Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[tigerpie]

I listened to her speech. She actually said the Lnp will win the election.
When what she thinks is.....I don't want to be the opposition after the election.
This is how warped this government is.

[DOC]

703.jpg (43.5 KiB) Viewed 6917 times

Call for investigation after Georgina Downer presents cheque to bowling club
MP Rebekha Sharkie sees red after Liberal rival for Mayo is photographed handing over a novelty cheque for a taxpayer-funded grant


Georgina Downer hands a cheque to the Yankallila bowling club
A photograph on her Facebook page shows Georgina Downer celebrating after presenting a cheque to the Yankallila bowling club
Labor has asked the auditor general to investigate how the Liberal candidate for the seat of Mayo, Georgina Downer, was allowed to present a taxpayer-funded grant to a bowling club.

Downer, who has been preselected to recontest the South Australian seat after losing a 2018 byelection, was photographed presenting a $127,373 novelty cheque – featuring her face and Liberal party logos – to the Yankalilla bowling club.

The funding was a grant to the club under the federal government’s community sport infrastructure program. Protocol usually dictates that such funding is announced by the local MP.

Rebekha Sharkie, the Centre Alliance MP who beat Downer at the byelection, said on Twitter she had been notified about the grant recipients on Tuesday and had sought to let them know. “However, one was aware and had already organised their Friday night cheque presentation event.

She added: “In more than a decade of politics I’ve never seen a taxpayer funded grant delivered by cheque with a candidate’s face and name on it.”

The protocol is that the local Federal MP is notified of a grant prior to the Minister advising the club. In more than a decade of politics I’ve never seen a TAX-PAYER funded grant delivered by cheque with a candidate’s face and name on it. Rather desperate and misleading.

The trade minister, Simon Birmingham, defended the cheque presentation on Sky News and said it was the “type of self-promotional act is what members and candidates do right across the country all the time to help raise the awareness of the fact that they’re working and fighting for their local community”.

But the shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, has written to the auditor general asking for an investigation into the conduct of Downer, the Liberal party and relevant government ministers.

“I query how it is possible for Ms Downer, the unsuccessful candidate for the 2018 Mayo by-election and an unelected candidate for the upcoming federal election, to misuse a taxpayer-funded grant in this fashion,” Dreyfus wrote.

“It is completely inappropriate and unacceptable for Ms Downer and the Liberal Party to treat taxpayers’ money as if it were their own, and to deceive Australians about the true source of this taxpayer-funded grant.”

On Sunday Downer found herself at the centre of a second controversy, after it was discovered that a “retiree” in an online campaign video is a former Liberal staffer, and the party’s former South Australian director, Jim Bonner.

The video introduces Bonner as “Jim, 72 (a) South Coast retiree” who complains about Labor’s franking credit policy and says he’ll be “voting for the federal Liberal government”.

The advertisement doesn’t declare Bonner’s long history with the Liberal party, including a stint as a press secretary to the then prime minister Malcolm Fraser, and as the South Australia state director of the Liberal party from 1998 to 2001. He most recently worked for Birmingham.

The Sun-Herald and Sunday Age reported that Downer, the daughter of the former foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer, defended the advertisement, saying Bonner was both a retiree and a long-term resident on the SA south coast.

The video was posted to Downer’s Facebook page and was not widely shared until the Sunday newspaper report, which has had the dual effect of both increasing its reach but also provoking an online backlash.

Many political journalists recalled Bonner from his time working with ministers in Canberra.

Labor’s election policy, branded a “retirement tax” by the government, aims to stop tax refunds to self-funded retirees who pay no tax but who are entitled to claim a refund for franking credits on shares.

On Thursday the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tony Smith, criticised the chair of a parliamentary franking credits inquiry, the Liberal MP Tim Wilson, by noting he had broken conventions by creating a private website to solicit submissions against Labor’s policy, and by the apparent coordination of meetings with one of its primary opponents.

Labor has pushed for Wilson to be referred to the parliamentary privileges committee over alleged politicisation of the inquiry.

Wilson authorised a partisan website stoptheretirementtax.com, part-funded by Geoff Wilson, his first-cousin once-removed, which garners submissions opposed to Labor’s policy and signs submitters up to a Wilson Asset Management petition, a company chaired by Geoff Wilson.

In September Geoff Wilson boasted to investors he had asked Tim Wilson to schedule inquiry hearings alongside Wilson Asset Management roadshow events to help investors protest against Labor’s policy.

[Q.]

Impersonating an MP. That's jail time.

[DOC]

Impersonating an MP. That's jail time.

That would be most of them.

WE have never been lower.

[mighty_tiger_79]

Billly boy you ****** up fraudulent wanker

Why, when clearly looking like the next PM introduce a tax that crucifues self funded retirees???

