The Politics Thread 2019

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

Post Reply
Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

The Politics Thread 2019

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 6, 2019, 3:34 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ser-anning

Anyone think this guy can't get enough votes in QLD to win a Senate seat?

User avatar
Sterlk
John Ferguson
Posts: 2917
Joined: July 20, 2008, 10:41 am
Location: Canberra - Raiders season ticket

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sterlk » January 10, 2019, 9:45 pm

There's a fair bit of far-right support in QLD. Last election One Nation got about 9% of Senate first preferences there, which is more than double any other state. If there's anywhere far-right figures can get elected, its probably QLD.

Last time around he was elected from the One Nation ticket though; which he won't be on this time around as they fell out. It's pretty hard to get elected as an independent in the Senate, unless you're a big-name like Nick Xenophon.

Antony Green's verdict:
Senator Anning’s term finishes on June 30 and he will never sit again.
:!: Warning: poster is incapable of humour, engage with at your own risk. Symptoms of engagement may include frustration, mental imbalance and temporary insanity.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Green eyed Mick » January 11, 2019, 6:49 pm

Sterlk wrote:
January 10, 2019, 9:45 pm
There's a fair bit of far-right support in QLD. Last election One Nation got about 9% of Senate first preferences there, which is more than double any other state. If there's anywhere far-right figures can get elected, its probably QLD.

Last time around he was elected from the One Nation ticket though; which he won't be on this time around as they fell out. It's pretty hard to get elected as an independent in the Senate, unless you're a big-name like Nick Xenophon.

Antony Green's verdict:
Senator Anning’s term finishes on June 30 and he will never sit again.
He's pushing **** up hill, but you never know. Queensland has a history of electing crack pots.

User avatar
Sterlk
John Ferguson
Posts: 2917
Joined: July 20, 2008, 10:41 am
Location: Canberra - Raiders season ticket

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sterlk » January 23, 2019, 2:34 pm

Surprised this thread has been so quiet for the past few weeks, there's a fair bit going on.
:!: Warning: poster is incapable of humour, engage with at your own risk. Symptoms of engagement may include frustration, mental imbalance and temporary insanity.

gergreg
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6713
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gergreg » January 23, 2019, 4:38 pm

If and when Labor wins this thread will become much more active again.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
Sterlk
John Ferguson
Posts: 2917
Joined: July 20, 2008, 10:41 am
Location: Canberra - Raiders season ticket

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sterlk » January 23, 2019, 4:54 pm

Well here's something:

May 18 everybody, mark the date.
Meanwhile, new clues emerged confirming May 18 as the almost-certain election date, with the Liberal Party reserving space that evening at its favoured election-night hotel in Sydney.
:!: Warning: poster is incapable of humour, engage with at your own risk. Symptoms of engagement may include frustration, mental imbalance and temporary insanity.

User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 29838
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by -TW- » January 23, 2019, 4:54 pm

Sterlk wrote:Surprised this thread has been so quiet for the past few weeks, there's a fair bit going on.
I've managed to ignore most of it tbh

gergreg
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6713
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gergreg » January 23, 2019, 5:14 pm

Sterlk wrote:Surprised this thread has been so quiet for the past few weeks, there's a fair bit going on.
Actually there has been a constant stream of baffling decisions/comments/actions from the government for quite some time now.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15665
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » January 24, 2019, 8:48 am

Sterlk wrote:
January 23, 2019, 2:34 pm
Surprised this thread has been so quiet for the past few weeks, there's a fair bit going on.
I'm normally pretty engaged in politics, as an interested observer at Federal level, and as an annoying and self-interested meddler at local Council.

Honestly though, it's just so bloody awful at the moment in parliament that I've pretty much logged off. We're going to slide into a 4 month election campaign shortly, with a slow motion car crash transition from a nasty, incompetent LNP government into the worst Labor regime of the last hundred years, with a new ruling party made up entirely of former unionists and political staffers.

There's a very real chance that we'll have legislation passing from a lower house of chest beating faux class warriors into a senate controlled by a few right wing loons from the backblocks of the most ideologically hideous parts of Queensland.

