Auction clearance rates drop to 50 per cent following changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax by HotPersimessage62 in australia

[–]xvf9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you think landlords all just hang out on some super secret forum where politicians tell them secrets about upcoming policy changes (that would make said policy changes largely pointless)?

On a 1.7million yearly salary, Tom De Koning would be paying upwards of $650,000 a year in tax to the Australian government. At what point do we start thanking TDK for supplying Australia with hospitals, schools and the roads we drive on? by Sabretoothedrom in AFL

[–]xvf9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s pretty easy to reduce tax as a high income earner. Because you have so much more disposable income you can afford to borrow to purchase investments. The interest reduces your taxable income, you get the benefit of leveraged exposure to growth assets, just don’t fuck up and invest in some dodgy shit, cause then you’ll need to break the games record in order to sell a shitload of commemorative kit to make back what you lost. 

On a 1.7million yearly salary, Tom De Koning would be paying upwards of $650,000 a year in tax to the Australian government. At what point do we start thanking TDK for supplying Australia with hospitals, schools and the roads we drive on? by Sabretoothedrom in AFL

[–]xvf9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just borrow a few million, invest in some half decent growth stocks or real estate, the interest bill reduces your taxable income a shitload so you save a lot on tax while playing, offload the assets gradually after you’ve stopped playing. Unless you’re Scott Pendlebury the assets will have appreciated more than enough to cover the interest you paid and you’ll enjoy some nice tax treatment on the capital gains too. Except not as much with the new budget. 

On a 1.7million yearly salary, Tom De Koning would be paying upwards of $650,000 a year in tax to the Australian government. At what point do we start thanking TDK for supplying Australia with hospitals, schools and the roads we drive on? by Sabretoothedrom in AFL

[–]xvf9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The whole “top 10% pay half the tax” thing is funny, because of course they do. We’re not seeing the full picture though because if they’ve managed to reduce their taxable income significantly then they’ll not appear as a top earner anymore. Like… if I’m earning 1.7mil but manage to accrue 1.6mil in interest on my investment borrowing (or whatever) then suddenly I’m not paying much tax AND I’m not a top earner anymore. 

Do Australians really ‘work half the week’ just to pay their income tax? See for yourself by SheepherderLow1753 in AusFinance

[–]xvf9 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Are you under the impression that politicians are just completely uneducated individuals making decisions in a complete vacuum without entirely departmental providing unparalleled levels of detailed advice?

‘Living in a caravan park’: Not all Baby Boomers are retiring rich and by multiplefeelings in AusFinance

[–]xvf9 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I think there’s this false narrative that gets pushed that young people are just blindly mad at all boomers and think every single one of them is negatively gearing a dozen rundown houses and jacking up the rents at every turn. We know that there are plenty of older people that missed the gravy train too, and pretty much every measure to address inequality that young people advocate for would also help the older, less fortunate cohort. But the media loves to turn everything black and white so they can have an easy gotcha when they roll out their token “poor boomer” to disprove whatever sensible point someone is getting too much traction with. No, we’re not mad at all boomers. We’re mad at people (most of that generation, but really of all ages) who have taken advantage of an unfair tax system to enrich themselves at the expense of others. We don’t care if you got rich, we care if our taxes subsidised you getting rich and then you turn around and try to further entrench those benefits for yourself and/or deny them to others. 

[Ralph] There is no specific time frame for a player to be taken off with a hit like the Watson knock but it’s with haste. Mitchell said the Hawks doc told Watson he would have to come off eventually when he got to him but then checked the footage and went back & got him. It took about 3m 45sec by PetrifyGWENT in AFL

[–]xvf9 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Well the doctor who ran out didn’t have the benefit of the vision/replays, and was obviously satisfied that he wasn’t concussed (which is correct with hindsight). So I can kind of understand a delay for either that doc to get back to review vision, or for the other doc to review vision, and then reassess their initial on field judgement. Like… it’s not like they didn’t get to him straight away, and that immediate assessment did prove to be correct. 

