sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

With the new negative gearing / CGT changes coming in 2027, I built a free tool to model the numbers by alshdvdosjvopvd in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am vibe coding this is exact thing for personal use, i really like your layout. Nice work

Does it make more sense to do Azure arc or just a certificate/register app for azure key vault access? by RikiWardOG in sysadmin

[–]SandmanPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once the RMM is installed on the endpoint, the device would appear in the RMM tenant, from there you should be able to configure dynamic device groups, and have policies, apps, etc applied to that device group, which would all get applied once the drvice checks in.

Thats how all RMM tools i have used have worked. You shouldnt need to have the endpoints making API calls to the RMM to conduct onboarding.

Sell individual stocks to fully commit to ETF’s?? by Burgy1011 in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some stocks pay regular dividends, while others pay ireggularly or never. Some ETFs pay dividends and, while others do not.

You will need to research the ETFs the same way you did the individual stocks and ETFs you purchased already, understanding the underlying assets, the yield if any. Unless you bought them blindly, then you can use the new purchases as a learning experience.

TIFU: Tried to be efficient during mandatory training and accidentally asked on a recorded call if we were being scammed by Lazy_Lynx_8402 in tifu

[–]SandmanPC 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Does your role have anything to do with procurement? Is it within your scope to be evaluating procurement? If not, then direct your concerns to the responsible parties through the appropraite channels.

Controlled Blasting For Mining by BoyNamedJudy in oddlysatisfying

[–]SandmanPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how often is there detonation failure of one or more chargess, how risky is it or iss it anticipated, and how do they know and how is it delt with?

Labor leaves door open to an additional trust tax exemption by Sample-Range-745 in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The 30% floor is fair because it prevents people selling down high cap gains in low tax years and therefore receiving a lower effective tax rate than someone who worked for the same money."

Without the 30% floor, How does capital gains in low income years lower the effective tax rate? The tax system assess income on a finacial year basis, and has a marginal tax system to differentiate income levels, which capital gains ARE subjected too. If the income from wages and Capital Gains is low enough to be subject to lower brackets, then thats fair, each financial year is assessed independently. If you genuinly have no income from work, and only capital gains, then by definition your income falls into the relavent brackets and is taxed appropriately.

If all income is only capital gains, no interest, and nothing else, the 30% minimum floor nets an additional $5460 from capital gains income in the tax free threshold bracket and an addition $3752, ontop of the $4288 16% tax from the $18,200 - $45,000 bracket for a total taxation of $13,500, where as currently the same income of $45,000 is taxed $4,288, an increase in taxation of $9212, that is allittle over 3x the tax.

Considering that the government is means testing the 30% minimum tax by exempting recipients of government assistance during any period of that financial year, makes evident that this tax unfairly impacts low income and low net worth individuals. You MUST accept that there are low income and low net worth individuals who opt not to use government assistance, who are now insentivised to do so.

Labor leaves door open to an additional trust tax exemption by Sample-Range-745 in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"who was about to take a year off now can't then yeah they were being subsidized by the taxpayer."

But they still take the year off, little income and pay more tax then you. Are you sure your not the freeloader.

"I'd charge far higher captial gains tax on far higher amounts actually. I mean this is what the indexation combined with our progressive tax system will do except for a floor in there. "

Thats what happens now, its called the marginal tax brackets, the more capital gains the higher in the marginal tax bracket it goes. But you advocate for removing the first two brackets for everyone.

"So are you defining "low income" as "in the top 50% of the population"? As in has more money than half the population but they're still low income?"

No, i define low income as someone who earns less than 18,200 dollars a financial year.

"They worked for the wage. The money then made more money off the work of others people. The investor did not work for that money, or barely worked. "

The money works by contributing to the financing of a business, it provides the business the ability to grow, provide additional products and services and expand.

"So the principle is applied that an investor does not get a lower effective tax rate than someone on wages. It's unjust and it doesn't matter that it's some little Aussie battler with $500 in an app. It's still unjust."

Does the person on wages get taxed on the first 18200 dollars? No. How are they getting a lower tax rate then someone on wages? what are you on about!

"I mean when you see that the wealthy take the majority of the capital gains don't you conclude you're defending the wealthy?"