Honestly, what is there to get excited about? Our political classes in Australia just sink to lower and more uninspiring depths.

The main issue though is that Schifty has been noticeably absent here, so the lack of hilarious but absurd left-wing dogma has left the place a little hollow for me. GEM hasn't posted an outraged :cmon emoticon in months, either, so there's nothing for me to get all indignant about.

Grim times for the Politics Thread.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16308
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Schifty » January 24, 2019, 9:06 am

The PM's Dept photoshopped two left feet containing Dunlop volleys onto Morrison in a photo nobody would have ever paid attention to.

I think that sums up #Auspol right now.

Other than Katter being his usual homophobic self by now claiming homosexuality is a trend.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15665
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » January 24, 2019, 9:27 am

Schifty wrote:
January 24, 2019, 9:06 am
The PM's Dept photoshopped two left feet containing Dunlop volleys onto Morrison in a photo nobody would have ever paid attention to.

I think that sums up #Auspol right now.

Other than Katter being his usual homophobic self by now claiming homosexuality is a trend.
'Inept political intern drops a bollock'

'North Queensland Septuagenarian Not Quite Across The Whole Gay Thing'

I mean, this is my point....not exactly the most stirring of political moments.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16308
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Schifty » January 24, 2019, 9:29 am

The only highlight has been the #ThingsCookDid on twitter after Morrison decided to recreate a voyage around Australia that never took place.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15665
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » January 24, 2019, 9:33 am

Schifty wrote:
January 24, 2019, 9:29 am
The only highlight has been the #ThingsCookDid on twitter after Morrison decided to recreate a voyage around Australia that never took place.
He meant FLINDERS, OK!??!

Jee-zuz you maoists are picky.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9365
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » January 24, 2019, 8:48 pm

Cook let Flinders take the Endeavour out for a spin round oz?

User avatar
Sterlk
John Ferguson
Posts: 2917
Joined: July 20, 2008, 10:41 am
Location: Canberra - Raiders season ticket

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sterlk » January 24, 2019, 9:53 pm

T_R wrote:
January 24, 2019, 8:48 am
There's a very real chance that we'll have legislation passing from a lower house of chest beating faux class warriors into a senate controlled by a few right wing loons from the backblocks of the most ideologically hideous parts of Queensland.
For the 2016 double dissolution election, they did the whole senate (rather than the typical half), so the number of votes required to hit the quota and take a seat would've been much lower than it usually is. In the aftermath I recall the major parties passing something meaning those with the most votes would get six year terms, meaning all the minor players received three year terms... and it would be safe to predict a lot of those seats this time around will go to the major parties.

There will of course still be some minor party representation in the Senate. If Labor do go on to form government in the HoR, I've seen predictions that Labor and Greens together won't be enough for a majority in the Senate, so there'll likely be a crossbencher or two involved in things. One would think they'd be working with those closest to them on the political spectrum, though - I don't know much about the positions of the minor parties, though you'd have to think a deal would more likely be done with SA's Centre Alliance (who I'm assuming have centrist values), rather than anybody from the far-right.
:!: Warning: poster is incapable of humour, engage with at your own risk. Symptoms of engagement may include frustration, mental imbalance and temporary insanity.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15665
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » January 25, 2019, 5:37 am

We'll see - and you could well be right. I just have a niggling feeling that thebFraser Annings or this world might have another election or two in them yet.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

gergreg
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6713
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gergreg » January 25, 2019, 7:04 am

I've seen it suggested that Anning received 19 votes, any truth to that? Sometimes I think we get the politicians we deserve but we've crossed the tipping point. Nobody deserves somebody like Dutton, Anning etc

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15665
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » January 25, 2019, 9:59 am

It's very true. He was about 1000th on the One Nation ticket, and found his way into the Senate as a result of those above him resigning or being booted. With 19 first preference votes though, it's clear that he's very popular among a small group of close personal friends and blood relatives.

