise their returns by taking advantage of that. The problem with housing is a matter of supply. I would imagine this should increase supply. Full explanation here. https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing It's not going to work, see here for a full explanation https://www.liberal.org.au/stop-labors-housing-taxFor any further information please visit https://www.liberal.org.au lol a few sentence statement, linking to the MBA (Liberal donors lol) which then links to a report commissioned by Cadence Economics (who has done non-released modelling for the LNP in the past), for the MBA, who's report is specifically calibrated to Grattan Institute future assumptions. Talk about a house of cards. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. Yes. And if you give, for example, every first home owner say $20 000 each all that happens is the price of houses goes up by $20 000. For a mob who's mantra is 'let the market decide' / 'small government' this is a weird policy. And all that happens with removing negative gearing is rents go up making it harder to save for a deposit. Well we'll see. You can still negatively gear new homes so in theory that should increase supply as investors would be wiser to maximise their returns by taking advantage of that. The problem with housing is a matter of supply. I would imagine this should increase supply. Full explanation here. https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing It's not going to work, see here for a full explanation https://www.liberal.org.au/stop-labors-housing-taxFor any further information please visit https://www.liberal.org.au That's fine. Time will tell. As for that link that tells me nothing except that Labour's policy is 'bad'. There's no 'full explanation' of any sort. The link to the other page doesn't even hyperlink the MBA report so there's no way of confirming anything they wrote. Odd given that if they believe what they're saying you 'd think they'd put up as many references as they could. It's there, on Cadence's website, just have to go digging for it. They also modeled it basing it as a raising of taxation for the economy rather than it being a reduction of a taxable benefit. Even from their results, it's hard to understand why new construction would minimize if that's the only negatively geared ticket in town should ALP's policies ever get passed. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. Labor have literally said that they'd do the same policy lol. haha! Desperate copy cats. That is if you can trust Shortfused but Shortfused wants to manipulate the market too, making rents a lot dearer. So which one is it?
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. Labor have literally said that they'd do the same policy lol. Dont bother with aikhme. He just wants to argue . He wont change his mind because in it he is always right . Let him be. If labour win next week I want to see if he comes in here or not. Yeah I'm not gonna bother replying to him. If Labor win, he'd probably claim the election was rigged or that there was foreign interference lol. No I won't claim that. if Shortfused wins, he will be a one term wonder. But here is the tip for you and please remember it. Labor is NOT going to win. People are not stupid to hand him the keys to the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xDidn't Treasury/Parliamentary Budget Office say that 96% or 94% of the population won't be impacted by the Franking Credit change? The only people affected are pensioners because they are the only ones to be in the lower income brackets where they can claim some of the 30% franking credit or tax that was paid. Low income people are the o es that will be affected as high income earners normally pay more because they are in the high tax bracket. Our most vulnerable people are getting slammed! I doubt our most vulnerable will have an investment portfolio where they are claiming refunds from franking credits. Well there are many pensioners that have shares and the ones that will be affected by the franking credit are the ones on the lower tiers of the tax brackets. I remember my my parents had shares and they were not high income or wealthy. And they waited for their 3 or 4 k in dividends. It really meant a lot to them. They too too were living week to week and their small share portfolio only subsidized their pension. They had to do a tax return but they were very low income. These are the kinds of retirees that will be affected. Not really, just looking at "taxable income" isn't a fair representation of someones wealth. As previously noted, "taxable income" does not include the largest source of income for many retires: tax-free superannuation. Nor does it tell us much about the overall wealth of those claiming refundable franking credits.The Grattan Institute's Ms Wood said analysing the changes by focusing on taxable income did little to explain the economic position of those affected by the policy change. In a recent submission to a House of Representatives Inquiry, the Grattan Institute gave the following example."Take the example of a self-funded retiree couple with a $3.2 million super balance, plus their own home, and $200,000 in Australian shares held outside super. Even drawing $130,000 a year in superannuation income, and $15,000 a year in dividend income, they would report a combined taxable income of just $15,000 and pay no income tax whatsoever." Calculations by the Grattan Institute show when superannuation income is removed from ABS income and wealth survey data (reflecting taxable income), almost half of the wealthiest 10 per cent of those over 65 report income of less than the $18,200 tax free threshold and thus pay no tax. On average, however, this group had wealth of nearly $2 million, even before factoring in the value of their home or other property assets. This illustrates the extent to which