Australian Politics Forum - Labor screwing the poor with increased taxes

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Liberals screwing the poor with increased taxes
Reply #15 - Feb 7^th, 2019 at 7:41pm

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 6:08pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 6:04pm:

The only party that has a proven record of screwing over the poor with increased taxes year on year are the Liberals and their Nat lapdogs. The last time a Liberal-led Coalition government increased the tax-free threshold without also hiking other taxes on the poor was the Fraser government in 1978. Bracket creep is the way they screw the poor harder and harder every year.

So Bill is out to prove he can do it too?

A straw man argument. How puerile.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Liberals screwing the poor with increased taxes
Reply #16 - Feb 7^th, 2019 at 7:42pm

Bam wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 6:04pm:

The only party that has a proven record of screwing over the poor with increased taxes year on year are the Liberals and their Nat lapdogs. The last time a Liberal-led Coalition government increased the tax-free threshold without also hiking other taxes on the poor was the Fraser government in 1978. Bracket creep is the way they screw the poor harder and harder every year.

It was Fraser that introduced indexation to bracket creep. Hawke pissed it off.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 19694 Gender:	Re: Labor screwing the poor with increased taxes Reply #17 - Feb 7^th, 2019 at 8:01pm Bam wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 7:41pm: A straw man argument. How puerile. Two things bammy 1. it was a question not an argument (statement). 2. you have learned a new word. But you could answer the question.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19694
Gender: male

Re: Labor screwing the poor with increased taxes
Reply #18 - Feb 7^th, 2019 at 8:14pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

Surprised you think that shares aren't risky.

You read something into my statement thar wasn't there. Both banks and shares are risky.

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

Bank deposits though, are backed 100% so you will get your money back if it folds.

You missed that bit about the bank guarantee. It no longer applies to new deposits. Deposit taking institutions have to set aside funds. There is no guarantee it will cover all shortfalls.

" The FCS protection of $250,000 per account holder applies to the sum of all deposits held under each licenced institution, which includes any deposits held with the other banking trading names that are listed as dot points."

https://www.fcs.gov.au/which-adis-are-covered

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

f you needed that few shares and reliant on a couple of hundred to make things meet, then those people really benefit from increased taxes. Because collected taxes will go back to benefits - whether more medical/education/concessions to reduce cost of living, instead of trying to live like a miser while the coalition government keeps cutting and increasing cost of living (as they run out of money from reduced tax collection).

So being poor and losing the benefit of the imputation credit is a guarantee they will end up with more? Grin

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

As for death taxes - that does exist in other countries. In the case of defined benefits scheme...isn't that what happens with people's super? You give money to govt, they pay you until you die?

Yes. It does exist in other countries; but we are talking about Australia, not other countries. Defined benefits- But that isn't the super schemes Billy is targeting, is it?

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

Opposing taxes because 'it's my money' fails to take into account that everyone benefits from government services, even if it seems like you don't.

Where have I said I oppose taxes? I think everybody should pay their share. That doesn't mean talking money off the poor so that they MIGHT get extra pension.

Back to top

IP Logged

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: Labor screwing the poor with increased taxes
Reply #19 - Feb 7^th, 2019 at 8:24pm

You are claiming banks are less secure than shares? Or that retired people should accept the higher risk levels of shares as compared to banks?

And 250K guaranteed isn't good enough for you? I mean one should keep most of the assets in the super where it is mostly preserved anyway. See a financial manager (who hasn't fallen foul from RC).

And yes we are discussing Australia. We are discussing about Wealthfare, which is blowing or will blow the budget apart. Unsustainable.
And comparing defined benefits to forcing people to either pay taxes on income or consume their super is a good comparison. Because one causes more pain for the government in the future compared to the other. Defined benefits have been removed because it has been causing headaches for investment companies - either because people live too long, or they payout at a rate which the investment companies can't earn. Super, though as it is, is putting the onus back on individuals - but it has also been abused by the rich as form of wealth retaining strategy. And the more they retain, the less the government has to pay for services.

As for stating you opposing taxes ... i didn't. I point out that taxes are raised for reason. and that Labor has always looked out for the weak far more than the coalition.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19694
Gender: male

Re: Labor screwing the poor with increased taxes
Reply #20 - Feb 7^th, 2019 at 9:07pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 8:24pm:

You are claiming banks are less secure than shares?

No petal. I said they both have risks. CBA as a deposit institution and CBA as a shareholder led company. Different risks. But still risky. BTW - Risky doesn't bestow, of itself, a level of risk.

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 8:24pm:

Or that retired people should accept the higher risk levels of shares as compared to banks?

No petal. I didn't say that either. Each person has a risk profile which they are prepared to accept. Each person is different.

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 8:24pm:

And 250K guaranteed isn't good enough for you? I mean one should keep most of the assets in the super where it is mostly preserved anyway.

And where do super funds park their money, petal?

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 8:24pm:

As for stating you opposing taxes ... i didn't.

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

Opposing taxes because 'it's my money' fails to take into account that everyone benefits from government services, even if it seems like you don't.

Back to top

IP Logged

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: Labor screwing the poor with increased taxes
Reply #21 - Feb 7^th, 2019 at 9:24pm

You're trying to confuse. Hiding money under the bed is also risky. Converting it into "level of risk" is trying to hide the fact that shares are riskier than cash deposits.

As for different risk portfolios, pretty much 100% of any retirement plan states to move from riskier assets to safe assets i.e. cash when as one is older. When you are retired, you can't afford to be risky - unless you have that much money to don't care.

Don't go with "different types of risk" - these are quantifiable and is attached to standard advice. Risk is for the young to take, safety/conservative for the eldest.

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19694
Gender: male

Re: Labor screwing the poor with increased taxes
Reply #22 - Feb 7^th, 2019 at 9:39pm

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 9:24pm:

Converting it into "level of risk" is trying to hide the fact that shares are riskier than cash deposits.

How many times has CBA not declared a dividend?

stunspore wrote on Feb 7^th, 2019 at 9:24pm:

Risk is for the young to take, safety/conservative for the eldest.

And yet even conservative portfolios tend to have an exposure to shares. Wink

Usually adjusted to less in shares but not completely devoid unless specifically specified.

Back to top

IP Logged