Post election, he's certainly building a following among my fellow redneck Queenslanders, and with One Nation a little on the nose up here I think he's a very good chance of scooping a decent share of the protest vote....before he inevitably forms some whacko party with his own name in the title - 'The Fraser Anning One United Australia Nation Party Alliance' or somesuch, imploding and disappearing into the obscurity of late night commentary gigs on Sky News.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Sterlk
John Ferguson
Posts: 2917
Joined: July 20, 2008, 10:41 am
Location: Canberra - Raiders season ticket

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sterlk » January 25, 2019, 11:10 am

Fraser Anning formed a party a few weeks ago.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/senator-fra ... -nationals
:!: Warning: poster is incapable of humour, engage with at your own risk. Symptoms of engagement may include frustration, mental imbalance and temporary insanity.

User avatar
BJ
David Furner
Posts: 3544
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by BJ » January 25, 2019, 12:32 pm

Sterlk wrote:Fraser Anning formed a party a few weeks ago.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/senator-fra ... -nationals
I thought his party formed in Nuremberg in the 1930s.

gergreg
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6713
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gergreg » January 25, 2019, 12:49 pm

T_R wrote:It's very true. He was about 1000th on the One Nation ticket, and found his way into the Senate as a result of those above him resigning or being booted. With 19 first preference votes though, it's clear that he's very popular among a small group of close personal friends and blood relatives.

Post election, he's certainly building a following among my fellow redneck Queenslanders, and with One Nation a little on the nose up here I think he's a very good chance of scooping a decent share of the protest vote....before he inevitably forms some whacko party with his own name in the title - 'The Fraser Anning One United Australia Nation Party Alliance' or somesuch, imploding and disappearing into the obscurity of late night commentary gigs on Sky News.
Don't worry you'll be frothing at the mouth at Origin time, along with GE, in no time.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15665
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » January 25, 2019, 1:31 pm

Sterlk wrote:
January 25, 2019, 11:10 am
Fraser Anning formed a party a few weeks ago.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/senator-fra ... -nationals
:lol: I'd forgotten that. Frankly, he should have gone with my suggestion for the name.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24586
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by PigRickman » January 25, 2019, 8:03 pm

https://twitter.com/abccanberra/status/ ... 5076784129

Anyone on twitter, can you all just hit this and give it some love.
I am very lucky to have come into contact with Dr Packer through my wife, and I fully appreciate the impact she has had on the community with some of the most vulnerable children in our society. It's truly immense.

This incredible women deserves every accolade she gets, and it's still not enough.

Amazing women, amazing accomplishments. And she should be celebrated by everyone.
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15665
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » January 25, 2019, 8:09 pm

Is she aware what you did to your daughter's hair?
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24586
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by PigRickman » January 25, 2019, 8:17 pm

FWIW this women was a one women band with regards to child protection in the ACT for about 30 years. She's an icon of her industry.
T_R wrote:
January 25, 2019, 8:09 pm
Is she aware what you did to your daughter's hair?
Not yet, the child protection notification hasn't yet reached her... i assure you it will
The shame is mine :cry:
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16308
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Schifty » January 26, 2019, 8:45 am

RT.

Even though is almost offensively off brand for my content.

gergreg
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6713
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gergreg » January 26, 2019, 7:18 pm

Will there be anybody left in the Liberal party by May?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16308
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Schifty » January 27, 2019, 7:55 am

Bishop is tipped to call it quits in the next few weeks..

But hey at least Tone will hang around after he narrowly defeated a chair in preselection.

gergreg
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6713
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gergreg » January 27, 2019, 8:25 am

Schifty wrote:Bishop is tipped to call it quits in the next few weeks..

But hey at least Tone will hang around after he narrowly defeated a chair in preselection.
He might regret turning down that London gig.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9365
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » January 27, 2019, 11:43 am

gergreg wrote:
Schifty wrote:Bishop is tipped to call it quits in the next few weeks..

But hey at least Tone will hang around after he narrowly defeated a chair in preselection.
He might regret turning down that London gig.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Here’s hoping he does. Be justice if he suffers from his **** decisions just as Australia has.