individuals with relatively high levels of untaxed incomes (including from superannuation) and wealth have low taxable incomes. Furthermore, According to the Parliamentary Budget Offices estimates, there are some 320,000 pensioners and allowance recipients who claim refunds for excess imputation credits. Those estimates show the guarantee would reduce revenue by $300 million in 2021-22, or just 5 per cent. The relatively small loss of revenue due to the guarantee in itself suggests most of the revenue from the policy is not coming from full or part pensioners, but wealthier retirees. So basically this policy goes after an unsustainable handout to a generation of asset-rich retirees who already draw tax-free income from their super, while leaving genuine low-income retirees relatively unscathed. This couldn't have come soon enough. No it's not, because your family home doesn't count. You could have bought a house in inner Sydney years ago and that house can be worth a million bucks but that isn't means tested. Under Shortfused it could be. So basically people will be pushed out of their homes. Everyone has already paid tax on their superannuation by means of the 15% super contribution scheme or tax. You can't doubly dip since superannuation is suppose to be put away for people's retirement. It is means tested which means if you have a lot of super, you can't claim a pension anyway, and once it's rolled over for retirement, you do pay tax on any profit the non drawn portion makes. That isn't tax free. So pensioners on the high brackets can't claim the franking credit tax. Only those on low brackets can. Drawing 130,000 a year from your super is not suppose to be taxed so the example is flawed. Tax has already been paid on that. You aredrawing your own money. However, any re-invested portion of the 3.2 million in Super will earn a profit hopefully, and that profit is taxable. So if they draw 130,000, it leaves 3.07 million, earning lets say 5% = just over 150,000 that year. This 150,000 is taxable, and it falls in the high tax bracket. Therefore, they can't claim the franking credit. Claiming the franking Credit only applies to people in the lower tiers of the tax bracket, not those with 3.2 million in super and 200K in shares.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xWhen is Bill Shortfused going to start telling the truth that the Pensioners Franking Credits are NOT a gift because the dividends have already paid company tax on the profit which is why they are fully franked. Bill Shortfused wants to double dip and stop pensioners claiming back the amount of tax dependent on their income bracket. Pensioners rely on that to fund their retirement. What a terrible liar he is... They will still get tax reducing benefits from FC, they just can't get a cash refund from them ffs. -PB Why not? If the company paid the 30% tax on the dividend. And the shareholder retiree is on a lower bracket then why shouldn’t they get a refund like everyone else? Because then it means they're already paying 0 tax to begin with. -PB The tax has been paid by the company in terms of the 30% company tax rate on profits. But let's say the dividend recipient is a low income earner, then they should only pay the amount pertaining to their relevant bracket. Doesn't mean that no tax will be paid, but that low income earners will get some back.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. Labor have literally said that they'd do the same policy lol. Dont bother with aikhme. He just wants to argue . He wont change his mind because in it he is always right . Let him be. If labour win next week I want to see if he comes in here or not. Yeah I'm not gonna bother replying to him. If Labor win, he'd probably claim the election was rigged or that there was foreign interference lol. No I won't claim that. if Shortfused wins, he will be a one term wonder. But here is the tip for you and please remember it. Labor is NOT going to win. People are not stupid to hand him the keys to the economy. Quoted.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. So now new homer buyers in Sydney Melbourne only need 50k, and will still have to deal with LMI. LOL. -PB Yes that is what it means. Normally, they would need 200,000 but under the Liberal's policy they would only require 50,000 for a home worth 1 million. Even if housing market in Sydney dropped by 50% to let's say 500,000, they would require a deposit of 100,000. So it is a big thing and it will open the market up to a lot of people without risking thje economy.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. Labor have literally said that they'd do the same policy lol. Dont bother with aikhme. He just wants to argue . He wont change his mind because in it he is always right . Let him be. If labour win next week I want to see if he comes in here or not. Yeah I'm not gonna bother replying to him. If Labor win, he'd probably claim the election was rigged or that there was foreign interference lol. No I won't claim that. if Shortfused wins, he will be a one term wonder. But here is the tip for you and please remember it. Labor is NOT going to win. People are not stupid to hand him the keys to the economy. Quoted. Beat me to it lol.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. How about we give people free housing then to avoid debt? People will put in as big a deposit as they have. A 5% deposit under the new policy will get people into the market where they can pay things off slowly. No one said it is going to be easy and the market normally goes up in value so people who do buy in will be increasing their wealth and avoid the rent trap.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. Yes. And if you give, for example, every first home owner say $20 000 each all that happens is the price of houses goes up by $20 000. For a mob who's mantra is 'let the market decide' / 'small government' this is a weird policy. Liberals didn't promise to give anyone any money. It offered to guarantee first home buyers who do not have the 20% deposit.