9th Apr 2018

PM down but not out after 30th Newspoll fail

PM down but not out after 30th Newspoll fail
Leon Della Bosca

The Coalition has lost its 30th consecutive Newspoll, a marker which, only three years ago, was used as a catalyst to oust former prime minister Tony Abbott.

However, the Coalition has narrowed the margin on a two-party preferred basis to now read 48/52 in favour of Labor, giving the party hope heading towards the next election.

The leadership contest between Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten has also tightened, with Mr Turnbull still seen as the preferred Prime Minister by just two points (36/38).

Voters’ assessment of Mr Turnbull hasn’t changed since the last poll, but Bill Shorten may be seeing the effects of his ‘flaky’ franking backflip, with his rating dropping two points.



With rumours that the Coalition party room is circling its embattled leader, and the threat of a Tony Abbott challenge, Mr Turnbull is adamant that he will lead the party on to the next election.

“I don’t think there is anyone, frankly, suggesting I don’t,” Mr Turnbull told The Australian.

“We are in a close, tight political environment. The next election is absolutely there to be won,” he said.

“My job is not there to be distracted by polls, but to focus on our policies and on delivering for the Australian people.”

He also suggested that if opinion polls were anything to go by, Nick Xenophon would be Premier of South Australia and Kristina Keneally would be the member for Bennelong – both outcomes that never eventuated even though polls suggested otherwise.

Tony Abbott has also insisted that he will not challenge Mr Turnbull for PM.

“None of us should live in the past or dwell on things,” Mr Abbott told reporters on Sunday.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten almost backed the PM’s claims that opinion polls mean very little, saying, “I've made it a practice of not commenting on polls when the polls have been good, bad or indifferent.”

Although, it seems he doesn’t believe the PM’s claims that he is not affected by the results published today.

“Mr Turnbull obsesses about polls, as do the National and Liberal parties.”

Read more at The Australian

 

Opinion: Do older Australians really care about these polls?

The PM may be right when he says that political opinion polls don’t matter. The only one that really counts, if you’ll pardon the pun, is the big one – the Federal Election.

So, why then do we even have Newspolls? Do you actually care about the results? Or are they just good fodder for the media to sink its teeth into?

A Newspoll is a national poll taken of around 1600 voters conducted in a three-day window and released at Newspoll’s whim exclusively on The Australian. Once upon a time, these polls were published fortnightly, nowadays their release is more sporadic.

Or just in time for a slow news week, one could speculate.

Maybe these polls are an accurate reflection of public opinion. And, while they could have once been seen as an indicator of how people would actually vote, nowadays, they could easily be construed simply as a mirror to how people are feeling about a politician that week.

Bill Shorten’s result may back that point. After enjoying solid results in the preferred PM stakes over the last year, Bill’s recent backflips over franking policy may have hurt his standing.

Also, MPs seem to back one poll over another depending on how it suits their cause at the time. While the Newspoll would often be ammunition for the Coalition if it were leading, the party more recently seems to back the Fairfax/Ipsops poll, which sees the Coalition and its policies in a more favourable light.

Older Australians make up the largest voting demographic in the country. Little wonder that both major parties are skewing their policies towards them. We did discover from a 2017 Newspoll that you don’t mess with this cohort.

When the super and Age Pension changes were introduced in 2017, the PM’s approval rating plummeted. However, it remains to be seen as to whether older voters will desert the Coalition – we may find that out soon enough, though.

Even the PM says his biggest mistake was quoting 30 consecutive Newspoll losses when he rolled Tony Abbott for the top job in 2015. He says the metric has become a political distraction and matters very little to him. So why should we care?

What the public cares about is seeing a party focused on delivering solid policy that will ensure a fair go for everyone, not a party concerned about popularity contests.

So, we can all back the PM’s sentiment to “focus on our policies and on delivering for the Australian people”. Hopefully we will see that actually happen one day.

Public opinion matters most when it puts in place a leader and a party that will hopefully ensure these ends. We’ll do our part, but can we rely on these parties following through?

The only polls that matter are the ones visited on election day.

When I saw the headlines this morning, my first reaction was ‘who cares’? Will YourLifeChoices members care? But then I thought I’d ask you directly. Do you care about the polls? Do they sway your vote?


Related articles:





COMMENTS

To make a comment, please register or login
Kathleen
9th Apr 2018
9:54am
To a degree they matter but performance is more important to thinking people. LNP blatantly favour the big banks and big business. Innocent people languish on Nauru which upsets many people. Abbott’s inability to speak well is cringeworthy so the present PM is certainly a better option to represent Australia overseas and publicly.
People will vote for LNP because they always have. Only a small percentage of people will look at each election with fresh eyes.
The sneaky dismantling of Medicare should worry people. To deny there has been no attack on Medicare is to not had to go for a test or pick up your usual prescription because Medicare has been eroded. Private health funds can only cover what Medicare does and some have been removed like eye operations.
Some small charities have lost their funding.
And it goes on and on.
Performance is definitely more important and this particular LNP government is heartless and cares only for the super wealthy.
They also do not do the right thing regarding the environment. Coal is not the future. Renewables are!
OnlyGenuineRainey
9th Apr 2018
10:20am
I agree with all of that. The problem is that there is no viable alternative. The ALP is just as bad - but in different ways.

We are choosing from the lesser of two evils, or to support an ineffectual minority. Until the two-party system is destroyed, there is no hope.
Kathleen
9th Apr 2018
10:31am
OGR, I nearly fainted when I saw you actually agreed with me lol.
There was no attack, thank you for that!
I have in the past voted all different ways including LNP, Greens, independent, Labor, but mostly the last one. But I do look carefully at policies and fairness.
Labor is my present choice for sure. I think they have a good solid team and some excellent people throughout their team.
LNP are nasty. They are even cringe worthy.
Jim
9th Apr 2018
11:26am
There are lots of things you say are true, and would be true no matter who was in charge, but to even remotely think that the current opposition would be any better is in my opinion a huge stretch, I have also voted for different parties at different elections, although I will admit to never ever voted for the greens, as a union member for over 50 years I was almost always a Labor supporter, I have had dealings with our current opposition leader and stability is not a word I would associate with him, grub and traitor to the working man readily come to mind.
TREBOR
9th Apr 2018
11:27am
Rainey is actually pretty solid... a few minor hiccups when under pressure of cash - but who isn't?

If I had the money I'd earned and deserved in retirement, my views might probably be different.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
11:43am
I think Labor is a very nasty party indeed. Under Labor it is simply not worth making any extra effort as they will just take it from you and give to the bludgers in society.
Hasbeen
9th Apr 2018
12:25pm
Kathleen is entirely wrong on one major thing.

She says "People will vote for LNP because they always have", but that is wrong. It is the previously rusted on Liberal voters who are most disgusted at this wishy washy lefty PM who are going to take a hatchet to the Libs, if they don't get rid of the disgusting Turnbull.

Very many Liberal voters backed away from doing it last time, scared at the catastrophe Shorten would be. However no more. Many I know are saying, we might as well have a proper lefty government than this slimy cupboard lefty we now have.

I know at least a dozen who will do what ever it takes to be sure Turnbull is gone this time.
john
9th Apr 2018
12:29pm
Kathleen Coal is NOT the future , what it is right now is a power base , as renewables are brought online and the cost is right. It'll take 50 or more years.
Medicare is still there, It hasn't changed for me. Medibank on the other hand is a private profiteer believe it or not , this is private enterprise with CEO'S eyc , AND INVESTMENT AND MAKE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS , YET BARELY SUPPLY IN SOME INSTANCES A COVER AT ALL. AND IF IT DOES YOU ARE paying for it, through the nose.
Banks will be and always have been and will be forever ,a way for rich investors to get rich, they have the power of wealth, you have no hope. Just play the game.
As for Nauru, refugees are a sad fact of this world , we do our best in Australia, people think that its all "chuck em in a camp" well it is impossible to take every siongle refugee into our country to the detriment of the countries people, and any one can rave on about how immigration makes a nation, well it does, but over populating with no end in sight of people from war torn countries with totally different standards and ways, and heaven help us diseases all the things that we have avoided , still need avoiding , by knowing how every individual is vetted , and by making laws where people who come here have to learn English and have to assimilate , or don't let them in.
If that doesn't occur you get ghettos and hatred , and the world is full of it, and the proof stares you in the face all the time all over the planet , everywhere.
Unfortunately there is more hatred than compassion, and in a perfect world we would have everybody, and live well together, that does not happen , so you take the best of the worst situations and try to make it better, but you don't open slather your borders or you lose your country's ways in the end. Then you may as well be dead.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
7:46am
Kathleen, I only respond in anger when I am attacked. I guess it's difficult for you to understand that supporting a vicious and unfair policy that demolishes the retirement I worked so hard and sacrificed lifestyle for 40 years to achieve is cruel and offensive. And then to say it's ''too funny'' that someone faces the loss of everything they worked and planned for over the past 40 years...

Sorry, I detest anything that reeks of socialism or communist. I love the fact that our country respects and tries to support the disadvantaged. I've benefited enormously from our social welfare policies, and I give back where I can. I'd like to see the system strengthened. I know what real hardship is. I've experienced more than the majority. And because I experienced it, and rose above it, I know that needs-based welfare CAN NEVER EVER WORK. It will always drive a welfare mentality that results in excessive cost for welfare - which is what has happened in Australia.

Someday, maybe I'll reveal my real identity and you will know my full story. I revealed it to close friends 7 years ago and one after another came to me and told me they couldn't stop crying. But what happened to me made me strong - strong enough to fight back and figure out a way to escape poverty. I'm proud of that. But now Labor wants to take it all away again and push me back to dependency. And you keep saying that's acceptable, yet you don't offer a reason for saying that other than that you think Labor is better than LNP.

I hate that the LNP is not adhering to the values our population has held dear for two centuries. But people need to be allowed to prosper if they are able. Crippling everyone and punishing effort will NEVER help the country. When we are all equally down and out, there's nothing left to give to the neediest.