User avatar
Sterlk
John Ferguson
Posts: 2917
Joined: July 20, 2008, 10:41 am
Location: Canberra - Raiders season ticket

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Sterlk » February 9, 2019, 10:24 am

Finance hat on. For those that can wrap their heads around it, thoughts on the franking credit refund debate?

For me, it comes down to whether you accept the core premise that income earned by companies (but passed on to shareholders in the form of dividends) should be taxed at the shareholder's marginal tax rate, instead of the company's.

While it's fair enough that the funds shouldn't be taxed twice, which is ostensibly the point, I reject the premise. When they brought franking credits in initially, there would've been a decision as to which tax rate should be applicable - they can calculate it at the corporate level initially, or later on at the individual level for whatever amount makes it through as dividends.

If they'd decided to do it at the corporate level, then the company would pay whatever tax is due on the earnings it makes, and dividends from Australian companies would theoretically come through to shareholders tax free. Instead, the applicable tax rate is the individual's, so we have a complicated system to work out what to do with the tax that the company has already paid at its own tax rate.

I'm not going to do the research to figure out the motivation behind a decision made back in the 80's, but I'll hazard a guess that this choice was made because - like today - there might've been a whole bunch of large companies structuring their affairs so they essentially pay 0% tax. So if the rate of tax payable was the company's, there's no income for the government in that scenario, making it more profitable to tax the individual... who on average will presumably be paying a fair bit more than 0% tax. The flipside, of course, is that in the current individual-pays system you have retirees and such with a lower tax rate than many companies.

In my opinion, the correct solution is:
  • Reform taxation so that we don't have so many big companies paying zero tax
  • Calculate the tax rate and collect it where the money is earned, at the corporate level
  • All Australian dividends are passed through tax-free to shareholders, because the company already paid tax on its earnings
That solution sadly not being on the table, we have a debate where one side is claiming it'll be double-taxation if you take their refunds away, and another saying that working taxpayers are unfairly supporting these investors by paying for these refunds. They're both wrong.

The refunds being issued to investors isn't money that workers would otherwise have in their pocket, it's the tax withheld that the company has paid on its earnings. It essentially means no tax has been collected by the government, a 'correction' of too much tax withheld. If we're stuck with the silly premise that the shareholder's tax rate applies, then yes; the difference between the company's tax rate and the individual's should be returned to said individual. It's essentially the same as an individual taxpayer getting a refund from their tax return because too much tax was withheld by their employer.

It won't be double-taxation if the refunds are removed, because the would-be recipient isn't being taxed in addition to the company. What actually seems to be happening is that in this specific circumstance where we'd move into refund territory the calculation of the tax rate would be getting shifted to the corporate level. Taxed once, but these people are singled out as the only ones not getting to use their individual tax rate. Potentially unfair, depending on your point of view.

TL;DR
I disagree with the entire concept of franking credits; companies should pay tax on what they earn and the money should be distributed downstream tax free after that, instead of allowing calculation at the shareholder's tax rate.
Both sides are overstating and making bad arguments. The status-quo with the refunds treats all investors equally. The proposed changes single out people whose income isn't taxable to effectively make them pay more tax (giving them a higher tax rate, but NOT double-taxation), whether this group needs to be taxed more or not is a matter of opinion.
:!: Warning: poster is incapable of humour, engage with at your own risk. Symptoms of engagement may include frustration, mental imbalance and temporary insanity.

gergreg
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6713
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gergreg » February 9, 2019, 1:23 pm

Interesting article

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/nation ... 50wht.html

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
papabear
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6104
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear » February 12, 2019, 3:54 pm

Sterlk wrote:
February 9, 2019, 10:24 am
Finance hat on. For those that can wrap their heads around it, thoughts on the franking credit refund debate?

For me, it comes down to whether you accept the core premise that income earned by companies (but passed on to shareholders in the form of dividends) should be taxed at the shareholder's marginal tax rate, instead of the company's.

While it's fair enough that the funds shouldn't be taxed twice, which is ostensibly the point, I reject the premise. When they brought franking credits in initially, there would've been a decision as to which tax rate should be applicable - they can calculate it at the corporate level initially, or later on at the individual level for whatever amount makes it through as dividends.