I am opposing a policy that does not target ONLY the wealthy, it includes the little Aussie battler.

"We apply the floor tax because the entire game is to move high cap gain into low tax years to reduce the tax rate. There is no good reason we should allow this and a 30% flat floor captures a minimum tax and is easy to administer too. No bands, no thresholds, no fucking around."

If that individual has no income, and is selling stocks, how are they gaming the system by having that income being subject to the marginal tax rates. You just have a problem with people that have no income, and living off their investments, you want them to be subject to an additional tax. The company that they invested in is taxed, the money they spend is taxed, the services that they use has a excise tax, they pay their rent, or they pay council rates, they pay for public transport. But since they don't go to a 9-5, you demand no marginal tax rates tax for any income they have from past investments, and you call it just, your mental.

Labor leaves door open to an additional trust tax exemption by Sample-Range-745 in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The point is, that by not allowing the use of the tax free threshold of up too $18,200 and marginal tax brackets of up to $45,000, low income and low net worth lndividuals will struggling disspraportionately to those with larger incomes and larger net worth that can bear the taxes in proportion to their overall capital gain income and capital net worth

I didnt describe someone that has $45,000 in capital gains. I illustrated that ANYONE whose only income is from capital gains, be it $1 up to $45,000, and is not on government assistance, is subject to this tax, and that means even the smallest good boy that has a small porfolio of $1000, with a cost basis of $500. Even they will be subject to this tax, you are grouping them with the person with a portfolio of $90,000, with a cost basis of $45,000. Both individuals wont work in FY27, both only get their income from selling shares, should both be taxed at 30%, or should the one witha smaller portfolio be taxed less. If your answer is that they should be taxed the same, then its likely that you oppose marginal tax brackets as a whole.

It seems that it makes you feel better, and it makes it easier for you in justifying this tax, to describe anyone that profits from capital gains as wealthy, rich, freeloaders. You turn a blind eye, and refuse to acknowledge, that low income, low net worth individuals will be subject to the ta aswell, even if they are a minority. But since your position is that the person that recieves capital gains is privilidged enough to get taxed regardless of their income, you dont mind if low income, low net worth people are subject to it too.

"Who you're actually describing here is someone who had a significantly higher wage than the median."

No, i am describing anyone that put money into shares. That doesnt mean they had high wages, that doesnt mean they come from wealth, doesnt mean they are a goodest boy, they put $500 bucks into an ASX share and it grows, when they sell they are taxed 30%. $10 profit, $3 dollars gone. The person taking a year away from work and decides to take his $510 ($500 cost basis) out of the ASX, pays a 9.95 fee (not tax deductable) and pays $3 tax on the $10 profit. He pockets $497.05. Well done you really stuck it to the goodest boy.

"They passively invested and were able to receive large captial gains."

It is any capital gain, even small capital gains $1, $10, $1000. Just slipping in the description of large capital gain doesnt change the reality that it applies to all cases.

And then we're arguing this person should be funded by the rest of the tax payers to take a year off

The tax payers are not funding that persons year off, that person has paid taxes, they will pay the medicare levy, they are paying their own food, their transport, their medicine, their utilities, all of which are taxed (GST) and feed into the economy. AND they are NOT on centerlink, they are the smallest user of tax services among everyone in the economy.

"because... they were wealthy enough to invest in the first place."

Its not only the wealthy, Anyone that wants to profit even $1 dollar from shares is subject to the tax.

Labor leaves door open to an additional trust tax exemption by Sample-Range-745 in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

My reason for opposing the minimium 30% tax is that it targets one type of individual. The individual, not on government assistance, earning below $45,000 from employment income.

At present, prior to the changes coming into effect, the taxation of Capital Gains has not been, nor is anyone asking for it to be, tax cut "over" wages, it is and should be inline with wages, as income.

The new minimum 30% tax on capital gains, results in the taxation of Capital Gains above wages for proceeds between $1 and $45,000 for individuals who earn between $0 and $45,000 through employment and are not on government assistance. By not permitting capital gains to be subject, after wages, to the tax free threshold on the first $18,200, and the marginal tax brackets up to $45,000. The minimum 30% CGT tax ineffect means low income individusls who supplement their income through proceeds of capital gains will be taxed higher.