I am strongly in favour of taxing the wealthy. Labor is NOT proposing to do that. They are attacking those on the border - people who are only just getting by, and saving the nation money by making their savings last as well as possible. And they are attacking people who are trying to save for the future. Their policy won't hurt the wealthy, because they will just rearrange their investments. They can do that, because they ARE wealthy. Those on the edge and striving don't have that luxury, and they rely on FAIR taxation policies to stay afloat. Stealing the franking refund from people who have no income is NOT FAIR. We don't pay tax in this country on money we don't earn. Labor is planning to refund to high income earners, but not to strugglers who don't earn enough to pay tax. How can ANYONE justify that, other than by lying and saying only the wealthy will be affected. It doesn't take much effort to sift through the rubbish being spruiked and see that the wealthy WON'T be affected. And examination of the fact shows that the policy is definitely NOT a rort, but a fair and consistent application of the core principles of our tax system - that we pay tax ONLY if we earn a taxable income, and otherwise tax taken form our income before we receive it is refunded.

I presented evidence - case examples - that show how grossly unfair Labor's policy on franking credits is. I guess I expected the courtesy of at least partial withdrawal from endorsing something that is going to hurt a lot of good people - not accusations of being ''not genuine'' and repeated claims that people shouldn't be allowed to retire in comfort, no matter how they accrued their savings or what they need them for.

I'm sorry you aren't well off in retirement. I'm glad we have a pension system that provides you an income. I am proud to be able to contribute - in a small way - to making that possible. But I am disgusted that having lived a frugal lifestyle and worked hard to ensure I DO have savings in retirement, anyone would support taking them away unfairly. Grinding people down to equal hardship in old age won't achieve a good outcome for anyone. Communism and socialism have not worked anywhere. Funny, I have a friend who migrated from a communist country and he defends communism, but when I ask him why he's here, he tells me how he just had to escape it and come to where work was rewarded and people could rise above poverty and become comfortable.

If you think Labor will do a better job than the LNP, then support a demand that they withdraw from a policy that is wrong and is likely to cost them the election if they persist with it - because a lot of people have turned away from Labor in response to their latest brain fizz.

We should all be working together here, to achieve a good outcome for senior Australians and for the nation. That can't happen while people are cheering policies that unfairly hurt others. How would you feel if I supported cutting the amount of the pension? That would save the budget money. It would make people work harder and save more for retirement. It would stop people like BigBear gifting their money and taking from the public purse unnecessarily. Oh, it would hurt Kathleen? Well, should I care? I DO - VERY MUCH. I have spoken out for pensioners often, and I'll continue to do so. But I think it's reasonable to expect them to speak out for me also - even if they do struggle to understand that poor people CAN and DO save and achieve moderate prosperity - and the nation benefits from them being allowed to.

I am NOT wealthy and I never will be, but I am no longer poor, and I WILL defend my right to not be ground back into the dependency I worked so hard to escape from. And I will defend my right to fair taxation - not crippling theft of 30% of my income just because it happens to be from dividends and not property, foreign shares, precious metals, or whatever else others might invest it. Sorry if it offends that I defend myself - but I WILL continue. It's in no way personal. And it has nothing to do with pensioners vs others or social class or status. It's purely about FAIRNESS and what's good for the nation.
tisme
9th Apr 2018
10:08am
of the few people polled this is supposed to represent what the majority is thinking ?
George
10th Apr 2018
8:37pm
Exactly, Newspoll is rubbish. We need an Independent pollster who will contact a representative large sample of real voters.

BTW, Turnbull is not only the most popular Liberal leader but is also preferred over Shorten in every poll (unlike Abbott who was never preferred) - so not sure what is all the fuss about?

If anything, any discussion should be about him being a non-performer who will never deliver anything for the Australian people - just for his rich mates in the business and other wealthy mates. With no alternative leader in sight! Sad!!! Only one solution left - THROW THEM ALL OUT!
Crowcrag
9th Apr 2018
10:30am
There seems to be a consistent line of criticism of the two party system, or even our Westminster democratic form of govt. Can anyone name a better system anywhere else in the world at the moment? Even if we do not like our politicians, the system within which they must operate seems to get us through. Remember the words of Churchill -‘Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.’
Be careful what you wish for.
Kathleen
9th Apr 2018
11:16am
Exactly!
TREBOR
9th Apr 2018
11:28am
Not concerned over our system, Crowcrag - over the current flunkies in it...

Big difference.
john
9th Apr 2018
12:38pm
Crowrag correct, we have the best of the worst, we have a system where by there is an over riding power , the day we lose the GG"s power to remove bad government , is the day we are all in strife. Our system does NOT NOT NOT make us a kow tow er, to the United Kingdom, we are a sovereign state, but the republicans are all in fantasy land and all feeling like children who cannot understand that at last you are allowed out the back to play on your own. We already do that.
The stupid thing is all these people who regard a ceremonial thing as a reality, its not! learn!
If we get a president , then he/she must not be politically affiliated with anyone, and still have the GG's power, no other way, and then its a name changing exercise, except for all the bulldust of changing the ceremonial rubbish and printed protocols which mean nothing I guess.
But Canada still do it, so why go to the bother changing , really? Yes we do have the best of the worst government systems on earth. Why do all the worlds strays want to come here then?????
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
6:55am
The two-party system did seem to serve us adequately for a time, but it has become corrupted. Now, both parties have the same overall agenda and work together to achieve it. The real problem is that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the current members in the two-party system have realized that if they co-operate, they can have absolute power - power to rort the nation for theirs and their mates gain.
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
7:50am
Exactly, Rainey - a Third World government of a Banana Republic with El Presidente and his cohorts in total control of the Treasury - you need only look at the futures fund vanished offshore to guarantee their incomes even if the nation collapses, and the ease with which they will create, out of nothing, a new 'commission' or 'government company/corporation' on which to sit their mates for riches without work.

As you say - they ALL do it, and it's becoming more and more The Tag Team I've discussed for several years now.

We need to boost the lot of them out.
George
10th Apr 2018
8:12pm
The problem is that many assume that we have to have either Labor or Liberal in power, with their respective supporters desperately attacking the other side!

Hey, the key point to note in the article is that "Older Australians make up the largest voting demographic in the country." All need tp vote OUT the current incumbent by putting them last in preferences and vote for anyone else closest to your preference.

Older Australians need to realise they have the power to vote out the seat-warmers and maybe shake up the system with new Independents or parties which support Retirees! A lot of Older Australians failed to understand this at the last election, hence we got the current lot.
musicveg
10th Apr 2018
10:19pm
Yes George there are a number of other parties to vote for but have to think about preference votes, like One Nation now making deals with Liberal. There is also the Sustainable Australia Party who want to cut back on the LEGAL immigrants coming into Australia among other things.
George
10th Apr 2018
11:22pm
My point is to vote OUT the current seat-warmer from any of the major parties by putting them last in preferences.

Who you put at the top is your choice - that person may or may not be successful, however we as a group need to and can shake up the system by everyone voting out the useless current seat-warmers.
Lookfar
9th Apr 2018
10:35am
Things are changing, the more conservative Govts are less able to change, because they are more beholden to the big companies, eg I came across this article on insurance, and I have been hearing whispers of this for some time, - you can imagine you will not read this in the daily papers, The companies that carry Commercial risk are the insurance companies, the Insurance Industry has been having meetings all over the world over the last few years, their conclusion, their industry must be Climate Change Proof, it is 'just' a business decision, - have to consider the financial interests of the share holders.. so all over the world you will find beach front properties, low lying cities, coastal roads, low lying delta farmlands etc etc. are either now or will be soon not covered for Climate Change, (esp sea level rise) - often cunningly worded, and no fuss, - usually in the smallest print, so effectively Trillions of dollars of prime real estate are now, yes now, worth a fraction of their fomer value, - also the banks are moving at the same speed, so as each property is no longer Climate Change protected, Banks will not lend on the previous value, so people can not sell their million dollar property for a million dollars nor borrow against it, - this is insidious, shopfront insurance companies are no longer backed by bigger companies so will fold early, and not bankrupt the big players, and one will find they have been asset stripped, and only carry the climate change risk properties, which are now effectively worthless, as their owners will find out over the next year or more. - Thing is, this is not some conspiracy theory but a subtle sensible business decision by the huge insurance industry, that, used to evaluating Risk, has acted accordingly.

One might say that the two parties are the same, but Labor, with all it's faults, does try to work against Climate change and to reduce it's effect, whereas an element, in the Liberal party, the right wing, believes there is no such thing, - barking mad, in my opinion, given all the evidence world wide, but they have that influence and Mr Turnbull has to march to their drum.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
10:52am
I believe in climate change too. If three wasn't climate change we simply would not exist today. It has been happening ever since the earth was created so it's not different today. One volcano erupting will do more damage in a day that people can do in a year.
Kathleen
9th Apr 2018
11:15am
OG, really? You have to be joking!
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
11:16am
No I am no joking as nature can be far more destructive that humans will ever be.
TREBOR
9th Apr 2018
11:29am
One volcano equal seven billion Chinese farting...
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
11:39am
Trebor that's before it actually blows it's top off. What was the one called that blew up a few centuries back and plunged the earth in darkness for many years?
john
9th Apr 2018
12:48pm
Kathleen , once again you missed the mark, I certainly don't agree with OG , much, but here he is correct , we can only go back scientifically several thousand years in climate observation, and even then its theory with some evidence, always that way around, climate change has happened since this earth formed. It is a fact that parts of the middle east that are deserts today were once lush with plant life and water etc , that we couldn't believe .
We have had several ice ages, if not for climate change the prehistoric man, may never have managed to cross into the America's from the European /Asian continent , there is even speculation that Island people in the pacific may have rowed or sailed or whatever to some parts of South America, Hawaii was only inhabited over the last thousand or so years, climate change as a direct result of us, is still an on going investigation , that politics has hijacked and confused the worlds people, cutting down spreading pollution like coke cans in the bush or killing rivers , or misusing water,or chucking plastic in the oceans, that is a million times worse than what people think is changing, climate wise . And if the climate does kill us , well thats nature, like the sun going down forever, which it wioll do one day.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
1:19pm
The biggest problem we face as humans is a super volcano erupting and plunging the earth into an extreme winter for years. Without coal and other fossil fuel energies we simply will not survive. Solar will be virtually useless and many other renewals unpredictable. We have to have fossil fuel energy backups if we want to survive.
TREBOR
9th Apr 2018
2:49pm
Krakatoa did a beauty....
Knight Templar
9th Apr 2018
4:48pm
The question that should be asked is "where is the proven science that supports climate change alarmism"? Climate change modelling and its predictions have proved wrong time and again. Climate change scientists insist that the science is 'settled' but clearly the evidence does not support this contention.