If they'd decided to do it at the corporate level, then the company would pay whatever tax is due on the earnings it makes, and dividends from Australian companies would theoretically come through to shareholders tax free. Instead, the applicable tax rate is the individual's, so we have a complicated system to work out what to do with the tax that the company has already paid at its own tax rate.

I'm not going to do the research to figure out the motivation behind a decision made back in the 80's, but I'll hazard a guess that this choice was made because - like today - there might've been a whole bunch of large companies structuring their affairs so they essentially pay 0% tax. So if the rate of tax payable was the company's, there's no income for the government in that scenario, making it more profitable to tax the individual... who on average will presumably be paying a fair bit more than 0% tax. The flipside, of course, is that in the current individual-pays system you have retirees and such with a lower tax rate than many companies.

In my opinion, the correct solution is:
  • Reform taxation so that we don't have so many big companies paying zero tax
  • Calculate the tax rate and collect it where the money is earned, at the corporate level
  • All Australian dividends are passed through tax-free to shareholders, because the company already paid tax on its earnings
That solution sadly not being on the table, we have a debate where one side is claiming it'll be double-taxation if you take their refunds away, and another saying that working taxpayers are unfairly supporting these investors by paying for these refunds. They're both wrong.

The refunds being issued to investors isn't money that workers would otherwise have in their pocket, it's the tax withheld that the company has paid on its earnings. It essentially means no tax has been collected by the government, a 'correction' of too much tax withheld. If we're stuck with the silly premise that the shareholder's tax rate applies, then yes; the difference between the company's tax rate and the individual's should be returned to said individual. It's essentially the same as an individual taxpayer getting a refund from their tax return because too much tax was withheld by their employer.

It won't be double-taxation if the refunds are removed, because the would-be recipient isn't being taxed in addition to the company. What actually seems to be happening is that in this specific circumstance where we'd move into refund territory the calculation of the tax rate would be getting shifted to the corporate level. Taxed once, but these people are singled out as the only ones not getting to use their individual tax rate. Potentially unfair, depending on your point of view.

TL;DR
I disagree with the entire concept of franking credits; companies should pay tax on what they earn and the money should be distributed downstream tax free after that, instead of allowing calculation at the shareholder's tax rate.
Both sides are overstating and making bad arguments. The status-quo with the refunds treats all investors equally. The proposed changes single out people whose income isn't taxable to effectively make them pay more tax (giving them a higher tax rate, but NOT double-taxation), whether this group needs to be taxed more or not is a matter of opinion.
To be honest, I agree with a lot of what you have to say.

The reason for the current system is the corporate tax rate is so much lower then the highest income tax rate.

Thus the motivation to move money through your pocket as shares as opposed to wages is so high and the govt wants that revenue.

I.e. A plumber runs a plumbing company pays himself a 100k wage distributes a fully franked dividend of 200k to himself on 285k profit (85k tax) (numbers arent exact but meh).

Getting rid of franking credits would result in the government getting:-
- 112k
Plumber getting - 273k

The current system has
AT0 -154k
plumber 231k

The only way you can make it work is if you have a partner who doesnt work.

Hence our system actually promotes people to stay at home and look after your kids / dogs / plants / computer whatever, as opposed to getting a job.

The coalition probably likes keeping someone at home.

The labor just likes taxing you up your ****.

No matter how you look at it, when it comes to taxes and the economy the coalition is always going to be the lesser of two evils.

On that matter though, do we still have supporters for labors cracking negative gearing changes? anyone?







Anyone?

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Green eyed Mick » February 12, 2019, 6:05 pm

papabear wrote:
February 12, 2019, 3:54 pm
Sterlk wrote:
February 9, 2019, 10:24 am
Finance hat on. For those that can wrap their heads around it, thoughts on the franking credit refund debate?

For me, it comes down to whether you accept the core premise that income earned by companies (but passed on to shareholders in the form of dividends) should be taxed at the shareholder's marginal tax rate, instead of the company's.

While it's fair enough that the funds shouldn't be taxed twice, which is ostensibly the point, I reject the premise. When they brought franking credits in initially, there would've been a decision as to which tax rate should be applicable - they can calculate it at the corporate level initially, or later on at the individual level for whatever amount makes it through as dividends.