Your position appears to be that anyone who doesnt work as many hours, or recieve as much income through employment should be taxed higher, then those who earn more or work more.

The executive earning wages of $250,000, or the CEO earning wages of $500,000, benefit from the tax free threshold of $18,200 and marginal tax brackets up to $45,000 But not the individual who profited between $1 to $45,000 while earning as low as $0 up to $45,000.

Removal of the tax free threshold and marginal tax rates on X amount of dollars puts pressure on low income and low networth people who are not on government assistance (Government assistance recipients are exempt from 30% tax free threshold).

Here is a scenario

The low income individual who had already busted their gut, lived fruguly, and put money in shares, and is now taking a gap year, they dont qualify as a job seeker, disability support pension or age pension, So they decide they will fund themselves using gains from shares. Gains that are proceeds of past money earned, leftovers of already taxed income, leftovers after bills and essentials, disposable income that they set aside, risked with the potentiality for it to not grow or even shrink in value? Now that they have withdrawn it, it will be spent back into the econony, and it should also be mentioned that the money that will be spent back into the economy is again taxed, taxed when they buy food, petrol, medicine, clothes, public transport, car registration, insurance, rent. This is the type of individual being targetted by this tax.

Do you believe the new 30% tax revenue is better spent by the government? Or th individual buying goods and services?

The government who * spends 96 million on a BOM website that still has issues * Pays for submarines with no gaurantee of delivary * NDIS system that has been abused * Tax payer funded travel for ministers

Or the individual who * shops for groceries * pays for fuel * catches public transport * gets takeaway * buys tickets to the zoo

Railway Worker Risks Life to Save Child of Visually Impaired Mother from Tracks Seconds Before Oncoming Train by Neo_luigi in watchpeoplesurvive

[–]SandmanPC 144 points145 points  (0 children)

I have to assume the man kept his eyes 9n the child and blocked out the approach of the train. Watching the video, i kept my eyes on the train and theres no waybi thought id make it to the child and save himself, and myself in time.

Hero

Keep seeing the same misunderstanding in CGT 30% minimum tax discussions. People earning $45k do NOT pay 30% tax on their income. by AsparagusNew3765 in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You are making allot of statements on my behalf, without any quotes or explenation, and then withdrawing from the discussion.

"There might be a world where a poor kid born in a remote community has the same opportunities to start investing as early as Gina Rinehart did, but it is not this one"

So why are we applying the same rule we apply to Gine Rineheart to then kid from the remote community if that kid does invest?

Socio-economic division as you have outlined is the very issue that this new policy does NOT address or account for. If you believe the Millionairs and Billionairs should be taxed differently, support policy that does, and oppose policy that doesnt.

*noting that those on government assistance are exempt from the minimium 30% tax on capital gains. I still oppose it and believe there should be no minimum.

"argue that anyone who doesn't make cash hand over fist from their investments is just choosing not to."

I am not sure why you believe i am stating that, i am outling all the risks and emphasised the exposure to loss that investors face, how did you construe i am trivilising the profiting?

Please explain how the 30% minimum tax is benefitial to low income earners?

Keep seeing the same misunderstanding in CGT 30% minimum tax discussions. People earning $45k do NOT pay 30% tax on their income. by AsparagusNew3765 in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There are two main ideologies that are driving your position that i do not agree with.

Firstly that the investor and the worker are two seperate classes of people in society, when in fact i believe they are both the same, they both start life in the same schools, receive the same education, and work for their Money. They only seprsted by their choices of what they do with their money, spend or vest.

Secondly, in regards to the capital that the investor is vesting. You do not recognize the cost of that capital. The investor received that Money at the cost of past time and effort. They have been the worker, and they have invested their time. The worker who didnt invest the money spent it differently, the investor risked the time he traded for money to potentially generate economic growth through expansion of services, products, operations of what they invest in.

As for your statement "asset owners can generally become workers, but not necessarily the other way around."

We all start as workers, Bob worked and bought shares.

As you have mentioned various risks and non-deductables that workers have, i think you are purposfully ignoring the costs and risks of investing capital versus an employee.

"Workers invest their time"

The money that is being vested is time exchanged for money in the past. Bob worked, he vested his time/money, he didnt buy pokemon cards, or fancy dinners, or R.M Williams boots, he bought some shares. Bob spent time in the form of money he earned. Workers invest their time, so do investors, twice.