In 2000, Britain's top climate experts announced the end of snow in the UK. Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) University of East Anglia, stated unequivocally, that within a few years winter snowfall will become a rare and exciting event. "Children are just not going to know what snow is" he said. David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Berkshire, said that ultimately British children would have only 'virtual experience' of snow. In 2010 Britain experienced one of the coldest and snowiest winters on record. Britain again early this year experienced record cold and snow in both February and March.The latter cold snap was labelled the 'Beast from the East'.

We were told by the experts (sic) in 2007 that by 2013 the Arctic would be ice-free. The global extent of Arctic ice is currently equal to its average over the last 30-50 years. It was predicted that Tuvalu and the Maldives would be beneath the waves by now. They are not. Indeed sea level rises have been almost imperceptible.

Tim Flannery, Australian palaeontologist, former Chief Commissioner of the Climate Commission, in April 2005 said "water is going to be in short supply across the Eastern States'. He later said that "the ongoing drought could leave Sydney's dams dry in just two years". In 2007, he said that, "Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane, water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly within 18 months. As a result, a number of States built desalination plants costing billions of dollars. However, abundant rain, even flooding has occurred on the Eastern seaboard since then, resulting in the desalination plants becoming expensive white elephants. He also forecast in 2006, that there would be no Arctic ice-cap in the next five to fifteen years. Wrong again!

The USA has experienced fewer hurricanes and tornadoes in the last 50 years than in the previous 50 years. The Himalaya's are not on course to melt by 2035, as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chang (IPCC) report predicted in 2007.

In each instance the so called 'settled science' got it wrong!

The dangers of the world getting colder are far worse than those of a warming world. The Medieval Warm Period had almost entirely beneficial effects. Indeed satellite imagery proves that the world is actually becoming greener.

Climate science has been distorted to mask an anti-capitalist, left wing political agenda which is hell bent on the transfer of wealth from the poor in rich countries to the wealthy in poor countries dominated by a totalitarian world government.
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
7:55am
Re climate change - we (the ex and I) endured twelve years of drought 'on the land' while building up a property - as a result we did a lot of local research and found that since the area was first settled, there had always been extended periods of drought etc and that the actual carbon footprint in the atmosphere had changed a miniscule amount upwards in 120 or more years .... all of a sudden (like in Forrest Gump in reverse) the rain started and seemed never to stop.... and all the doomsayers went into hiding... just a glitch, they said... and the Murray Darling system that was near death flooded massively for two years in a row.
Rosret
10th Apr 2018
8:32am
We don't have climate change we have population explosion. Humans are in plague proportions and WE ARE running out of food.
Every time another animal becomes extinct, very time I hear about the super trawlers in the oceans and then wonder why the sharks are so close to shore is because we have invaded their space.

We are consuming every single resource on earth as if its infinite.

Australians figured it out two generations ago and reduced their population growth to 2.3 children. Now the rest of the world needs to be educated.

I bet the polls never ask if we need to stop welfare increments benefits to people who have more than three children.
Knight Templar
10th Apr 2018
9:57am
TREBOR and Rosret. I totally agree with your comments. I am extremely concerned about the environment. Preservation of forests and native habitat, clean rivers and oceans, unpolluted atmosphere, over-fishing, population etc.

However, climate change alarmism is all about the mighty dollar. Huge government subsidies for suppliers of largely ineffective wind and solar energy, resulting in crippling and unnecessary power costs for consumers.

Al Gore and his disciples have grown extremely rich exploiting global warming/climate change. He preaches the need to abolish the use of fossil fuels yet maintains a number of huge properties that consume more electricity (mostly coal generated) in a week than the average property uses in a year. He is also happy to fly tens of thousand kilometres each year - emitting untold tons of CO2 - without the slightest concern. The hypocrisy is stunning!
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
10:49am
Who cares as there is only one poll that counts?
Lookfar
9th Apr 2018
11:36am
Dear OG, you exemplify the problem, you have chosen to not believe in Climate Change/Global Warming, whether you are barking mad or not I reserve judgement, but the situation is Risk Asessment, - Nature does as it does, records exist so insurance companies build that into their policy charges, but now that the Climate is measureably changing, they can't afford to bet on the barking mad, despite they have probably some on their boards, all they care about is money.
Pity they don't factor the survival of the human race or the environment into account, but then neither do you, - lost soul.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
11:46am
The climate was so much worse when I was a child than it is today. The climate is changing today for the better not the worst.
john
9th Apr 2018
1:03pm
Lookfar , you assume too much . The climate has always changed, measuring it now is theory and a few absolutes , that are seen by science then put out in writings of theory and then taken up by politics to run an agenda on "maybes"
When people spruke about the hottest day on record for 200 years, I say, what about 200,000 years, maybe there has been a hottest day , hotter in the passed than in the last 200 years, and where did the temperature get taken, lets say last week or last year, I have done school experiments many decades ago of course, where we proved that temperature can be different 100 metres away in a different area, my idea is that measuring seas levels is just not really possible either for a absolute concrete belief, and its disputed all the time, so to be blind the other way around like the end of the worlders and global warming people, is just as bad as those who won't look at each side, and has an agenda, . No one has told you or me in any absolute terms we are in a disaster zone living on earth, there are plenty of theories, but we need to clean up the planet ,and distribute water properly not grow cotton where the water is an issue. And climate change, thank heaven it does exist. Or there'd be no seasons. Have a think on reality rather than freaking out? I reckon Krakatoa may have polluted the world worse than we've done since it happened, felt all over the world. All stuff spewing out from down there with the fossils. Heh heh !
Kathleen
9th Apr 2018
5:24pm
OG, the proof is there if you care to research thoroughly.
Global warming causes all kinds of extremes not just heat.
Just read widely before you make a baseless statement about the environment. We need to pay attention to species disappearing because if they all go so do we!
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Apr 2018
7:54am
I agree with OG without climate change we would not be here. Climate change is happening and we can't stop it. The earth was so much warmer in the days of the dinosaurs that it us today otherwise they would not have existed. If you were talking about pollution I would agree with you but on climate change I have to disagree.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
8:25am
I think climate change is real, and a very real risk to mankind. But nothing any government does is going to stop it. Study history. Climate is cyclical. It has wiped out the population of the earth in the past, and it will again. We can't change nature. We can certainly stop contributing to the change - but at what cost? I support doing what we can, and what is reasonably affordable. I think we could do more than we are doing, but we have to also consider the risk of social disruption. If we stopped using gas and coal tomorrow, the society would collapse. Imagine if we banned all forms of petrol tomorrow! Wow! We need to make changes gradually, because too much disruption to our economy and society would do as much harm as climate change - or more.
leigh308
9th Apr 2018
11:20am
The 2 party system defined;
1 party has high level $ponsorship from all the rich Australians and has the added advantage of a large unthinking electoral supporter group who are motivated by fear and or prejudice. They use their $ and yours to throw a party for themselves.
The other second party has low level support from unions and supporters, some of whom are motivated by fear and or prejudice. They continually send me emails asking for $5 to keep their party going, in the same way that scrounger outside whatever asks you for a few bucks to buy a cup of coffee. ( You do know its not going on coffeee right?)
One party doesn't need my approval and therefore does not care about me at all. Swapping the glove muppets doesn't change a thing.
The other party obviously cannot manage to keep themselves in coffee but want me to believe they can run the country.
Any and all attempts to start a third horse in this race results in both parties joining forces to eradicate the opposition. Perhaps the tax cuts to billionaires are mere repayments to the buyout of historical third parties?
Vale Australian democracy...
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
11:24am
The leopard has changed his spots as Labor is now supporting the wealthy and punishing the poor.

Labor has lost my vote.
The Black Fox
9th Apr 2018
4:30pm
Having read your comments for quite some time Old Geezer, it is quite apparent that Labor has never had your vote.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
5:50pm
That is where you are very wrong as I was once a real battler and Labor looks after battlers right?
Rosret
10th Apr 2018
8:41am
leigh308 I am glad they have found a way to stop the minority parties running the parliament.
We were having political decisions made to benefit the 3% of the nation who voted for these minorities.
Ideally every politician should be an independent and that way we would have the best person from each electorate representing us not this "Ford/Holden" attitude of the plebs.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
10:34am
Labor is now trying to reduce everyone to equal hardship unless they are very rich and above being hurt by stupid policy changes. That's NOT good for the country, and it certainly isn't good for Labor's traditional support base. But I suspect forcing more people onto pensions reduces opposition to their communist policies.
TREBOR
9th Apr 2018
11:26am
I don't personally think polls are that important, since the figures always change on election day. Must be rigged.....

As for Mal being as unpopular as Big Tony - withthe policies put about - why whoudn't he be?

The whole focus of LNP policy has been that the peasants are costing too much to feed, so we need to fatten the big wheels so they get a soft landing every day. what continues to surprise me is how many people cannot get their minds around that simple reality.

Mind you - while ever Labor persists in being the party of the feminists - it will stagger along and maybe get control of the House - the unfortunate part of that is that in order to get rid of Fat Cats Inc, we need to bring in Feed The Sheilas Inc, and they would feel they have some 'mandate' to make even more sweeping changes in the 'bloodless revolution' (LMAO), and thus destroy even more lives and livelihoods to feed their select group. Throw in the interests of a few other Special Interest Groups and away you go - Modern Labor.

No difference really - both are governments by Special Interest Group - and neither has the answers for this nation.