If they'd decided to do it at the corporate level, then the company would pay whatever tax is due on the earnings it makes, and dividends from Australian companies would theoretically come through to shareholders tax free. Instead, the applicable tax rate is the individual's, so we have a complicated system to work out what to do with the tax that the company has already paid at its own tax rate.

I'm not going to do the research to figure out the motivation behind a decision made back in the 80's, but I'll hazard a guess that this choice was made because - like today - there might've been a whole bunch of large companies structuring their affairs so they essentially pay 0% tax. So if the rate of tax payable was the company's, there's no income for the government in that scenario, making it more profitable to tax the individual... who on average will presumably be paying a fair bit more than 0% tax. The flipside, of course, is that in the current individual-pays system you have retirees and such with a lower tax rate than many companies.

In my opinion, the correct solution is:
  • Reform taxation so that we don't have so many big companies paying zero tax
  • Calculate the tax rate and collect it where the money is earned, at the corporate level
  • All Australian dividends are passed through tax-free to shareholders, because the company already paid tax on its earnings
That solution sadly not being on the table, we have a debate where one side is claiming it'll be double-taxation if you take their refunds away, and another saying that working taxpayers are unfairly supporting these investors by paying for these refunds. They're both wrong.

The refunds being issued to investors isn't money that workers would otherwise have in their pocket, it's the tax withheld that the company has paid on its earnings. It essentially means no tax has been collected by the government, a 'correction' of too much tax withheld. If we're stuck with the silly premise that the shareholder's tax rate applies, then yes; the difference between the company's tax rate and the individual's should be returned to said individual. It's essentially the same as an individual taxpayer getting a refund from their tax return because too much tax was withheld by their employer.

It won't be double-taxation if the refunds are removed, because the would-be recipient isn't being taxed in addition to the company. What actually seems to be happening is that in this specific circumstance where we'd move into refund territory the calculation of the tax rate would be getting shifted to the corporate level. Taxed once, but these people are singled out as the only ones not getting to use their individual tax rate. Potentially unfair, depending on your point of view.

TL;DR
I disagree with the entire concept of franking credits; companies should pay tax on what they earn and the money should be distributed downstream tax free after that, instead of allowing calculation at the shareholder's tax rate.
Both sides are overstating and making bad arguments. The status-quo with the refunds treats all investors equally. The proposed changes single out people whose income isn't taxable to effectively make them pay more tax (giving them a higher tax rate, but NOT double-taxation), whether this group needs to be taxed more or not is a matter of opinion.
To be honest, I agree with a lot of what you have to say.

The reason for the current system is the corporate tax rate is so much lower then the highest income tax rate.

Thus the motivation to move money through your pocket as shares as opposed to wages is so high and the govt wants that revenue.

I.e. A plumber runs a plumbing company pays himself a 100k wage distributes a fully franked dividend of 200k to himself on 285k profit (85k tax) (numbers arent exact but meh).

Getting rid of franking credits would result in the government getting:-
- 112k
Plumber getting - 273k

The current system has
AT0 -154k
plumber 231k

The only way you can make it work is if you have a partner who doesnt work.

Hence our system actually promotes people to stay at home and look after your kids / dogs / plants / computer whatever, as opposed to getting a job.

The coalition probably likes keeping someone at home.

The labor just likes taxing you up your ****.

No matter how you look at it, when it comes to taxes and the economy the coalition is always going to be the lesser of two evils.

On that matter though, do we still have supporters for labors cracking negative gearing changes? anyone?







Anyone?
Who is getting rid of franking credits?

gergreg
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6713
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gergreg » February 12, 2019, 6:20 pm

papabear wrote:
Sterlk wrote:
February 9, 2019, 10:24 am
Finance hat on. For those that can wrap their heads around it, thoughts on the franking credit refund debate?

For me, it comes down to whether you accept the core premise that income earned by companies (but passed on to shareholders in the form of dividends) should be taxed at the shareholder's marginal tax rate, instead of the company's.