[Q.]

Billly boy you ****** up fraudulent wanker

Why, when clearly looking like the next PM introduce a tax that crucifues self funded retirees???

Are you taking the piss?

[tigerpie]

Billly boy you ****** up fraudulent wanker

Why, when clearly looking like the next PM introduce a tax that crucifues self funded retirees???

Even when you spell it right, self funded retirees are far from being crucified!

[shoe boy]

Billly boy you ****** up fraudulent wanker

Why, when clearly looking like the next PM introduce a tax that crucifues self funded retirees???

Really !
You stick with your mate Morrison who has no credibility or mandate to even be our PM .

[Booney]

Billly boy you ****** up fraudulent wanker

Why, when clearly looking like the next PM introduce a tax that crucifues self funded retirees???

Are you taking the piss?

Hang on Q, these people with shitloads of money who have been getting something for nothing for years deserve to be given an opportunity to speak.

[Jimmy_041]

A few people on here need to venture out of the left wing media outlets and read up on the Labor proposed changes to franking.
I’m not sure why you think it’s so “fair” that a person with $250k in their SMSF is not entitled to the credits but someone with $1m+ in their industry super fund still gets them (including the vast majority of Labor politicians who also get a life pension of what? $200k+ pa?. They’re the real rich leeches on society) Try the AFR for a start!

[DOC]

Any person with $250K in their SMSF will still get at the minimum a part pension (will not generate enough income to put them over the limit) and will be exempt.

[DOC]

As for the AFR, some very good investigative journalism in it of late.

[mighty_tiger_79]

Billly boy you ****** up fraudulent wanker

Why, when clearly looking like the next PM introduce a tax that crucifues self funded retirees???

Really !
You stick with your mate Morrison who has no credibility or mandate to even be our PM .

Oh no, I certainly dont like Morrison, and I dont like Bill.

In fact, I'd probably be like most voters who just wish that one of the options was a strong leader with a party who aren't scared over news polls.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Jimmy_041]

Any person with $250K in their SMSF will still get at the minimum a part pension (will not generate enough income to put them over the limit) and will be exempt.

Whatever as I’m not up with the pension rules but you get my drift.
This is partly punitive to stop people leaving industry funds and setting up SMSFs
Straight from a senior union official

[Q.]

A few people on here need to venture out of the left wing media outlets and read up on the Labor proposed changes to franking.
I’m not sure why you think it’s so “fair” that a person with $250k in their SMSF is not entitled to the credits but someone with $1m+ in their industry super fund still gets them (including the vast majority of Labor politicians who also get a life pension of what? $200k+ pa?. They’re the real rich leeches on society) Try the AFR for a start!

http://theconversation.com/words-that-matter-whats-a-franking-credit-whats-dividend-imputation-and-whats-retiree-tax-111423

Pension and allowance recipients, even part pensioners, would be exempt from the changes and would continue to receive cash payments.

Also exempt would be self-managed super funds with at least one member who was receiving a government pension or part-pension at the date of Labor’s announcement, 28 March 2018.

[Q.]

The policy of giving dividend imputation cheques for dividend recipients who are outside the tax system is one of many examples of why Howard/Costello were poor economic managers. The policy created structural deficit for every government since (and does not exist in ANY other country in the world) and will cost the taxpayer $8bil a year if it stays. $8 BILLION! It is a policy that only favours the wealthy (who have the temerity to claim they are "self-funded") and there isn't an economist worth his salt that thinks the policy is a good idea.

[Trader]

The policy of giving dividend imputation cheques for dividend recipients who are outside the tax system is one of many examples of why Howard/Costello were poor economic managers. The policy created structural deficit for every government since (and does not exist in ANY other country in the world) and will cost the taxpayer $8bil a year if it stays. $8 BILLION! It is a policy that only favours the wealthy (who have the temerity to claim they are "self-funded") and there isn't an economist worth his salt that thinks the policy is a good idea.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (quite likely), however my simple understanding based on no research is as follows:

Company makes profit and pays 30% tax.
Company then issues dividends to the shareholders, at which point it is now considered income, and is taxed personally.

To avoid double taxing, the individual only pays the difference between the 30% already paid, and their personal bracket (often 37 or 45%).

In the instance where someone is in a lower bracket (than 30% already paid by the company), the difference is then a credit to the individual.

Am I correct in assuming you are happy for the government to collect the additional from the majority who are in a higher than 30% bracket, but not willing for the credit to be returned for the individuals who are in a lower bracket?

[Q.]

