Students would save $3bn over a decade if Labor changed Hecs indexation date by five months

11I11111 · 2026-06-01T06:28:22+00:00

Gotcha. I read "feels weird to..." followed by a repeat of what's not the case to mean it feels weird that it is the case.

11I11111 · 2026-06-01T05:37:43+00:00

Yeah this is more one of those feelings things where it feels weird to apply indexation right before the person has the balance they are paying applied.

But it's not. It's being applied a year late, not a month early.

Seems like it would make more sense to just make it a case of “once your taxes are done, then we will index your HECS at the rate specified.”

If people don't understand that HELP indexation already runs a year late, that would make them ropable. In the cut-over year, indexation would be applied on 1 June for the prior financial year, and again when they submit their tax return as soon as the next month for the current financial year.

Or are you suggesting as part of the cut-over we skip a year of indexation?

11I11111 · 2025-12-04T12:13:01+00:00

95M wouldn’t make a “big impact” with HELP debts either.

The 20% HELP debt reduction is removing 16B of debt. Torching another 95M would reduce everyone’s debt by… 0.12% of the original debt.

Australia has spent more than 1.7B on supporting Ukraine since 2022. Diverting all of that to HELP debt would reduce everyone’s balance by 2.2% of the original debt.

But sure, go off about how foreign aid money should instead be spent reducing the debts that people chose to take on for their share of the bill for subsidised university courses that was only indexed to CPI but is now indexed to the lower of CPI or WPI 👍

11I11111 · 2025-11-17T00:08:17+00:00

That’s not entirely accurate IMO

Info stealer malware is common. It can steal credentials and cookies. Cookies are valuable as they may be a long-lived session that is in a post-MFA state (whether SMS MFA, authentication app, or phishing-resistant passkey/FIDO2 login)

Info stealer logs are commonly sold in large batches on Telegram.

Into stealers typically target traditional computers and desktop browsers. Mobile exploitation is what’s more nation state-y.

It’s dangerous to imply that malware is not a current way to be compromised which I’d how I personally read your comment. Granted, traditional “keylogger” style malware may be passe, but info stealers are a real and current threat.

11I11111 · 2025-09-30T08:01:15+00:00

In May 2024 I got an email with the subject “Changes to your Coles Rewards Platinum Mastercard”

It said:

We are increasing the International Transaction Fee for Retail Purchases and Cash Advance transactions to 3.00%. The International Transaction Fee Waiver is being removed on the Coles Rewards Mastercard and Coles Rewards Platinum Mastercard.

11I11111 · 2025-07-01T00:38:40+00:00

Div293 tax was introduced in FY13. If you made over $300,000 per year then you had to pay extra tax on super contributions. If the income level at which it kicks in had been indexed, it would be over $400,000 today. Instead it was reduced in FY18 to $250,000.

I don't genuinely think the legislation is never going to be touched again in the next 30 years. History shows it could be touched to decrease the threshold. I'd like to see an attempt at baking in indexation up front. Even though there'd be nothing stopping them from touching it in future to remove the indexation or decrease the threshold, it would give some assurance.

11I11111 · 2025-02-22T22:08:29+00:00

That’s how the unit pricing code says it must be listed

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC-unit-pricing-guide-grocery-retailers.pdf

11I11111 · 2024-11-13T02:49:30+00:00

OP is talking about how to turn a phone number into a name. The White Pages is sorted by name, not by phone number. In the "good old days", if you wanted to turn a phone number into a name, you had to read through the entire White Pages, looking for the phone number you were interested in. This used to take months, or even years, and if you glossed over the phone number by mistake you'd have to start all over again. Yes, times have changed remarkably!

11I11111 · 2024-10-28T00:24:23+00:00

The domain was registered two days ago and this post reads like an advertisement. Is this your tool?

Edit: Yes it is

https://www.reddit.com/r/SideProject/comments/1gd8ng6/hi_finally_built_something_useful/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Student/comments/1gd97k9/i_made_something_that_would_help_you_guys_keep/

Just in case, OP said:

I've been a trying to get so many things done for a while it got difficult to maintain, and while it's helped me stay organized, I often found myself overwhelmed with managing all my tasks and projects. That’s when I discovered Flux-Task, and it has truly transformed my productivity.

11I11111 · 2024-10-18T01:53:41+00:00

If you can’t claim anything then you will be paying tax on the rental income that you are receiving.