While it's fair enough that the funds shouldn't be taxed twice, which is ostensibly the point, I reject the premise. When they brought franking credits in initially, there would've been a decision as to which tax rate should be applicable - they can calculate it at the corporate level initially, or later on at the individual level for whatever amount makes it through as dividends.

If they'd decided to do it at the corporate level, then the company would pay whatever tax is due on the earnings it makes, and dividends from Australian companies would theoretically come through to shareholders tax free. Instead, the applicable tax rate is the individual's, so we have a complicated system to work out what to do with the tax that the company has already paid at its own tax rate.

I'm not going to do the research to figure out the motivation behind a decision made back in the 80's, but I'll hazard a guess that this choice was made because - like today - there might've been a whole bunch of large companies structuring their affairs so they essentially pay 0% tax. So if the rate of tax payable was the company's, there's no income for the government in that scenario, making it more profitable to tax the individual... who on average will presumably be paying a fair bit more than 0% tax. The flipside, of course, is that in the current individual-pays system you have retirees and such with a lower tax rate than many companies.

In my opinion, the correct solution is:
  • Reform taxation so that we don't have so many big companies paying zero tax
  • Calculate the tax rate and collect it where the money is earned, at the corporate level
  • All Australian dividends are passed through tax-free to shareholders, because the company already paid tax on its earnings
That solution sadly not being on the table, we have a debate where one side is claiming it'll be double-taxation if you take their refunds away, and another saying that working taxpayers are unfairly supporting these investors by paying for these refunds. They're both wrong.

The refunds being issued to investors isn't money that workers would otherwise have in their pocket, it's the tax withheld that the company has paid on its earnings. It essentially means no tax has been collected by the government, a 'correction' of too much tax withheld. If we're stuck with the silly premise that the shareholder's tax rate applies, then yes; the difference between the company's tax rate and the individual's should be returned to said individual. It's essentially the same as an individual taxpayer getting a refund from their tax return because too much tax was withheld by their employer.

It won't be double-taxation if the refunds are removed, because the would-be recipient isn't being taxed in addition to the company. What actually seems to be happening is that in this specific circumstance where we'd move into refund territory the calculation of the tax rate would be getting shifted to the corporate level. Taxed once, but these people are singled out as the only ones not getting to use their individual tax rate. Potentially unfair, depending on your point of view.

TL;DR
I disagree with the entire concept of franking credits; companies should pay tax on what they earn and the money should be distributed downstream tax free after that, instead of allowing calculation at the shareholder's tax rate.
Both sides are overstating and making bad arguments. The status-quo with the refunds treats all investors equally. The proposed changes single out people whose income isn't taxable to effectively make them pay more tax (giving them a higher tax rate, but NOT double-taxation), whether this group needs to be taxed more or not is a matter of opinion.
To be honest, I agree with a lot of what you have to say.

The reason for the current system is the corporate tax rate is so much lower then the highest income tax rate.

Thus the motivation to move money through your pocket as shares as opposed to wages is so high and the govt wants that revenue.

I.e. A plumber runs a plumbing company pays himself a 100k wage distributes a fully franked dividend of 200k to himself on 285k profit (85k tax) (numbers arent exact but meh).

Getting rid of franking credits would result in the government getting:-
- 112k
Plumber getting - 273k

The current system has
AT0 -154k
plumber 231k

The only way you can make it work is if you have a partner who doesnt work.

Hence our system actually promotes people to stay at home and look after your kids / dogs / plants / computer whatever, as opposed to getting a job.

The coalition probably likes keeping someone at home.

The labor just likes taxing you up your ****.

No matter how you look at it, when it comes to taxes and the economy the coalition is always going to be the lesser of two evils.

On that matter though, do we still have supporters for labors cracking negative gearing changes? anyone?







Anyone?
Yes. I read somewhere recently that the housing market had gone up something like 30 %, or more in some markets, in the last few years and now come back down less than 10 % and people are losing their ****. You'll be blaming everything on Labor as soon as they're in power yet blamed Labor for the first 2 years that the Liberals were in power.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

Post Reply