I won't be voting for them... any of them - nor the Greens or ON either.... but for a genuine alternative to this never-ending nonsense.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
11:49am
Your are forgetting Shorten is less popular than either of them.
TREBOR
9th Apr 2018
2:50pm
Yes - but that's a hearse of a different colour..... the Opposition leader is always 'less popular' because he isn't the PM, and is a kind of unknown.

You also need to see the questions asked.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
5:51pm
Wrong Trebor it is saying that Shorten is not wanted either.
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
7:59am
Try reasoning from what I said - my saying that he was automatically 'less popular' since he was not the incumbent PM, in no way says that he is more popular or wanted.

The statement simply says what it says, but you love to read in.

Stop being obtuse. God, this is like teaching pimply kids in school... or very narrow-sighted individuals.
Old Geezer
10th Apr 2018
9:43pm
My thinking is far broader than it is narrow as I see what other can't or miss.
Not a Bludger
9th Apr 2018
11:26am
Time for Turnbull to PO.
DC
9th Apr 2018
11:32am
while I agree with some of the comments here I have one major problem with our screwed voting system, ie Preferential voting.
Why on earth can we not have a straight forward "first past the post" system????
That would do away with all the mathematical gyrations after a poll and in my view would be fairer all round. No party should be providing preferences to another party or candidate!!
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
11:40am
Because the 2 parties have it rigged so you vote for tweedle dee or tweedle dumb. I don't vote as I am not going to be forced into voting for either of them.
AutumnOz
9th Apr 2018
12:38pm
DC - The political parties do not decide who gets your preferential votes - you make that decision when you fill in the paper to elect your local member.
When any political party announces "our preferences are going to...." what they mean is they are deciding (or dictating if you prefer) the order of candidates on the blurb they hand out when you go into the polling place. You do not have to follow their choices unless they are the same as your own choice.
The only person who can fill in your vote is you and providing you use a pen to mark your choices those choices cannot be changed by anyone.
john
9th Apr 2018
1:04pm
Turnbull to POST OFFICE????????
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
1:28pm
People are lazy and just follow those how to vote leaflets they hand out. I just love to say no to all of them on the way in.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
1:34pm
In the last state election a campaign was run in the 4 electorates around here (which were held by the LNP with at least a 25% margin) to vote the sitting member last on your ballet paper. One of the candidates had to have placards printed at the last minute to tell people they only had to vote for him on their voting papers. It was the only thing that saved his seat and it took a fortnight to get a result. We now have 3 marginal LNP seats and 1 Green seat. It was a very successful campaign.
Misty
9th Apr 2018
3:22pm
John I think you know what PO means and are just trying to be funny but in case you don't it is P.ss O.f.
Cowboy Jim
9th Apr 2018
4:52pm
Because of that preferential voting system we now have a senator in the House on 195 primary votes (family and friends). That is not a real democracy.
Kathleen
9th Apr 2018
5:27pm
You don’t vote OG but you bypass the leaflets?
Do you do a rubbish vote? You either vote or you don’t but it is the law in Australia to vote.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
5:57pm
All you have to do is get your name marked off and put your voting paper in the box.

Then someone will come along and fill it in for you. Saves them rubbing our your vote as well.
Kathleen
10th Apr 2018
12:40pm
OG, you are saying that I or anyone else may use your vote? How generous of you!
My vote is precious to me. I know how hard it was to get in the first place!
Old Geezer
10th Apr 2018
6:00pm
Does take much to rub out your pencil vote and change it to what they want instead. I think the use of pencils is asking for trouble.
musicveg
10th Apr 2018
10:21pm
I often wondered why they use pencils.
Old Geezer
11th Apr 2018
10:50am
They use pencils so people don't steal them as no one uses a pencil these days other than polling booths.
miker
9th Apr 2018
11:33am
Cant say that i have ever liked a Lib PM with perhaps the exception of John Gorton. It is a difficult job with so many constantly vying factions to appease and the Opposition constantly nipping at your heels. I really liked the Hawke Keating years which was innovative and full of policy initiative. The current govt is ideas deficient
Lookfar
9th Apr 2018
11:42am
Right on miker, foot draggers, squared.
jackie
9th Apr 2018
11:46am
miker...I think that's when corruption really started to set in our parliamentary system. I remember when Hawke went to visit the mafia in America back then. Keating deregulated the banks and our Rothchild Reserve bank and banks began strangling us. They were good years for you because you was young and healthy not because of government.
miker
9th Apr 2018
11:59am
Yes you are right Jackie.No big drug issue back then either, that has certainly weakened our society, liked Keating best, funny bugger
Sen.Cit.89
9th Apr 2018
1:43pm
I will never forget and forgive Keating (Labor) introduced Deeming and other laws that affected seniors savings. I was one of the thousands who lost out. I lost 70% of my savings that I was planning for my retirement. As advised by the media, I went to a Finance Planner for advice, within three months we had the meltdown.
Cowboy Jim
9th Apr 2018
4:56pm
Liked John Gorton myself, even more so when he started advertising my favorite whisky on TV as his post-PM job. The man had a sense of humor.
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
8:13am
I'll never forget the 14-18% mortgages and the rot that set into the 'industrial relations' system, that has lead to the modern near feudal society in which we live.
Old Geezer
10th Apr 2018
9:52pm
I can only remember that I was renting a house at the time and was getting about 18% interest on my money for 30 days and it was earning far more than the two of use were at the time. I then realised houses had fallen significantly in Sydney so I bought a house. I sold for over double what I paid for it a few years later but nothing like its value today.
jackie
9th Apr 2018
11:41am
Of course the elderly are concerned about the polls. The Liberal Party has always been for the rich helping them to get richer. We need a party that is for the ordinary people known in parliament as the Commoner. I am sick of the lazy, high opinionated idiots that represent Australia. They all have their heads stuck up their backsides.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
11:44am
Well I'm not going to vote for a party that wants to take what I have got and give it to the bludgers.
ray from Bondi
9th Apr 2018
12:25pm
here here, sadly it is easy to see the liberal rhetoric working, society is about everybody coming together in mutual support, this has broken down when a very small percentage and I mean very small of the worlds population holds most of the wealth, so lets take it from them :) history has shown that the p[lebs only put up with being downtrodden for so long.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
12:54pm
Agree Ray. I can just financially sit on the sidelines and wait for better opportunities to invest instead of paying the majority away in tax for years but can others?

How many super funds will just go to cash and wait it out instead of risking their money to pay it all away in tax? I certainly will be.
Lookfar
9th Apr 2018
11:58am
Hi Old Geezer, sounds like you are talking about the Tax Cuts to the super bludgers, the idle rich, that spend all their money overseas so no employment in OZ, and pay no tax, yet use our roads and electricity and water supplies, port facilities, airports etc, certainly you should not vote for that party unless you are paid to. (which happens).
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
12:16pm
No the idle rich will not be hurt by the stealth of franking credits at all as they will just rearrange their investments so the bludgers get nothing. Overseas shares are very attractive compared to Australian shares with no franking credits. So they will still use our roads etc and still pay nothing towards them. Worse still they will not be support our Australian companies who supply the things we need. But people like you think that it is OK to import everything into this country so that doesn't matter either. The idle rich are having a good laugh at Labor over this.

What about the people on low incomes that invest in a few shares to get income to live as they can't get welfare? These people need this extra income as they can't get it anywhere else in today's markets. These are the ones who will suffer under Labor.

So you will vote Labor so these low income earners will have their income reduced? I would certainly not.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
12:30pm
If you are talking about the super rich people then they have little if any super as they invest their money where they have control of it and they employ accountants that minimise their tax in ways that money have no idea exist. Labor like the LNP hasn't got a chance of getting anything extra out of these people as they are at least 3 steps ahead of what the government is planning.

So we have the super rich at the top and the bludgers at the bottom of the food chain. It is the bloke who is one or two rungs above the bludgers who pays for the bludgers. How much longer can these people take government fleecing them before they just give up and join the bludgers?
Rae
9th Apr 2018
1:44pm
Shorten should never have even gone near dividend imputation or then backed down over pensioners.

At this point the only threat is to a few hundred thousand self funded retirees. Many will sell out of the ASX, some are eligible for a part pension but haven't bothered with the effort of all those forms but will now.

Only very low income earners or SMSF retirees will be affected.

It was a very stupid move and quite possibly will cost more than it saves.

The Balance of payments is a disaster and Shorten's dumb and inequitable idea won't help one bit. People loathe unfairness in Australia and there has been way too much of it lately.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
2:21pm
I agree Rae. Without franking credits shares in super funds are a lot riskier and who wants assets at risk to pay the government 30% of the returns? With interest rates rising and likely to be twice what they are now come the next election then Australian shares will not be worth the risk of investing in.
Rae
10th Apr 2018
7:57am
They aren't worth the risk right now in my opinion. Shares are way overvalued on fundamentals. I sold up and took profits when they hit stupid highs months ago.
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Apr 2018
8:11am
If Shorten thinks he can aboiish SMSFs he is right but this money is unlikely to remain in super. Super today in the pension mode is only just viable so if the franking credits are not refunded it is not worth having. Better for a low income earner to own it themselves as their franking credit will pay any tax they might owe.

Heard the other day of a couple who are under retirement age but retired. They have their super in pension mode but too many assets to even get a low income health card. What they plan to do is put their super fund back into accumulation mode so their franking credits pay their tax and get themselves a low income health care card as their super is no longer counted.