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xPersonally, if you can only afford a 5% deposit, I wouldn't want someone going in and buying a property at that value. You're encouraging people into debt traps more than anything. Yes. And if you give, for example, every first home owner say $20 000 each all that happens is the price of houses goes up by $20 000. For a mob who's mantra is 'let the market decide' / 'small government' this is a weird policy. And all that happens with removing negative gearing is rents go up making it harder to save for a deposit. Well we'll see. You can still negatively gear new homes so in theory that should increase supply as investors would be wiser to maximise their returns by taking advantage of that. The problem with housing is a matter of supply. I would imagine this should increase supply. Full explanation here. https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing Problem is, investors will buy housing overseas or opt for shares. I doubt many investors would be keen to build new out in woop woop. I always wanted a house in Italy.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. So now new homer buyers in Sydney Melbourne only need 50k, and will still have to deal with LMI. LOL. -PB The pettiness is strong in this one How is that petty lol? It's being realistic. Good thing the banks will still have to run through the usual checks and balances on the loans. -PB How is it not petty? The government is offering to cover 75% of your deposit and your only response is to have a whinge. People wont be satisfied until the government is giving housing away for free. They're not covering it, they're going guarantor for 5%, out of the usual 20% required by banks, which won't change. It's not being petty, its pointing out how back patting over such a measure as some kind of fix for the housing crisis, is stupid. -PB The home buyer still needs to pay it back. Why would the Government pay for it? And gee, where is that money coming from. the Government is only going to Guarantee home buyers to get them into the market.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. Labor have literally said that they'd do the same policy lol. Dont bother with aikhme. He just wants to argue . He wont change his mind because in it he is always right . Let him be. If labour win next week I want to see if he comes in here or not. Yeah I'm not gonna bother replying to him. If Labor win, he'd probably claim the election was rigged or that there was foreign interference lol. No I won't claim that. if Shortfused wins, he will be a one term wonder. But here is the tip for you and please remember it. Labor is NOT going to win. People are not stupid to hand him the keys to the economy. Quoted. You better believe it mate! I'm going to be here to mine the salt! lol
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Strange that rusty turns up in here after his hiatus . Must be an election and like aikhme is trying to big up his beloved lnp despite them being In deep shit
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xStrange that rusty turns up in here after his hiatus . Must be an election and like aikhme is trying to big up his beloved lnp despite them being In deep shit You should really stop throwing accusations around about someone who really isn't here to defend themselves. it's been proved that Aikhme can't possibly be mere. We are literally 2000 kms apart. He is also on a permaban. You really should seek clarification from the owners before slandering people because you don't like their politics or views. It speaks volumes about your very character. Also, PaulC is a very switched on character on this forum. He is intelligent and well informed.
|
|
|
|
|
robstazzz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xGreat Liberal policy announcement at the launch. The Coalition is going to guarantee every singly first home buyer for most of their deposit in buying a home, so first homebuyers only need a 5% deposit. This is awesome. The First Home Buyer Deposit Guarantee Scheme looks to get first home buyers into the market with a 5% deposit. Very sensible policy lice as opposed to Shortfused interference with the market which will raise rents and still not get first home buyers into the market. scoMomentum really going for it now. Labor have literally said that they'd do the same policy lol. Dont bother with aikhme. He just wants to argue . He wont change his mind because in it he is always right . Let him be. If labour win next week I want to see if he comes in here or not. Yeah I'm not gonna bother replying to him. If Labor win, he'd probably claim the election was rigged or that there was foreign interference lol. No I won't claim that. if Shortfused wins, he will be a one term wonder. But here is the tip for you and please remember it. Labor is NOT going to win. People are not stupid to hand him the keys to the economy. Believe me they are pretty stupid, and they are only getting worse year by year. I hope you're right, but if I were you, I wouldn't be too confident there's more smart people out there compared with the dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xDidn't Treasury/Parliamentary Budget Office say that 96% or 94% of the population won't be impacted by the Franking Credit change? The only people affected are pensioners because they are the only ones to be in the lower income brackets where they can claim some of the 30% franking credit or tax that was paid. Low income people are the o es that will be affected as high income earners normally pay more because they are in the high tax bracket. Our most vulnerable people are getting slammed! I doubt our most vulnerable will have an investment portfolio where