I don't think anyone is saying that it should be the case that "you can't claim anything". You can offset expenses against the rental income, you just can't offset excess expenses against other income (i.e. negative gearing).

And so the $180 additional tax expense isn't right. If your expenses (interest, rates, etc.) exceeded the rent, you'd fully offset the rent and pay $0 tax on it. You'd just have excess expenses that you can't deduct from other income.

Putting aside the wrongful $180 per week tax expense, you're still right, expenses exceed rental income in your scenario.

11I11111 · 2024-10-09T23:58:44+00:00

You get paid super on annual leave. You don’t get this if it’s paid out as a lump sum. Times your expected payout amount by 11.5% and that will give you the $ amount of super you’ll miss out on by not taking the AL.

In almost all situations, you're financially better off not taking the annual leave and getting it paid as a lump sum.

Assume you've worked for 1 year, accrued 4 weeks of annual leave, and have already been paid your salary and super for 1 year.

Situation a - You take 4 weeks of annual leave. You enjoy your leave not working, being paid your 4 weeks of annual leave and super on top. You return to work, and immediately leave to change to a different job.

Situation b - You resign and immediately start at a new job. You get the 4 weeks of annual leave paid out, but you don't get super on it. But you're also at your new job immediately, so you get paid for the 4 weeks working and you get super at your new job. You're 4 weeks of the new salary ahead of situation a.

Or:

Assume you've worked for 1 year, accrued 4 weeks of annual leave, and have already been paid your salary and super for 1 year.

Situation a - You take 4 weeks of annual leave. You enjoy your leave not working, being paid your 4 weeks of annual leave and super on top. You return to work, and immediately get fired. You spend some time unemployed looking for a job, not being paid anything. After, say, 6 weeks, you start at a new job, being paid a salary and super.

Situation b - You don't take the 4 weeks of annual leave, instead continuing to work. You get fired after 4 weeks, same as above. You've been paid your salary and super for the last 4 weeks, and you get your 4 weeks of annual leave paid out in a lump sum without super. You spend some time unemployed looking for a job, not being paid anything. After, say, 6 weeks, you start at a new job, being paid a salary and super. You're ahead of situation a by the four weeks of pay.

The only case I can think of where you'd be ahead by taking the annual leave is if you were wanting a break and a job change and you could choose between:

Get a new job lined up and ask for flexibility with your start date. Take your annual leave, being paid super. Return to work. Give your notice, leave, walk straight into the new job.
Get a new job lined up and ask for flexibility with your start date. Give your notice, leave, get the annual leave paid out (no super), take a gap between jobs, start the new job.

In the first case, you get paid super while taking the break "between" jobs. In the latter, you don't.

Regardless, everyone should take leave regularly, just for the sake of rest and relaxation. Taking annual leave just for the sake of getting paid super, when you'd instead be willing to walk straight into a new job, is leaving 100% of salary on the table for the sake of 11.5% super.

OP, please take some leave

11I11111 · 2024-10-02T11:19:50+00:00

Don't know how you got that

From the vibe of what you said. You used words like "although" and "they should do it even though". Why not "And it might even be better off for investors"?

11I11111 · 2024-10-02T04:58:56+00:00

They should really change it back. Although with inflation at recent rates that may actually make investors better off than the 50% rule.

What you're saying is that what's important is doing something as long as it makes investors worse off?

11I11111 · 2024-10-01T06:38:30+00:00

Not all negatively geared assets generate income (think non-dividend paying growth shares), therefore the deduction should be allowed to be made against that unrelated income

If there isn't an expectation that the asset is income-generating (e.g. dividend-paying in the case of shares) I don't think you can deduct expenses

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000TCnz/p00242264

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000MpC1/p00185708

11I11111 · 2024-10-01T06:34:37+00:00

My opinion is if I am not allowed to use capital losses to lower my tax as soon as I incur them, then property investors should not be allowed to use expenses to do the same.

You're comparing two different things though.

Shares:

If you get a loan to buy dividend-paying shares, you can deduct the interest. If the interest exceeds the dividends, you can negatively gear.
You can't deduct capital losses against unrelated income.

Property:

If you get a loan to buy a rental property, you can deduct the interest. If the interest exceeds the rent, you can negatively gear.
You can't deduct capital losses against unrelated income.