I just can't believe the can of worms Shorten has opened up with this unfair proposed policy.
john
9th Apr 2018
12:15pm
I seriously don't care about this poll. Comparing Abbott to Turnbull is actually impossible , Tony has proven what most thought in the beginning m, that he is a man who carries a grudge, he twists and turns, and his bedding politically down with Hanson makes me wonder what the hell is this bloke lookinmg for down the track, we;ll its something, and its not really sensible or proper, he had his go and his personality fits a snake under a rock more than a leader. Turnbull does have his dogmatic way of looking at things and never bending and looking like he is just rolling along without a care, it can appear that he is just having a little turn at being PM?
I see him differently , I see him as someone trying to get sense across to his fellow LNP people but he has many snakes under rocks waiting to ambush him, and his enemy as was Julia Gillard's enemies , actually in his own house , Shorten, who is a deal maker not to be trusted. is a rock around labor's neck.
These polls are just that a way for the media to speculate, it is rubbish.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
12:18pm
The media paints pictures that are anything but the truth.
Lookfar
9th Apr 2018
12:40pm
John,, sad to hear that Shorten is like the Liberals, but that is why he was chosen, to be an attack dog to Counter, Attack dog Abbot, of whom Hawke said, "I like him but silly as a cut snake" , I hope that in the eventuality Labour wins, the rest of the party can get on with guiding Australia through the dangerous shoals of the future, which may include 'without prejudice', BioChar and top quality Internet.
They would have been good contributions from Turnbull, but having sold his soul to being the Leader, he had to eat the food available.
Alas including Snakes, not benign ones either.
ray from Bondi
9th Apr 2018
12:20pm
though it does reflect what people are thinking it is also stirring the pot and generating some sort of Orwellian news for us instead of what is of concern and real.
Gee Whiz
9th Apr 2018
12:26pm
Yes we oldies do give a toss about opinion polls.

We're some of the people affected by Turnbulls constant attacks on pensioners, retirees and superannuants.

Some of us are the ones who supply the opinions.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
12:32pm
I can see Labor being so much worse as the debt and expenditure keeps climbing and thee people are the easiest targets for more revenue.
john
9th Apr 2018
1:20pm
pERHAPS IF tURNBULL HAD SOME TESTICLES AND REIGNED OVER THE PARTY MEMBERS THAT DON'T LIKE HIM, THEN HE MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE THINGS BETTER THAN THEY ARE FOR PENSIONERS, AND i AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT THAT PENSIONS ARE TOO LOW AND WELFARE IS SPENT IN THE WRONG WAY IN SOME AREAS, AND REFUGEE/IMMIGRANTS GET A LEG UP , BEFORE HOMELESS OR SICK OR EX SOLDIERS DO.
But Shorten is not, nor is his party, to be trusted anymore, Bill has proven himself to be , not to be trusted in the past, and that's by his own people , and the movement that I had a lot to do with in my working life.
I think perhaps the old school of Labor and LNP need a clean out, I would be a very happy man if the trough feeders , like Shorten and Turnbull (who doesn'
t need it) and Abbott who should have gone when he was ousted, and the Labor lackeys , even Albenezi and probably Tanya, and Burke, and others , and the Abetz fellow, all Tony's mates and and the non doers of all parties, even maybe the treasurer needs a hiliday a long one, and of course the whacko Di Natali , the Greens have gone troppo, and are a nasty pack of honey badgers at the moment , except more dangerous for Australia, and all operations that I sort of looked at as a saving alternative, not now , they are mad, they instigate too , the Aboriginal Industry ( of white fellas) which makes things much much worse for the first people, who are Australians folks! The first ones! But the green left and the do gooders have finally shown how dangerous and how they do not represent Australia, at all!
In fact they push dissention and make a wall between the real people of Australia black or white, thats what has happened and that's why kids still get abused in settlements , and all we care about is bloody cricket cheats!
fred
9th Apr 2018
12:38pm
If Turnbull had any honour he would stand down now but we all know his has none and he is a backstabbing egotist and white anter . If LNP has a slim chance , they will have to change their leader and policies , Dump the Paris agreement , Drop the National Energy Guarantee and force energy companies to stop price gouging ,drop tax cuts to the big end of town , fight cuts to imputation refunds etc etc . Sadly I think it is almost too late and
the mob they have have lost the plot and are not listening
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
12:46pm
I thought the Paris agreement had already been dumped.
Curious
9th Apr 2018
12:47pm
I think, it is time to examine what are the alternatives? Has the Westminster Administrative System of two major parties run out of steam in today's environment? We need a major shake-up to give this beautiful country a stable and progressive government. We don't need people, who keep looking at the rear mirror to drive our economy. This counts a lot than the poll.
Concerned
9th Apr 2018
1:27pm
I think we need a change and will vote Labor. There is consideration for many not just the haves. As for old geezer. No one is taking your money and giving it away faster and more effectively then the LNP. labor are talking massive changes and we need to move forwards. This is about children and grandchildren and their future, employment, education and health are all in danger.

Time to front up and see where it leads
Jim
9th Apr 2018
2:23pm
Agree concerned, Labor are talking massive changes, no idea where they are going to get the money from, oh that's right lets attack the few pensioners, you know the super rich retirees, hang on didn't they just realise that that their policies also affected 200,000 pensioners that had a few shares that they had paid tax on and we're getting a part pension, Labor thought they were entitled to that extra money to fund their ideas, I was one of those, I get a tax refund of my tax paid on my dividends, it ammounts to less than $500 a year. So you are correct our grandchildren will suffer, especially if this mob headed by Shorten get anywhere near the coffers, they don't call him short on ideas for nothing, the only reason Shorten will get in is if the LNP continue to self destruct
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
10:25pm
Short-on is self-destructing with his dumb policy on franking credits. Anyone who thinks Australians will let him get away with demolishing the investment system that is keeping the ASX healthy and enabling Australian companies to compete in an increasingly challenging global market is a fool. Franking credit refunds were introduced to strengthen investment in Australian companies and to enable small investors to participate in the stock market. Demolishing the benefit that policy delivered would do horrendous damage to our economy and our society, and a lot of people are smart enough to understand that. We didn't survive the GFC better than any other nation by chance. We survived well because we had superior economic policies. Allowing investors to profit from investing in local companies, and enabling people to achieve SFR status by investing in our own home-grown companies was - and is - sound economic policy. The BS Mr BS is peddling has no substance and not many people are blind enough to swallow it.
Mad as hell
9th Apr 2018
12:51pm
Opinion polls are a way of giving feedback LNP are on the nose.
The LNP lied when they promised not to make any changes to the Pensioner Assets Test, they are not trustworthy as far as pensioners are concerned.
The Greens also sold out the pensioners by backing the LNP.
Labour has stated they will not reverse the changes to the Pensioner Assets Test.
I will never ever vote Liberal or Greens.
Labour will need to work harder to get my vote.
Mad as hell
9th Apr 2018
12:56pm
It shoudnt matter who is the leader of a party. But Tony Abbott had to go.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
12:57pm
I still can't get over Labor ringing me before the last election and telling me that the LNP was going to abolish Medicare. That was a dam right lie on their behalf and lost my vote.

I'm wondering what they will pull out to lie about going into the next election.
Mad as hell
9th Apr 2018
12:59pm
How could a Rhodes Scholar be so dumb?
TREBOR
9th Apr 2018
2:54pm
Easy - you just need to have a political bias and you get a shot at a Rhodes...

Tony did have a way of putting his foot in his mouth..
Rae
10th Apr 2018
8:06am
Tony was completely run by Credlin and she did irreparable damage by sacking anyone with experience or common sense in the public service. She replaced them with kids out of unit fed on ideologies that will never work.

Just look at Centrelink, the ATO, Dept of Agriculture and Water and on and on. All inefficient and desperate for funds and ways to make a dollar now.
George
10th Apr 2018
8:17pm
Can't see Labor, Liberal or Greens as suitable to run the Govt!
mike
9th Apr 2018
1:03pm
Turnbull promised to return the pensioner concession card to all those who lost it due to changes to the assets test, but only those who had between $813000 and $1.25Mil on i/i/2017 received it. Those who had LESS than $813000 on that day, and lost it a day later, a month later, a year later when their super balance went above the $813000, DID NOT. This is unfair, Several letters have been written to members of parliament to redress this discrimination, but all the retirees have received back is Liberal Bullshit. I say Turnbull is a liar, and I will now vote One Nation
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
1:14pm
Seems like poor management in letting your assets go over the limit to me. Stop whinging and spend it on a holiday or a big party for the family.
Cowboy Jim
9th Apr 2018
10:09pm
@mike - do you really believe Shorten will give them the concession card? Once a decision is made and it brings in money it stays put. Look at Rudd's announcement without consultation that everyone will work till they are 67 Years old. The Libs have been in since 2013 and that 67 age has not been brought back.
Now people, spend a little bit more on travel, furnish your house and buy a new car and get the pension - that is the only way the Govt understands the reason you are p+ssed off.
VeryCaringBigBear
9th Apr 2018
10:19pm
Shorten is more likely to take the concession card off all those who are not on the full OAP. Good thing too.
musicveg
10th Apr 2018
7:17pm
One Nation is doing back door deals with Liberal.
Old Geezer
11th Apr 2018
10:52am
Minor parties will do back door deals with anyone or anything if they can get their own agenda through as well.
Puglet
9th Apr 2018
1:06pm
OG you say the ALP is ‘nasty’ because it intends to take money from the ‘deserving’ (my words) to give to the bludgers (your words). Over the last few weeks quite a few members of YLC have been gloating about how they spend or hide their ‘retirement money’ so they won’t be SFR and get the OP. They are also ‘taking’ money they don’t really need. There are bludgers in every age group and they deserve to be called out for ‘ ‘ Bludging’.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
1:12pm
I agree and I am not one of those gloating about how I hide or spend my money. I am a taxpayer not a welfare taker. However I do object to being taxed unfairly and I will take the necessary steps Like many others will so that Labor will not get a penny out of me under this unfair tax grab.
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Apr 2018
7:44am
Yes I have been gloating about how I divested millions to get the OAP. I want to show others how to do the same because SFRs are not getting a fair deal at all. I want to show people that super is not the best place to save for retirement as it is messed with so much by the government changing the rules and thus may not even benefit you when you retire. The little tax you will save is not worth it. I also want to tell people that it may be a goid idea for them to dispose of their money before they die as it has a high possibility of not being disposed of under your will.

That's right this country is being stuffed by greedy people who want everything for nothing and don't give it a second though that to get it they are taking it from those who actually worked and earned it. So my advice to anyone is learn the rules and play the game so you get what you want.

