Ffs, "'bulldozer from marketing' will change after May 21 vote." Yes, he will change alright, no longer PM.
Is the opposition any better though? In the US you have 2 parties that both work for the Oligarchy. The only real difference between the Democrats & Republicans is their social issues and even those are really used for voting blocks on the edges like this obsession with abortion rights by the Republicans catering to the Southern Baptists & Evangelicals. I doubt there will any meaningful change in the west without a real economic collapse that can't be papered over by ZIRP forever.
No! They also shirking responsibility of confronting the business of investors outbidding legimate home buyers time & time again. It all hinges on votes, politicians more worried about their own ass's first. It will prolly get to the stage, a few large multinational corps will own most property, then they'll get out voted by the larger mass of young renters. Blackrock are in here now buying residential housing.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...n-just-re-elect-me-first-20220515-p5ali3.html I’ll get out of your lives, promises Morrison. Just re-elect me first By Jacqueline Maley May 15, 2022 Scott Morrison can read a room. It helps, of course, if the room is an auditorium in humid Brisbane, full of colleagues (loyal, for now), family and party faithful who don’t just want you to win the election in a week’s time, but really need you to. Scott Morrison read the room like a palm on Sunday.Credit:James Brickwood The room in question was Sunday’s Coalition campaign launch and Morrison read it like a palm, just as he has read the mood of an electorate turned off by his personal style: he promised to get himself out of our lives. He just needs to get re-elected first. The knot of union protestors outside shouting “Liar! Liar!” at great pitch (Barnaby Joyce dubbed them “raving banshees”) were soon drowned out by the hubbub of Liberal socialising. Scott Morrison greets former prime minister John Howard, with wife Janette, after his speech.Credit:James Brickwood “I’m seekin’ a second term ’cause I’m just warmin’ up!” Morrison cried, to cheers from the crowd. Having recently admitted he was a “bulldozer” whose style many voters found unappealing, Morrison spoke of his desire to leave people alone. “[Australians] are tired of politics; it’s been an exhausting time,” he told the room. “They’ve certainly had enough of governments telling them how to live their lives, and I agree.” But before he can recede from the national consciousness, Morrison needs voters to buy his pitch. His newly announced centrepiece was a scheme allowing first home buyers to dip into their superannuation, something the dry young libertarians of the Liberal backbench have been advocating for years. Morrison has spent the last week warning of the inflationary effect of a cost-of-living wage rise for the nation’s poorest workers. The inflationary effect on house prices of this policy? Sunday was not the day for such nay-saying – Morrison was here to build; let others bulldoze. Morrison cannot even be accused of throwing around public money – the policy allows individuals to throw around their own money. The Coalition government may not be given a chance to get out of Australians’ lives. Australians may well take the decision into their own hands. ...................................
analysis Federal Election 2022 - Australia Votes The missing election ingredient: nothing here for the next generation By business editor Ian Verrender Posted 13 hours ago https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-16/election-analysis-home-loans-youth/101068998 With less than a week to go before the nation heads to the polls, the two main parties are locked in a battle over pretty much nothing. (AAP) It was an idea hatched decades ago in the early hours of the morning. Disillusioned with the state of the nation's political direction, a few of us decided to form our very own political movement, one that would capture the mood of the population. Just a few years earlier, there had been mass demonstrations, marches through the streets and, for a while, it seemed as though a new generation realised it even had the power to force nations to stop a war. But then, in the aftermath, nothing. And so was born the Australian Apathy Party. We even came up with a catchy slogan. "Who Gives a ****?" Unfortunately, it never went any further. No-one could be bothered doing anything more about it, which neatly captured the Zeitgeist and more than fulfilled the project's meagre ambitions. A similar mood seems to be descending across the nation. With less than a week to go before the nation heads to the polls, the two main parties are locked in a battle over pretty much nothing. There are no great ideological differences, apart from last week's scrap over minimum pay, and the campaigns have been remarkable for their almost complete lack of policy. Nobody even seems to have noticed. Which all seems a little odd. For despite a simmering discontent between the generations – the battle between Gens X, Y and Z and Boomers – nowhere is there any co-ordinated plan to redress the economic bias against our youth. Nor is there even a debate. It's not merely a question of inequality. There's also the issue of sound long term economic and budgetary management. The entire artifice is unsustainable. The only inter-generational issue in the headlines is housing. If we didn't already know, it's almost entirely unaffordable for a large portion of the younger generations. Apart from a couple of gimmicky solutions, however, there is no plan to provide a real fix. But what about the overly generous tax concessions that benefit older and wealthier Australians, the cost of which escalates each year, that have helped create the structural deficit destined to punch a hole in the nation's finance for decades to come? This isn't even on the radar. As for climate, which usually registers as one of the key issues for younger Australians, there's largely been radio silence. No property fix without tax reform There's an old maxim that says oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. And if the 2019 election taught our pollies anything, it was that oppositions should avoid