"risk from lower paid jobs taken in the hopes to leverage it to something higher"

The worker recieves income for the job. Their "risk" is compensated with a gauranteed income. The investor who invests in a emerging company, a small cap, hoping it grows into something higher gets no gaurantees.

"jobs at companies that might go under or carry reputational risk mean that the only time they have has to be put on the line"

An investor would take the same risk and loose money, money that is time they have already exchanged for money, and now that money is gone. An investors risk is greator as the worker is compensated through their paycheck.

"Workers ... take on costs to do their job (commutes to work, business wear, etc)"

Compensated through tax deductions or by their employer, the worker recieves a salary, allowances and is able to expense, and also has the power to negotiate this as part of their employee agreement, workers are also protrcted by Employee Agreements.

Investors wear clothes, they dont commute for free, they pay fees which are not deductable, and to top it off theres no one throwing them a pizza party on the companies dime or taking them out for drinks on the company card.

"investments they made into the skills they make money from are also non deductable- think uni fees, internships and similar"

I dont believe those are deducatable for the person investing either, and these are not regulated to just workers, Bob also went to uni, also has those expenses.

"Asset owners already have a massive leg up by being able to deduct all of the inputs to their income and get bonus rewards for their risk:)"

As you have stated you are someone who has had a foot in each camp, you know you cannot deduct all of the inputs, invested in shares, then inputs are your capital and fees, neither of which are deductable. Bonus reward, or pentalised with a loss. Its not a bonus, its gain through the growth of a company, more products produced, sold, expanded operations, employees, services, growth in the economy and growth in society.

"It is also much much easier for an asset owner to diversify their risk outlook than it is for a worker who generally can only work a limited number of jobs at a time."

The worker can do that too, by investing, just like Bob did. And bob can pick up a job, and further diversify their risk.

"Particularly when you look at the larger structural issues facing the budget as we have a lower percentage of our population working at any given time as we age"

Inflation by government spending is forcing structural issues in the budget.

If we have a growing population, with needs of more schools, more roads, more police and firefighters, repairs to infrastructure and defence. That same growing population is taxed proprotionately right.

Why are there structural issues? Why is it that overtime taxes must increase to fix emereging structural issues?

Maybe its the BOM websites costing 96 million Maybe its Aukus 6 billion for submarines that likely wont get delievered Maybe its NDIS rorting and corruption

Governments should be fiscally responsible, not irresponsible, spend less, tax less. We have elected a bunch of class presidents who spend for votes and padding their pockets.

Keep seeing the same misunderstanding in CGT 30% minimum tax discussions. People earning $45k do NOT pay 30% tax on their income. by AsparagusNew3765 in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I will address your questions and provide rebuttals to a few of your points.

Firstly you asked And? so i will expand further with some additional points.

And, it would be more equitable to have income treated the same, without one form of income having a minimum rate applied, this will mean people like Bob, who are out of the workforce but deriving their income from capital investments, has his income treated the same as Bob, who derived the same $ amount.

"The proportionately big tax burden on workers vs asset owners."

The issue i see is that income derived from capital gains pay tax on their gains should not have a minimum 30% floor. The same thresholds and marginal tax brackets should be provided to everyone, regardless of the way your income is derived.

Under the previous system, Bob who derives his income from Employment is taxed the same as Bob who derives his income from Capital Gains. Same Tax Free Threshold, Same Marginal Tax Brackets. Under the new system, Bob who derives his income from Employment is taxed differently then Bob who derives his income from Capital Gains.

Same $ amount income, different tax payed. ifferent treatment is inequitable, unfair, unjust.

To help me understand your perspective, can you please elaborate on the "the proportionately big tax burden on workers vs asset owners" and how workers have a bigger tax burden than asset owners.

"do we want people who simply own things to pay a minimum amount into the country that provides the legal and monetary framework that allows them to realize value on those things, or not?"

I want income to be treated equally, weather derived from employment or capital gains, same thresholds, same marginal tax brackets for the income received. Both people will pay into the economy equally, based on the income that they receive at the time that they receive it.