That's what I am doing and it has worked out much better than I thought it would.
Rae
10th Apr 2018
8:17am
Yes and thieves need calling out as well.

Unless everyone is forced to save for retirement it seems unfair that a small percentage that have saved are now being robbed of any advantage. I'm not surprised they are angry with the unfairness going on.

Common sense says you look after your money. If you can gift to the kids early at least the money goes to them rather than a stranger down the road.

The problem is returns are now so low that saving is a wasted effort.

If you need a million dollars to make the equivalent of the OAP and concessions there is no point for most people not organising to get the government pension.

And that isn't budging at all. It's just a choice to spend money how you like and we all deserve that.

The LNP and Central Bankers destroyed Superannuation and it looks like Labor is nailing the coffin shut.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
8:18am
Puglet, I don't take money from the taxpayer that I don't need, but I will if Shorten's unfair policy makes it into law. I will do what BigBear did. Why? Because I'm sick to death of being punished for doing what's good for the nation and seeing people richly rewarded for doing what's bad for the nation. Now Shorten wants to force me to pay 30% tax on an income that shouldn't be taxed, and leave me with far too little to live on. Yes, I'll become a ''bludger'' (though I don't use that derogatory term for pensioners). I'll hide my money if that stops a thief taking it unfairly. I'll cease to be an SFR, since everyone seems to want to attack SFRs constantly.
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
8:19am
Plenty of bludgers in tax concessions along the way....

Someone posted a gloat about how they copped this and that for free - OG said he got his coffee for free etc - I thanked him for pointing out that apparently everyone is a bludger.

So when the small-minded seek to make inferences without actually naming anyone or any group - just ignore them - they're just stirring and trying to get your dander up.

Who ARE these 'bludgers', OG? Come on - don't be shy - spit it all out... you're among fiends here.... you don't have to hide your personal prejudices and selfishness from anyone.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Apr 2018
7:01am
I never got any tax concessions. In fact, the ATO nearly bankrupted us with an error that we had to fight to 3 years to get corrected, and at the end of it they paid exactly what we had claimed originally, with not one cent in interest or compensation and not even an apology. The value of the money had reduced by about 20% due to inflation and we had paid personal loan interest waiting for them to fix their stuff-up, which was an unbelievably stupid error by an unbelievably stupid assessor. If I had ever earned enough to pay tax, I would have avoided at every opportunity - and not felt a twinge of guilt. But I seem to be on the losing end all the time, and now I am losing for being self-supporting. Great country we live in! Great country for thieves, cheats and bludgers - oh, and the rich!
Deb
9th Apr 2018
1:23pm
This proves beyond any doubt just how arrogant Turnbull is.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
1:24pm
How?
Concerned
9th Apr 2018
1:31pm
He does not even acknowledge the money he has taken the fact he is trying to raise the pension age, the fact that you cannot travel overseas if you wish to retain your pensio, the fact the energy supplement has been cut, the fact that he has lied about (and we paid for the ad) the affects of imputation cuts and lastly the fact he supplied his own money to BUY his position. And then only had a one seat majority. The whole LNP government have abused and misused funds and you still even consider them as a better alternative. Get real old geezer
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
1:38pm
Unfortunately Turnbull is actually right on all those things.
KSS
9th Apr 2018
1:47pm
Concerned, you can travel overseas on your old age pension if you want. You just can't stay there and continue to take all the extras that subsidise costs in Australia.
TREBOR
9th Apr 2018
2:55pm
Yeah - your fee for keeping your power on and such is a bit less....
Cowboy Jim
9th Apr 2018
10:14pm
Concerned - nobody has stopped me from going overseas, do so every year twice, have not lost my pension. Only affects people who came here later in life and want a full pension from Oz. If you have done your 35 years here there is no problem getting the full pension when overseas - after 6 weeks your supplement might be shortened, used to be 13 weeks.
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
8:24am
How so, OG? Does YOUR income have a hold put on it by Big Brother if you choose to go overseas?

Why should anyone else's?

Raising the pension age - tough titties if the fools running the show ran the till down - now they'll have to find the money they OWE somewhere else.

Energy supplement was intended to cover the rising costs due to government action, same as GST - cutting it is theft.

They all lie about imputation and it should really be a simple issue.

I couldn't care less if any politician spends his own money to get a gig - as long as he or she does the job.

The only thing he may have got right is spending his own cash - deserves to, but remember he is elected by the party - not by us. Our votes are not for sale.
Rae
10th Apr 2018
8:31am
With the millions of economic immigrants the option of retiring back home on Australian tax dollars had to be shut down. It was unsustainable.
robmur
9th Apr 2018
1:34pm
Abbott was a bit of a clown. Turnbull has the presence of a Prime Minister. Shorten is a shoofty coot who can't make up his mind about most things. He is often under hand saying one thing today and the opposite tomorrow. Anyone who relies on CFEMU to get them into the Lodge has a big question marking hanging over them. Having said that, Turnbull needs to pull the digit out and "sell" his policies. Another ALP government like the Rudd - Gillard efforts would be an utter disaster for this country.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
1:36pm
Agree we can't have another Rudd or worse Gillard running this country. hat deal Gillard done with the mining companies on that resource tax was such a sham.
Adrianus
9th Apr 2018
1:53pm
robmur, it wont be like a Rudd or Gillard government. It will be 10 times worse. Shorten was one of the faceless men in charge of those two leaders. Rudd was supposed to resign with heart problems after 12 months once he got the unions into government. Gillard went to his office to put the heat on and he refused to go. Gillard immediately walked out of the office and made a phone call to .. guess who?? That's right Shorten. The unions had already elevated Shorten to the top prior to the 2007 election. Gillard was making plans to take over prior to the 2007 election. This was all common knowledge in 2007 but obviously kept from Labor voters.
TREBOR
9th Apr 2018
2:55pm
'shoofty'? That's military speak for a little look around....
Cowboy Jim
9th Apr 2018
10:19pm
Still would have been better for Turnbull to keep Abbott in Cabinet as we all know we should keep the malcontent inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in.
Adrianus
9th Apr 2018
1:40pm
I think the question is.. "why are polls always wrong?"
And the answer is because a pollster can get the answer they want by asking the question which provides that answer.
When Turnbull used Abbotts 30 negative polls in his pitch for the top job he was always going to get the same result.
I think politicians should not comment on polls for that reason.
By the way, who pays these pollsters?
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
1:46pm
I just give them a different answer every time they ring me so how can they be right.
Adrianus
9th Apr 2018
1:56pm
Good point OG, the call gives the voter an opportunity to vent their spleen but it doesn't necessarily get a commitment from the voter does it?
KSS
9th Apr 2018
1:44pm
Polls are so reliable they correctly forecast Mr Trump would lose the USA election and not become President, that the Brits would reject Brexit, that Kristina Keneally would be parachuted into Parliament and Mr Xenathon would be Premier of South Australia. They also predicted that Labor would win the last election.

What's that? They got all these wrong? Surely not! After all polls are always correct right?
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
1:52pm
Good so the LNP is a no brainer to win the next election as they are certainly the better of 2 evils.
Rae
9th Apr 2018
1:58pm
The seem to have a failure rate that makes you wonder why anyone spends money on them.
jamesmn
9th Apr 2018
2:00pm
turnball outed abbot now he is trying to backstop on what was said to out abbot bishop on sunrise this morning was trying to say it was for the support of the liberal party members does she and the rest of the liberal party clowns thing for a minute that the public cant remember what was said. does the liberal party think the public are idiots. he has done nothing to lower the household cost of gas and electricity. bishop has got a taste of verbal diahorea. she along with most of her liberal members could not tell the truth or lie straight in bed lets face it turnball is only there for his rich cronie mates he is totally unlicked by the general public.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
2:03pm
Don't hold your breath for any party to lower your gas or electricity bills. Your bills will keep going up no matter who is in power unless new coal or nuclear power stations are built.
Cowboy Jim
9th Apr 2018
2:23pm
Spoken like a true believer - only slime balls on one side and saintly brothers on the other. Could not be more one-sided if he tried, that jamesmn
Charlie
9th Apr 2018
2:19pm
If they did a lot of polls and published only the ones that suited their outcomes, then they would influence the results of an election rather than predict it. Isn't that what they are doing.

Vote Liberals and we will still get visits from the Royal family but the main political issue will be the gap between the rich and poor

Vote Labor and Greens and the Aboriginals will get Royal Family Status while the main political issues will be rights of homosexuals and refugees.
trood
9th Apr 2018
2:37pm
Quite frankly I don't give a shit, both parties belong in a cesspool and a deep one that hopefully drowns the whole lot of these useless entitled morons
Dot
9th Apr 2018
2:57pm
Every time Turnbull talks it's like he's acting on stage like a Shakespearean actor. He can't wipe the smile off his face he's finally got the top job and was elected by the dumbest country in the world. As for Shorten heaven forbid should he and the Labor or Greens win, we will be truly screwed.
Rosret
10th Apr 2018
8:46am
Ouch.
We have the finest and most intellectual people in the world residing in Australia.
We do not put Parliamentarians on pedestals and we vote for what they can do for us not for how they smile or their ability to make small talk kissing babies.
I am proud to be Australian.

9th Apr 2018
3:14pm
Peter Costello for Prime Minister
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
6:01pm
He is already on his way back now.
Lookfar
9th Apr 2018
7:26pm
You have got to be kidding Raphael, admittedly he is as stuck in the past as the barking mad right wing of the liberal party, but that is a minus, not a plus, now with renewables half or less the cost of coal, we don't need those old wankers,- if we ever did?
Life moves on, we must try to learn from our mistakes, not repeat them, - that is a kind of living death.
Cowboy Jim
9th Apr 2018
10:22pm
Aren't we all hoping for that to happen?
Anonymous
10th Apr 2018
2:31am
The man who gave us 11 budget surpluses and nil net debt
Yes I want him back
We need grown ups with the countries interest at heart to turn this ship around
Radish
10th Apr 2018
7:05am
Why on earth would Peter Costello even consider returning.?? I think he would sooner stick his head in a bucket of boiling water than do that.