The policy of giving dividend imputation cheques for dividend recipients who are outside the tax system is one of many examples of why Howard/Costello were poor economic managers. The policy created structural deficit for every government since (and does not exist in ANY other country in the world) and will cost the taxpayer $8bil a year if it stays. $8 BILLION! It is a policy that only favours the wealthy (who have the temerity to claim they are "self-funded") and there isn't an economist worth his salt that thinks the policy is a good idea.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (quite likely), however my simple understanding based on no research is as follows:

Company makes profit and pays 30% tax.
Company then issues dividends to the shareholders, at which point it is now considered income, and is taxed personally.

To avoid double taxing, the individual only pays the difference between the 30% already paid, and their personal bracket (often 37 or 45%).

In the instance where someone is in a lower bracket (than 30% already paid by the company), the difference is then a credit to the individual.

Am I correct in assuming you are happy for the government to collect the additional from the majority who are in a higher than 30% bracket, but not willing for the credit to be returned for the individuals who are in a lower bracket?

Read the link I posted above. The proposal is to withdraw dividend imputation cheques from dividend recipients who are outside the tax system.

[Jimmy_041]

The policy of giving dividend imputation cheques for dividend recipients who are outside the tax system is one of many examples of why Howard/Costello were poor economic managers. The policy created structural deficit for every government since (and does not exist in ANY other country in the world) and will cost the taxpayer $8bil a year if it stays. $8 BILLION! It is a policy that only favours the wealthy (who have the temerity to claim they are "self-funded") and there isn't an economist worth his salt that thinks the policy is a good idea.

It's not whether it's a good idea or not. Its the fact that its not fair to hit one group of people and keep it for everyone else. That's the argument. If its such a $hit policy - scrap it for everyone. Plus, I read in the AFR that this will not affect wealthy people as much as the not wealthy (but I cant remember why) and that the argument is purely to make it popular. I will see if I can find the article and post it

Three other things I was told last night:
1. Many inside Labor think the Coalition have a very real chance of winning the election.
2. Bill Shorten would be gone if it wasn't for the leadership rules. Their polling is showing very real evidence that the majority of voters don't trust him.
They are connected - Labor would (deservedly) win in an absolute landslide, even if Albanese was brought in the day before.
3. The factional union battles are in full swing (eg) Adani where slippery Bill is promising the CFMEU that they wont stop it, and everyone else he will.
Even The Guardian is reporting this: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... head-warns

I think there's one thing that's not going to change after the election - political chaos.
The days of political statesmen like Chifley, Curtin, Deakin, Menzies, Hughes, Hawke, Howard and, dare I say it: Fraser and Whitlam, are truly behind us with no hope in sight. We can look forward to another 3 years of chaos whichever side gets in.

[Trader]

The policy of giving dividend imputation cheques for dividend recipients who are outside the tax system is one of many examples of why Howard/Costello were poor economic managers. The policy created structural deficit for every government since (and does not exist in ANY other country in the world) and will cost the taxpayer $8bil a year if it stays. $8 BILLION! It is a policy that only favours the wealthy (who have the temerity to claim they are "self-funded") and there isn't an economist worth his salt that thinks the policy is a good idea.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (quite likely), however my simple understanding based on no research is as follows:

Company makes profit and pays 30% tax.
Company then issues dividends to the shareholders, at which point it is now considered income, and is taxed personally.

To avoid double taxing, the individual only pays the difference between the 30% already paid, and their personal bracket (often 37 or 45%).

In the instance where someone is in a lower bracket (than 30% already paid by the company), the difference is then a credit to the individual.

Am I correct in assuming you are happy for the government to collect the additional from the majority who are in a higher than 30% bracket, but not willing for the credit to be returned for the individuals who are in a lower bracket?

Read the link I posted above. The proposal is to withdraw dividend imputation cheques from dividend recipients who are outside the tax system.

Ok, read the article.

Its an interesting one.
In short, they (labor) are happy to refund the company tax until such point that you are paying no tax, but not to the point that you get a cash rebate.

Why the distinction? Why should you be allowed to return it to those in the 19c bracket, but not to those in the 0c bracket?

Steve earns $100k per year in his job.
Jodi earns $25k per year part time.
Sally doesn't do anything, she gets $0.

All three also receive $5,000 in fully franked dividends (5k+2142 in franking credits).

Steve now gets a tax bill for $500, being the 7c per dollar on the dividends and franking credits for his personal tax bracket of 37c (vs company 30c).
Jodi gets a tax return of $785, because she already paid $1,292 in income tax, but her dividends and franking credits were taxed at 30c, higher than her usual 19c per dollar. Good luck to Jodi.
Sally on the other hand, as she earnt nothing, the 2142 in tax already paid by the company, remains with the ATO, because we don't want Sally's total tax bill to go below zero.

To me that's where it breaks down. Why should Jodi get a tax return, but not Sally. Both have dividends that were taxed at a higher rate than their personal tax bracket.