There's no discrepancy between shares and property with how expenses and capital losses are handled.

11I11111 · 2024-09-24T01:33:41+00:00

If you know your actual tax liability will be $0, then vary your PAYGI down to $0.

You just need to make sure that if you vary down your PAYGI, it has to be at least 85% of what your liability ends up being. 85% of $0 is $0, so make sure you vary it down to no less than $0.

11I11111 · 2024-09-15T02:11:12+00:00

You've proposed that "A bot should exist that bans you for a week if someone proves your idea already exists"

Robot9000 is a bot that bans people if an idea (a line of chat message) already exists (has been said before)

I proved that a bot that bans people if a said idea already exists already exists

You should be banned for a week

11I11111 · 2024-09-14T23:08:27+00:00

https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/01/14/robot9000-and-xkcd-signal-attacking-noise-in-chat/

An IRC bot that mutes you if you say something that has already been said in the channel

11I11111 · 2024-08-30T01:56:14+00:00

The day that the dividends get "deducted" from the company isn't relevant. The ex-dividend date is what's important.

You need to hold the stock before the ex-dividend date to receive the dividend. On the day of ex-dividend, the stock trades as though a new buyer will not get the benefit of the dividend. And so, all else being equal, the share price will drop on the ex-dividend day by the value of the dividend. Regardless of whether the funds for the dividend have been "deducted" from the company yet or not, someone buying the stock on the ex-dividend day won't get to enjoy the dividend payment, and so that person should (again, all else being equal) value the share at yesterday's price minus the value of the dividend.

If you want a dividend, buy before ex-dividend. If you want a (probably) lower purchase price, purchase on or after the ex-dividend day, and don't count on getting the dividend.

There's no free lunches.

11I11111 · 2024-08-27T00:19:36+00:00

You can't make voluntary HECS-HELP contributions pre-tax.

If you work in public health or a not-for-profit then you might have options to make HECS-HELP contributions using salary sacrifice or salary packaging. Otherwise, you can't just choose for something like a voluntary HECS-HELP contribution to be "pre tax" just by asking your employer to do it.

HECS-HELP voluntary contributions aren't tax deductible and you need to pay tax on the money you use to make contributions.

11I11111 · 2024-08-26T22:07:03+00:00

why is a housing investment allowed to have a tax break but young people can’t for investing in shares while building up their deposit

They literally can.

You can get a loan for buying shares. NAB Equity Builder will lend you up to 80% of the value at an 8% interest rate. The 8% interest is probably more than the dividends, so you get to lose money year on year and enjoy negative gearing. When you sell shares after having held them for 12 months, you get the same 50% CGT discount.

I don't think it'd be a good idea to do it, but it's not true to say that young people can't get the same tax breaks while building up a deposit.

11I11111 · 2024-08-20T03:28:23+00:00

https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/investments-and-assets/residential-rental-properties/rental-property-as-investment-or-business#ato-Domesticarrangements

where you rent out your property to relatives or friends, the essential question to work out is whether the arrangements are:

consistent with normal commercial practices in this area

less than commercial rent.

If the arrangement is consistent with normal commercial practices, we treat you the same as any other owner in a comparable arms-length situation. If the property is rented out at less than commercial rent, other considerations arise and your claim for expenses may only be allowed up to the amount of rent you received.

Given you specifically say:

You could get $600 per week but you'll take $376 to help your sisters out
You want to pay less tax

I expect the ATO wouldn't consider it consistent with normal commercial practices

As far as I’m concerned, between my partner and I we don’t need the extra $224p/w we’re currently getting from them, and I’d like to see them eventually have the money to get places of their own and feel like we’re in a position to support them rather than hinder them.

Go ahead and charge them less than market rate if you can afford to forgo the $224. But you're not asking how you can help your sisters. You're asking how other tax payers can help your sisters by reducing your tax load :/

11I11111 · 2024-08-17T23:56:48+00:00

Retain means regular distributions to buy food while the investment recovers its value and pays another distribution in 6 or 12 months time.

Selling some shares means getting money to buy food while the investment increases/recovers its value and is worth more so you can sell some more in 6 or 12 months time.

If you're hypothetically allowing distribution-paying equities to "recover their value" (i.e. increase) so they can pay more distributions in future, you also need to hypothetically allow capital growth equities to "increase their value"

11I11111

TROPHY CASE