It is just some rumour someone started and I do not believe it for a second.
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
8:27am
You've had Costello's 'surpluses' read out to you times many - I wouldn't let him handle the tuck shop money.
Old Man
9th Apr 2018
3:24pm
I consider myself to be an average citizen and I pay little attention to polls. I have never been asked for my opinion in a political poll so, of course, I wonder who it is that they ask and what are the questions. What I find interesting with one particular poll is who is the most popular, the PM or the Leader of the Opposition. I can see no need for this poll as the only people who can vote for either of these leaders are those who live in the electorate. The following clip from "Yes Minister" is why I am cynical about polls.

https://youtu.be/G0ZZJXw4MTA
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
6:04pm
There is hardly a week go by where I don't get some sort of poll. Some are automated and go like this. If an election was called today who would you vote for. Press 1 for Labor 2 for LNP etc. Who is you preferred PM press one for MT or 2 for BS. Plus they may have a question on the latest political issue etc.
Misty
9th Apr 2018
3:32pm
I always wonder what electorate some of these polls are done in and how the questions are worded, it could make a difference to the result.
Jtee
9th Apr 2018
3:46pm
They lost me in January 2017 when they saw my hardearned assets as something they could use to help the economy (ha ha). Now they have not only taken from those who tried to look after themselves to some extent in retirement, they have effectively given away any savings to the budget with company tax changes. Don't they see that cutting payments to a pensioner is a huge proportion of their income meaning limitations to the pensioner's standard of living.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
6:08pm
Labor's proposed policy to not refund franking credits is going to have an even bigger effect on these low income earners.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
8:11am
Yes, OG. Labor wants to finish the job the LNP started - forcing all SFRs who are not very rich onto the pension. Yet both parties whine that the OAP costs too much! So what's the motive for forcing more people to claim OAP and thus pushing the cost up? Could they be looking for an excuse to abolish the OAP completely - or reduce it substantially?

I suspect if Labor has its way, those on pensions will be hurt most in the long run.
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
8:28am
Don't forget your assets to bail out 'failing' banks.
Old Geezer
10th Apr 2018
5:56pm
Trebor I hope you have your own mattress bank so you can be protected from the bail out laws.
George
10th Apr 2018
8:23pm
Both sides have and WILL attack Retirees - all Older Australians with a bit of brain need to get together and vote both major parties (and Greens) OUT! The younger working population are too absorbed in their day-to-day work & family / home battles to understand that these two major parties have & will continue to destroy their retirement plans.

It is up to Older Australians to act together and vote all these seat-warmers out, so that as far as possible no one gets a 2nd term and gets their grubby hands on their own large obscene pensions without Asset or Income tests. Then only they may wake up to the anger.
GiGi
9th Apr 2018
4:07pm
I haven't read all of the comments here (so I may be wrong) (I thought it happened once, but I was mistaken) but it seems to me that noone ever holds Turnbull to account for what I consider his most costly blunder - the NBN. He should be tossed out on his neck for that alone.
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
6:12pm
Nay that was another one of Labor's dismal failures. They tried to build something that could not be built.
Radish
10th Apr 2018
7:03am
Labor started the NBN...Libs inherited it. That idiot Conroy was in charge what a useless minister he turned out to be.

I said from day one that the NBN would be overtaken by new technology before it was even finished being rolled out.
I still believe that to be the case!
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Apr 2018
7:33am
Yes 5G currently being used at the Gold Coast games is better than the NBN will ever be.

What really irks me is that we now have rumours linking 5G to cancer as it emits so much more radiation. Reason is they want to stop people using it so they stay with the NBN instead.
Misty
10th Apr 2018
9:23am
What rot Radish the Labor Party never wanted the old copper fibre to the node, that is the Coalitions doing.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
10:43am
A relative is a technician involved in NBN design, and another was the HR manager managing tenders for implementation. Both pointed out to me how seriously flawed the ALP plan was. They couldn't even get people to work because of the flaws. They were hiring people with no skills or experience whatsoever. The LNP didn't improve the plan, but it was always a disaster.
musicveg
10th Apr 2018
7:34pm
VCBB, this is an interesting read about 5G concerns:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/citizens-arms-against-5g-wireless-technology-roll-out-are-their-concerns-justifie
Old Geezer
10th Apr 2018
9:39pm
That reminds me of what they said about microwave ovens when they first came out.
Lippy
9th Apr 2018
4:31pm
LNP will now do the unthinkable, to gain support offer sweets to the one's that need a boost to survive. Meet the welfare votes, they will start to hear of one off bonuses in budgets and to get bills past. Remember they offered $75 so some could get by during the winter ( put a jumper on ) but summer rolls in ( and a really hot one ) but no assistance to keep cool ( because you can't afford to run the air con. for your medical condition ) so they forced people to shopping centers to keep cool ( and spend more money ). If they start offering these bonuses, no one will say no but don't also vote back the hypocrites for doing it.
Kathleen
9th Apr 2018
5:33pm
Yes, I was thinking the same thing.
It would be good to give pay rises to the people who have had next to none in years. They will probably do this to win back some voters.
And they will do other similar things for different groups.
Much has gone unnoticed by most people unless they have gone for a MRI or found their meds are off the free list or involved in a charity that lost their bit of funding that put petrol in the truck that fed the homeless, etc. etc.
Jolly
9th Apr 2018
4:38pm
I really don't wish to add to all you are saying as I agree with everything said. I just want to mention about Banking systems. Our banking system(Reserve Bank) is way better than the Fed in the USA. The Fed is not even owned by the Federal Government. Everytime the Government wants money the charges a percentage and then prints more money. All the crashes in the USA where caused by various Federal Banks. There is a documentary on Netflix called Zeitgeist well worth a watch.
KEVINJ
9th Apr 2018
4:50pm
All the HISTORY here ABT WRETCHES OF, CocK ROACHES AS, 'Humans' -WHO have In-fested ALL Austr GOV-T S/par LIA mnTS -OvR ALL the YRS. I hope i am NOT ONLY 1, SAVing ALL the ROTTEN Politicians HISTORY, about - VILE,
POLiTicaL Deeds IN - AUST.. I am Re-writing same For a FREE, HUGE W W W Book, 1 day.. THEN, we WILL, KNOW, "WHAT, WE WILL, TELL, Our CHILDREN' .-- a N S W POLICE- MAN suffered VERY SERI M I S-Carriage, Of Justice, UNDER LIB s - &, WRAN'S CORRUPT GOV-TS. -- Same DEGREE of M I S-Carriage, As, BOTH, LINDY CHAMBERLAIN &,- KEVINJ,this writer. - POLICE-MAN'S 4 9 5 PG, 1,9 9 3 DAY BY Day, DetaiLed BOOK was FOR, ALL, His, FUTURE FAMILY.. SAME AS KEVIN J, Has Done - with his 4 0 0 PGS, ABT LIB 'S &, a N.S.W ( STATE
as yet, N-O-T COMPENSATED, -- DEP-T' S ) CORRUPTION, - TO--WARD, -- KEVIN.. NEXT State & FED ElectionS WILL SEE MANY SEATS LOST, for KNOWN, CORRUPT.. WHATever pollie pedaller ABBOTT RAISES, "Counts FOR, ZERO".. He just does NOT realise. YET. When Corruption has happened, Value of GOOD deeds, just Done, are NEGATED, i n, ALL, ways.. - ABBOTT should just BE TOURING & Speaking OUT abt the Corruption IN, his Earlier foray; HOWARD - ABBOTT - COSTELLO - REITH ETC, FED L I B, RIP--O F F 1,990's GOV-T.
MD
9th Apr 2018
5:46pm
KEVINJ, time to put the past behind you and look to the little that future has to offer - win, lose or draw, regardless of personalities it all amounts to much the same - such is life.

As regards Opinion Polls; largely a beat-up perpetrated by an all knowing, all seeing body of one-eyed (highly paid) 'professionals' that have drafted a presentation/questionnaire formatted in just such a manner as to achieve a predetermined result. More fool the bunnies that pay lip service to satisfy an outcome/result.
Tomorrow's another day entirely and all it would take to swing opinion is yet another glib 'promise' that appeals to mug punters. Those abandoning the good ship 'Former' to board the better ship 'Fantasy' would resemble rats scrabbling to get out of a flooding bilge.
Pollies, pensioners, (the) public - all little more than rats - whichever group squeaks the loudest has but one thing in mind, more cheese, please.
musicveg
10th Apr 2018
7:36pm
Kevin J, can't you write in English please, I have no idea what you are saying here.
Priscilla
9th Apr 2018
5:33pm
Turnbull's actions are reprehensible! Tony Abbot should not have been kicked out of the job he was elected to do.
Lookfar
9th Apr 2018
5:39pm
Priscilla, why not as he was doing his job badly?
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
6:17pm
Don't worry Shorten would have been replaced yonks ago if they hadn't made it so difficult to replace a leader. Very foolish move by Labor as they now have a leader they can't get rid of. LNP loves it.
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
8:31am
Abbott wasn't elected by us, Priscilla - he was his party's nominee....
the only people who elected him were his electorate - god knows why... the Liberals could just as easily changed their mind as soon as the election was over, and installed someone else..... sudden 'health crisis'... 'family reasons'........
Rae
10th Apr 2018
8:43am
There was no other way to get rid of Peta Credlin from running the Party.

Yes OG you have to wonder about the decisions being made daily with absolutely no regard to consequences.
Knows-a-lot
9th Apr 2018
6:43pm
All the Lieberals are vermin anyhow. So who cares?
Cowboy Jim
9th Apr 2018
10:27pm
Time to put on another record - Knows-a-lot Start to sound like a moron.
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
8:32am
Steady, Jim.... he's entitled to his opinion - and you are not entitled to call him names.

I do take exception to his insulting vermin by including the LNP - remember even rats have feelings....
Old Geezer
9th Apr 2018
8:11pm
Bill Shorten has just made a complete fool of himself on the ABC talking to Leigh Sales. He is either ignorant and doesn't know that people's dividends are taxed at 30% before they get them or has told a big lie by saying that people are getting back something for nothing. Sorry Bill you have stuffed this up badly as people are not getting something for nothing but the tax that was overpaid the same as any employee gets back when his employers over taxes him.