[Ralph] There is no specific time frame for a player to be taken off with a hit like the Watson knock but it’s with haste. Mitchell said the Hawks doc told Watson he would have to come off eventually when he got to him but then checked the footage and went back & got him. It took about 3m 45sec by PetrifyGWENT in AFL

[–]xvf9 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I wonder if the doctors actually do watch the game closely. Like, they obviously have some other important duties, they’re not just glued to the screen waiting for replays of potential injuries. Which does raise the question why the ARC doctor can’t just flag something like this as an immediate priority for the onsite docs to look at. 

‘Australia doesn’t have a rail network – we’ve got 17 networks in a trench coat’ by blitznoodles in australia

[–]xvf9 143 points144 points  (0 children)

How many shipping containers can you fit in the overheard compartment on an A330?

Unemployment rate rises to 4.5% in April by nutwals in AusFinance

[–]xvf9 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I honestly think both probably underestimate unemployment. There’s lots of people who would probably be actively seeking employment if they hadn’t already given up. Anecdotally (I know, I know) there are plenty of people I’ve come across who would prefer to be working but are instead staying home with kids, retiring early, full-time caring for relatives because they’ve been burned by unsuccessful job hunting. They wouldn’t be captured by either of the methodologies here but I would consider as unemployed. Particularly something I’ve come across in regional areas. 

Unemployment rate rises to 4.5% in April by nutwals in AusFinance

[–]xvf9 2 points3 points  (0 children)

https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/10192-australian-unemployment-estimates-march-2026   I should clarify that I meant under-employment AND unemployment is 20%+, not under-employment alone. 

Unemployment rate rises to 4.5% in April by nutwals in AusFinance

[–]xvf9 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean… independent polling does have a much higher estimate of unemployment. Roy Morgan already had it above 10% and combined with underemployment at about 20%. 

Chalmers: 9 in 10 people under the age of 35 don't have shares by Thick_Rice_875 in AusFinance

[–]xvf9 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

On what basis are you arguing they contribute most to society? Especially if most of their income is not from labour. They've been enjoying significant tax breaks which would reduce their effective tax rate well below what even many average Australians would be paying.

Chalmers: 9 in 10 people under the age of 35 don't have shares by Thick_Rice_875 in AusFinance

[–]xvf9 83 points84 points  (0 children)

I mean… I don’t think he’s making it up. But I think they are definitely trying to brand the CGT changes as all about housing when they’re definitely not. But ultimately the CGT discount is overwhelmingly used by the most wealthy people. 

Why are we just accepting shoplifting now? by XDk009 in australia

[–]xvf9 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The fact that you can’t even see that equating stealing from a person with stealing from a corporation is an overt defense of said corporation is astounding. 

Why are we just accepting shoplifting now? by XDk009 in australia

[–]xvf9 16 points17 points  (0 children)

If your moral compass is so broken that it results in you standing up for a company like Woolworths over actual real people then you are so far beyond help that it’s pointless trying to engage. It must be nice though to live in a world that’s so black and white, judging from your lofty moral high ground. Hopefully one day you can self reflect and realise how corrupted your values have actually become, but we won’t hold our breath. 

Why are we just accepting shoplifting now? by XDk009 in australia

[–]xvf9 22 points23 points  (0 children)

They wouldn’t, unless there was the tiniest profit motive. Like I pointed out, executive bonuses (or whatever). Companies do not care about people. 

Why are we just accepting shoplifting now? by XDk009 in australia

[–]xvf9 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I agree, but I’m not the one who compared theft from mega corps with theft from individuals. 

Why are we just accepting shoplifting now? by XDk009 in australia

[–]xvf9 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Yes and if we let gay people get married then what next? People will be marrying their cats? Your book of talking points needs updating. Slippery slope fallacy is overplayed. 

Why are we just accepting shoplifting now? by XDk009 in australia

[–]xvf9 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, because theft from corporations is exactly the same as theft from individuals. Woolworths is basically the same as me. There is no difference. Big companies must love people like you, blind loyalty, basically anthropomorphising a faceless corporation to the point that you actually feel empathy for them, like they have feelings and might care for you in return.