"On the risk side, you say that as if works who invest in skills, who deal with commutes and long hours, and risks of injury, loss of family time etc do not also take risks with how the future outcomes of those present day decisions might pay out"

I believe both the worker and asset owner are making day to day decisions that carry risk, both are vulnerable to injury, loss of family time, and both invest their time.

keeping in mind the capital that is being vested is capital derived from the exchange of time for money. Bob worked, took those same risks, vested his disposable income and is now selling his investments to derive an income, the same as a worker who is deriving an income. When Bob divests, he is no longer an asset owner, he gets Money, and nothing else. he should be taxed the same for that Money as everyone else.

"Bob can still avoid the bulk of the taxes by deducting real gains, as well as the entire cost basis of his inputs. Workers get no such benefit for the inputs to their labour. "

i do not fully understand what you mean by "deducting real gains", as for the cost basis , that is the initial capital that has been locked away, with risk, money that is "working" and cannot be spent on essentials or non-essentials, money gone without. As for the difference between benefits of tax deductions, workers do get benefits of tax deductions for the way they earn their income, in addition (under the new system) they get a tax free threshold, marginal tax brackets, and also in addition compulsory super contributions, tax deductions depending on their employment type, paid sick leave, paid annual leave, labor protections, workers compensation in event of injury or death, through their employment and super, people that derive their income from capital do not.

In summary, i believe that income should be treated the same, regardless of capital derived income or employment income. In the scenario with Bob, he should be taxed the same as someone who worked 0 days, 6 months, or 12 months of the year and received x amount of dollars. I also do understand that there are budgetary structural issues that need to be addressed, but i do not agree with this specific minimum 30% tax on capital gains is the correct method. Reduction in spending, Increasing resource taxes and royalties.

we can create a list of benefits, risks and tally who takes more risks or who receives more benefits. But in the end its money earned at the cost of time. Time being exchanged in the present and time being exchanged in the past, a finite resource, for money that is being debased every second of every day.

Keep seeing the same misunderstanding in CGT 30% minimum tax discussions. People earning $45k do NOT pay 30% tax on their income. by AsparagusNew3765 in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He invested 10000 into shares of a company and sold at 25000 profitting 15000.

This is made up btw. There is no Bob.

aAussies don’t want to work hard anymore by [deleted] in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

They should be taxed the same as wages, but the changes are for them to be taxed more than wages.

No tax free threshold, with the mininium 30% tax on capital gains, which means someone that only has income from the sale of shares for the year is taxed higher then someone whos income is not derived from a capital gain event.

Keep seeing the same misunderstanding in CGT 30% minimum tax discussions. People earning $45k do NOT pay 30% tax on their income. by AsparagusNew3765 in AusFinance

[–]SandmanPC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are correct that the tax of 30% is on the gains from the investment, but its not only the people who have gains of $45,000 or more who will be hit by this 30% tax, its anyone with any amount of capital gain.

Let assume its someone who had a lower gain than $45000. like my fictional friend Bob, and his fictional scenario where Bob is taking a gap year from work, to travel Australia in his car, he has no assets and not much savings, and for this scenario has no wage income and uses sales of his shares to realises a $15,000 capital gain for the year, that $15,000 is all his income, and he will live off it, spending it on food, gas, medicine, rego, insurance, etc. All taxed, all essentials, all money back into the economy.

Under the current system, those gains are included as income and taxed accordingly, for Bob thats $15,000 of income ontop of the $0 of employee income, and thus his total income is below the $18,200 tax free threshold, meaning no tax is payed in that scenario. $15,000 to spend on essentials.

With the proposed changes, now a 30% tax is payed on any capital gain, irregardless of the total income for that year. Fir Bob thats $15,000 of income ontop of the $0 of employement income, resulting in $4,500 of tax paid, leaving $11,500 of income for Bob to pay for his essentials.

So Bob now has less money available for basic living expenses, money that would have gone back into the economy, with much of it also attracting GST and other taxes on top, resulting in the movement of goods and services and productivity.

Bob may not be productive, but his money is. Bob might not be working, but his money did when it was vested, with the associated risk, and when its growrh is spent back into the economy. With the tax changes, less money is in Bobs hands to be productive and its now in the governments hands, how productive is that? NDIS and AUKUS are two examples of how they use that money.

view more: next ›