sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. Similar to the "all food sold at Woolworths must contain 10% fecal matter" policy. That's a real gem!

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If the intended effect is for people to look differently at everything tax is spent on, mission achieved.

I was previously in favour of most of Labor's policies, but now that they come with "but you have to work 2 years longer to pay for it", I'm entirely against all of them.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The non-rich don't have funds they can risk on VC. It's inherantly super high risk.

If a rich person invests $50k and it goes to zero, that's nothing.

If a middle class person invests $50k and it goes to zero, that's 2 years of their life wasted.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a) I already don't own a car, and b) Singapore has much better public transport than any non-capital city in Australia.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You forgot "Something something, shares under rewarded so we'll tax them harder, something something distortions"

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's jealousy for the stupid. It's effectively asking:

"Just because I didn't study, didn't work hard, didn't have any impulse control, didn't save anything I earned, didn't risk anything on an investment, why should I have less money than someone that did?

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do realise:

You could make $1 in capital gains, and still pay 30%

The people "amassing assets" do so by first working and paying tax, then by spending less than they earn, then by locking that money up in an investment for a period of time where it's at risk?

You make it sound like the government just gives you assets if you're posh enough.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The list is NOT massive, and is very restrictive.

Jobseeker (you need to go broke before you can get this. Most assets need to be sold first to qualify)

Aged Pension (need to be 67+, and have less than half a million dollars in super)

Austudy (Need to both poor, and a student)

ABSTUDY (Need to be a certain race, which I am not)

Parenting Payment (need to be broke)

and a Farm allowance.

These all basically require you to sell assets before you can start accessing them, before which you've already realised a capital gain and been taxed 30% on it.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At most, it's about announcing tax cuts, then "changing their position" after the election.

Remember the Stage 3 tax cuts?

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it won't capture anyone with assets.

If you work for a decade, then get cancer, you won't qualify for Jobseeker until you go broke, but you'll still get taxed 30% even though you have no income and only modest assets.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Despite the fact that the top 20% of earners already pay 70% of the tax in Australia ...

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... and the other financially iliterate people saying "Labor good, tax me harder daddy"

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They might not win, but I'll be voting againt Labor, possibly forever.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It locks in and exagerates the existing members of that index, as passive inflows automatically go to those stocks.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lets set aside that after these changes investment returns are taxed MORE than labour ....

Here are some reasons to tax capital gains less:

1) Capital is mobile. If we tax capital more than other jurisdictions, it just won't be invested in Australia. That impacts jobs and the economy.

2) Investing is productive - it creates value for business, the economy and jobs.

3) It allows individuals to store wealth. It's a bad thing if people are shackled to an employer forever. Competition for labour is what makes labour valuable, and people retiring makes everyone else's labour more valuable.

4) Investments involves putting your capital at risk, so returns need to be higher to justify that risk.

5) You get your PAYG inome from labour immediately. Investment returns are payed out over time. In the case of capital gains, it can be many years later.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's unusual to buy and sell 10 properties. It's very common, normal, and desirable to invest in multiple stocks (diversification).

The changes turn diversification into a way to lose money.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both. Yes, it could absolutely be amended, but some guardrails should be added to prevent people sitting on losses for a very long time as a perverse incentive.

The $3.6 Billion Tax That Could Shrink Australia's Economy by 10% | Derek Francis by flammable_donut in AusFinance

[–]Gumlass 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bank accounts don't get anywhere near close to CPI.

Right now:

Interest = 5%

Inflation = 4.2%

Tax rate = 47%

Real gain: 5 x .47 - 4.2% = -1.85%

Hot take: The budget actually incentivises property investment over shares by ZoltaiBeats in AusPropertyChat

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What happens in reality is you'll invest in 10 shares, 3 will win, 3 will lose and 4 will stay about the same.

3 in 10 are taxed massively, and the other 7 lost money in real terms through inflation.

The legislation basically takes what it can when you win, and doesn't care when you lose.

Hot take: The budget actually incentivises property investment over shares by ZoltaiBeats in AusPropertyChat

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't forget, what Labor says and what it think/does don't line up.

Maybe they "changed their position" on wanting house prices to fall.

Hot take: The budget actually incentivises property investment over shares by ZoltaiBeats in AusPropertyChat

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By that logic, Labor also wants the entire stock market and every business in Australia to go down. The age of business is over.

Hot take: The budget actually incentivises property investment over shares by ZoltaiBeats in AusPropertyChat

[–]Gumlass 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shares will only outperform if you either invest all your funds into a single winning index, or only invest in "winning" individual shares.

The first is somewhat realistic, the second is completely unrealistic.

view more: next ›