they are claiming refunds from franking credits. Well there are many pensioners that have shares and the ones that will be affected by the franking credit are the ones on the lower tiers of the tax brackets. I remember my my parents had shares and they were not high income or wealthy. And they waited for their 3 or 4 k in dividends. It really meant a lot to them. They too too were living week to week and their small share portfolio only subsidized their pension. They had to do a tax return but they were very low income. These are the kinds of retirees that will be affected. Not really, just looking at "taxable income" isn't a fair representation of someones wealth. As previously noted, "taxable income" does not include the largest source of income for many retires: tax-free superannuation. Nor does it tell us much about the overall wealth of those claiming refundable franking credits.The Grattan Institute's Ms Wood said analysing the changes by focusing on taxable income did little to explain the economic position of those affected by the policy change. In a recent submission to a House of Representatives Inquiry, the Grattan Institute gave the following example."Take the example of a self-funded retiree couple with a $3.2 million super balance, plus their own home, and $200,000 in Australian shares held outside super. Even drawing $130,000 a year in superannuation income, and $15,000 a year in dividend income, they would report a combined taxable income of just $15,000 and pay no income tax whatsoever." Calculations by the Grattan Institute show when superannuation income is removed from ABS income and wealth survey data (reflecting taxable income), almost half of the wealthiest 10 per cent of those over 65 report income of less than the $18,200 tax free threshold and thus pay no tax. On average, however, this group had wealth of nearly $2 million, even before factoring in the value of their home or other property assets. This illustrates the extent to which individuals with relatively high levels of untaxed incomes (including from superannuation) and wealth have low taxable incomes. Furthermore, According to the Parliamentary Budget Offices estimates, there are some 320,000 pensioners and allowance recipients who claim refunds for excess imputation credits. Those estimates show the guarantee would reduce revenue by $300 million in 2021-22, or just 5 per cent. The relatively small loss of revenue due to the guarantee in itself suggests most of the revenue from the policy is not coming from full or part pensioners, but wealthier retirees. So basically this policy goes after an unsustainable handout to a generation of asset-rich retirees who already draw tax-free income from their super, while leaving genuine low-income retirees relatively unscathed. This couldn't have come soon enough. No it's not, because your family home doesn't count. You could have bought a house in inner Sydney years ago and that house can be worth a million bucks but that isn't means tested. Under Shortfused it could be. So basically people will be pushed out of their homes. Everyone has already paid tax on their superannuation by means of the 15% super contribution scheme or tax. You can't doubly dip since superannuation is suppose to be put away for people's retirement. It is means tested which means if you have a lot of super, you can't claim a pension anyway, and once it's rolled over for retirement, you do pay tax on any profit the non drawn portion makes. That isn't tax free. So pensioners on the high brackets can't claim the franking credit tax. Only those on low brackets can. Drawing 130,000 a year from your super is not suppose to be taxed so the example is flawed. Tax has already been paid on that. You aredrawing your own money. However, any re-invested portion of the 3.2 million in Super will earn a profit hopefully, and that profit is taxable. So if they draw 130,000, it leaves 3.07 million, earning lets say 5% = just over 150,000 that year. This 150,000 is taxable, and it falls in the high tax bracket. Therefore, they can't claim the franking credit. Claiming the franking Credit only applies to people in the lower tiers of the tax bracket, not those with 3.2 million in super and 200K in shares. LMAO you literally couldn't be more wrong. I can't be bothered arguing with someone as badly motivated as you.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xStrange that rusty turns up in here after his hiatus . Must be an election and like aikhme is trying to big up his beloved lnp despite them being In deep shit You should really stop throwing accusations around about someone who really isn't here to defend themselves. it's been proved that Aikhme can't possibly be mere. We are literally 2000 kms apart. He is also on a permaban. You really should seek clarification from the owners before slandering people because you don't like their politics or views. It speaks volumes about your very character. Also, PaulC is a very switched on character on this forum. He is intelligent and well informed. Who mentioned Paul c on here? Not me . Me thinks you doth protest to much. For some one who claims to be all knowing all you seem to do is what my co worker does and talk a lot of shit about things you know nothing about
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xStrange that rusty turns up in here after his hiatus . Must be an election and like aikhme is trying to big up his beloved lnp despite them being In deep shit You should really stop throwing accusations around about someone who really isn't here to defend themselves. it's been proved that Aikhme can't possibly be mere. We are literally 2000 kms apart. He is also on a permaban. You really should seek clarification from the owners before slandering people because you don't like their politics or views. Lol no it hasn't been proven. Why do you always lie and make shit up?
|
|
|
|