policy at all costs and let the government simply fall over. Having lost what was considered an unlosable election in 2019 with a plan to wind back the tax breaks on housing, the ALP under Anthony Albanese has walked back on it. At some stage, however, regardless of which party is in power, tax reform around housing will become unavoidable. The main tax breaks – negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount – have two effects. They push up housing prices and denude our tax take. Combined, the two tax breaks cost the federal budget around $28 billion a year in foregone revenue. And, as the blue line on the graph below shows, investors are surging back into the market with record levels of borrowing. As interest rates rise, the losses investors incur on rental properties will increase. That will result in even more tax revenue foregone. Despite claims during the last election campaign that Australia's two million property investors were "ordinary" Australians, data released this month by the Parliamentary Budget Office show the overwhelming bulk of tax benefits accrue to those in the top 10 per cent income bracket. Negative gearing and capital gains tax breaks go to top income earners and men. Defenders of the schemes argue that removing the tax breaks would see a shortage of rental properties. They may be right. Because if investors only bought properties they could rent for a profit, there would be a lot less investors in the market, which would take the pressure off prices and allow renters to put a roof over their head. Living the low and no-tax dream As a nation, we're getting older. Proportionately, that is. At the moment, about 16.5 per cent of Australians are at retirement age. Within the next 40 years, that is expected to climb to 22.8 per cent. Have baby boomers won the election? No matter who wins the federal election, older Australians will benefit from tax and super policies that make their lives easier, while young people struggle with cost of living. Why does it seem like baby boomers are getting such a good deal? So what, you say? What it means is that the burden will fall on a smaller proportion of working age Australians to pay for those in retirement. And with the number of those over 85 expected to triple, to 1.9 million, the cost of aged care will soar. Look at it another way. Back in 1981, there were 6.6 working age people for every retiree. That's now dropped to 4 working age people. And within 40 years, according to Treasury analysis, there will be just 2.7 working age people to pay for those who've permanent clocked off. Thank heavens for compulsory superannuation, hey! Well, yes, it was a great idea. But over the decades, our superannuation scheme has morphed into a tax haven for wealthy, older Australians. You get a tax break for making contributions to super. And the more income you earn, the bigger the tax break. Not only that, the earnings from your super fund are tax free, on a fund with up to $1.7 million. Beyond that, you pay tax but at a concessional rate. Essentially, if you're retired, and you earn 5 per cent on your $1.7 million fund, you take home $85,000 without having to pay a cent in tax. But a young worker, who probably can't afford a home, earning $85,000 a year slogging it out on the tools every day, forks out just shy of $20,000 in tax. How fair is that? And it doesn't come cheap. According to the latest Treasury estimates, the tax concessions on contributions and earnings now cost the federal budget around $43 billion a year and, without reforms, those costs will overtake the cost of the aged pension within 18 years. Winding back the tax rort wind backs In a hugely unpopular move, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in 2016 wound back some of the more excessive concessions around superannuation. Since then, however, older, richer Australians have enjoyed something of a reprieve. During the pandemic, when most young and newly unemployed workers were desperate for cash, they were given the option of cashing out $20,000 from their super funds. All up, around $35 billion was withdrawn, most at the bottom of the market and shortly before one of the biggest market recoveries in history. For many, it will be a personal disaster. Retirees on the other hand were allowed to do the opposite. Until the pandemic, those living off super were required to withdraw 5 per cent of their super each year. Beyond 74, and you have to liquidate even larger slabs. It was a measure designed to limit the extent to which retirees use super as a tax shelter.
What does the 5% refer to? Are you guaranteed 5% from a bank or something. I'm not familiar with the details of the Superannuation fund.
What's being said here; if you are retired then your retirement fund you have will invested somewhere and they are quoting a 5%pa modest return on that investment, (typically though, most retirement funds return about 10% pa.) The returns that retirees get are tax free, no tax paid on interest or dividends. In this instance saying a retiree with $1,700,000 investment gets $85,000 income, tax free.
As an aside, in reality, majority of retirees have houses which they live in and own, their cash is tied up in their house, so asset rich, cash poor. They may own a $15 mil house, hardly any money in bank, but they get full pension from gummint because dwellings you live in are not counted as assets. That's been another problem with this system, rich retirees owning mansions get gummint pensions, and, plus they can have a couple hundred thousand dollars in a pension/superannuation account which give tax free returns and still get gummint pension payments fortnightly.
Thanks. That makes sense. I think the long term average in the US markets is about 8% including dividends.
The whole system is slanted to protect rich people, and stupid Morrison, the show pony, yesterday decided to pull another circus stunt, 1 week prior to election (next Saturday elections) came out with two more policies, fucking around with housing money and superannuation which will further inflame house prices. Whatever this clown does, he keeps adding fuel to the house prices fire, thick as a brick or corrupt to the eyeballs which is my impression. His 'christianity' bs really rubs me up the wrong way.