How can we even think about having a Prime Minister that is either dumb or just tells out right lies.
Misty
9th Apr 2018
9:07pm
I just looked up the way dividends are taxed on the Aust Tax website and it states there that the company pays the tax on the dividend.
VeryCaringBigBear
9th Apr 2018
9:41pm
Yes the same as an employer pays tax on behalf of an employee.

Just imagine the out cry if employees were denied their refunds at the end of the tax year.

That is exactly what Labor is doing to low income shareholders.
Cowboy Jim
9th Apr 2018
10:29pm
Hey BigBear - they are not doing it yet. Still have an election to go through!
Radish
10th Apr 2018
6:59am
\Shorten on ABC 7.30 report...watched him avoid the question re tax on dividends to pensioners. Slimey toad he looked...only got to look at his shifty eyes.
Shorten will be hoping like hell that Turnbull is replaced....stupid move in my opinion...you cannot keep replacing the PM...no matter who is in office...looks bad.
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Apr 2018
7:16am
Like OG what I saw astonished me. Shorten told an out right lie about franking credits. They are not money for nothing but tax paid on behalf of the shareholder on their dividends. Yes company pays the tax but who owns the company? It's shareholders so they own the franking credits.

What Shorten fails to mention is that if a shareholder has an income of $250,000 and franking credits of $5000 his tax is reduced by $5000. Yes he gets a refund of $5000.

Currently if the shareholder only has an income of $20,000 including $5000 In franking credits held by the ATO the $5000 is refunded so he keeps all of his $20,000.

What Shorten wants to do is leave the shareholder earning $250,000 with his refund of $5000 off his tax but not refund the $5000 to the shareholder with income of $20,000. This low income shareholder is then left with an income of $15,000.

So is it fair that the high income earner gets a tax refund of $5000 and the low income earner get his income reduced by$500?

Seems to me like Shorten is rewarding the wealthy and hammering the poor here.
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Apr 2018
7:19am
That should read

So is it fair that the high income earner gets a tax refund of $5000 and the low income earner gets his income reduced by $5000?
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
7:57am
What I find astonishing, VCB, is that so many can't see how unfair it is. I find it very disturbing that some people actually SUPPORT giving the $5000 back to the guy earning $250,000 and NOT to the struggler earning $20,000. And what's worse is that the guy earning $250,000 is more likely getting $20,000 or more off his tax bill, while the SFR with an income of $30,000 a year loses up to $10,000 of that income. Then he has to go on the pension, and that is supposed to somehow SAVE the nation money? How?
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
8:05am
I think Shorten might have sealed the ALP's fate by this dumb move. Either he doesn't want the ALP to win, or he's a complete fool. I don't believe the policy has a tinker's hope in hell of getting through. There are too many who have the intelligence to see how unfair it is and how harmful.

Yes Misty, the company pays the tax - OUT OF INCOME IT OWES TO THE TAXAPAYER. If it owes me $6000, it takes $2000 out of that and gives to the taxman. It pays me $4000 and tells me to claim the $2000 back from the taxman. If my income is high enough to be taxed at 30%, the taxman keeps the $2000. If my income is high enough to be taxed at more than 30%, the taxman keeps my $2000 and makes me pay more. If my income is low enough to justify a tax rate of LESS than 30%, the taxman gives me some or all of my $2000 back. That's EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD BE.

Why should I lose $2000 of the $6000 owed to me just because my income is low? If my income was high, I'd offset it against my tax on other income, so I'd still benefit. But Shorten is saying if I am rich I should benefit but if I am poor I should lose out. Since when was that the Labor Party's ethos? And yet he lies and claims the policy will only hurt the rich!
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
8:37am
Yes - and that 30% imputation constitutes part of their gross income, OG - added to other income a full rate of tax liability should be calculated.

Again - from the figures I've done - only the very fat would actually pay tax - as they should.

If, for example - a minor shareholder earned a TOTAL (dividend given plus franked credit paid as tax) of around $37k (I believe OGR mentioned that figure) from franked dividends alone - they would still receive a refund from that tax paid on their behalf, since their tax liability on GROSS would not go anywhere near 30%.

No Problem whatsoever - and as I said - the issue here seems to be the inability of Shorten to 'sell' his view with facts and figures.

Who ever said politicians were smart? Cunning.. yes... smart.. no.

Should never have opened his mouth.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
10:40am
Trebor. that 30% imputation IS part of gross income and taxed at their marginal rate accordingly. The system is correct as is. If their tax rate is higher than 30%, they pay more on their dividend. If it's less, they get a refund. What Shorten is proposing is that if their income is very low, they get NO REFUND, and pay 30% tax on that portion of their income that comes from dividends, despite being below the tax threshold and not liable to be taxed on any other income.

It's nothing to do with selling. He's WRONG. The system is correct as is. If the rich are dodging tax somehow, address that, but don't throw all shareholders under the bus and hurt the battlers most of all by changing a fair policy to be UNFAIR.
Old Geezer
10th Apr 2018
10:45am
Trebor unfortunately you are very wrong here. Your minor shareholder earning $37k a year will only be able to use enough of his franking credits to pay his tax bill. The rest will be not refunded by the tax office. So if he is taxed $1000 and has $5000 in franking credits he gets to use a $1000 to reduce his tax bill to zero and the ATO keeps the other $4000.

However if he earns $137k per year and has a tax bill of say $20K the $5000 will be deducted from it and he will only pay $15K in tax.

Shorten unfortunately is telling porkies the way he is selling it.

Even if this does not affect you people should be telling others how it works and how unfair it is. Reason is that it may not be you in the firing line from Shorten' uncouth tactics now but it may be next time. He needs to be exposed for the lies he is telling here.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
3:46pm
That's what I don't get. OG. There's a saying about people who didn't speak up when they came for X and didn't speak up when they came for Y, and now there's nobody to speak up when they come for you.

Selfish people are happy to see others hurt, but they don't stop to think that the next cruel policy might be aimed squarely at them, and then they will want support to oppose it - support from the very people hurt by the policies they are now cheering.

The good news is that the general consensus in the finance world is that there's no possible way Shorten could get his dumb and unfair policy over the line, and it's not because of the unfair impact on lower income earners or struggling SFRs. It's because the Australian companies that need that investment capital and would suffer horribly if people bailed out and sold their shares will oppose so strenuously that no government could ever get away with such an idiotic and harmful move.

It is worrying, though, that there's so many out there who just don't understand the law as it stands and what Shorten is trying to do. He says he's attacking the wealthy and they believe him! He says nobody will lose a cent from their superannuation or dividends and they believe him. He says nobody will pay more tax and they believe him. How can anyone be so blind? It's patently obvious his claimed savings have to come from somewhere. Rich people don't pay tax - and never will. We ALL know that. So clearly the less well-off have to be losing. And if you examine the policy, it clearly says the guy on $137K a year will keep his credits to reduce his tax bill and the struggler on $35K a year WILL LOSE HIS REFUND - thus paying 30% tax on legally untaxable income; tax that he CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY.
Old Geezer
10th Apr 2018
5:21pm
I agree ORr. Who are the main companies that will lose out here? None other then than big 4 or 5 banks. They have already had an extra tax impose on them, a royal commission they really didn't want so I can't see them taking this as well without a big fight.

People who think they wont lose out with their super have been conned as well. I read an article recently that said super members could lose up to 2% a year off their earnings. Even if it was 1% that is 10s of thousands of dollars that will not be there when people retire. It boggles me that people take things on face value without even a second thought.
musicveg
10th Apr 2018
7:43pm
Nice to see OG and OGR agreeing for a change, how refreshing. Working together is much better don't you think? We need fair changes for everyone not just the top 10% and things may then look better. And something has to be done about pollies pensions too, bleeding the country of money that could go to helping build the country back up instead of their own bank accounts.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
10:31pm
It's a bit of a change, isn't it musicveg? But OG is absolutely right on this issue. And we ALL need to unite to fight for a better deal for all retirees and for all Australians.
MICK
10th Apr 2018
3:13am
Ho hum ho hum.......more of the same.
Abbott lied his way into government. We all know that. Turnbull is a rich man's cur. We all know that too.
The current government is what it is: an arm of the wealthy and their business interests. We need an election to get this country running properly and nothing could be worse than the last 6 years and the GFC has been over for 10 years now but our economy keeps getting worse by the year. Tells a story.
Radish
10th Apr 2018
6:56am
Two economists last night said the current government is making headway re bringing down our debt. If Labor get back in watch it start going in the other direction.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
6:57am
Agreed, but Labor isn't offering anything of value - just a communist approach of stealing from the middle class and upper working class to feed a few more crumbs to the disadvantaged and those who contrive to appear needy, and to keep loading the coffers of the rich while PRETENDING to want to do something about inequality.
VeryCaringBigBear
10th Apr 2018
7:28am
Agree Labor will continue to reward the rich just like the LNP but will take from the easiest target SFRs and those on the pension who have assets to give to those who are disadvantaged and to those who have no other visible means of support.

What we need is a government who is prepared to cut spending by making hospitals, education etc much more efficient so that they can get that debt under control.

All Labor wants to do is spend more money and make the hospitals and schools even more inefficient and increase our debt even further by doing so.

I have seen nothing to tell me otherwise.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
7:51am
Agree BigBear. And don't forget Labor will drive the welfare bill through the roof by continuing to make it more and more difficult to get by without welfare and more and more attractive to do as you did. Their policies are screaming ''CONTRIVE AND MANIPULATE. PENSIONERS ARE FAVOURED. GET ON THE PENSION ANY WAY YOU CAN - OR WE'LL PERSECUTE YOU UNTIL YOU DO.''

The LNP got it hopelessly wrong with a cruel change to the assets test. They made sure hundreds of thousands more saw that being an SFR was bad and being a pensioner was good. Now Labor wants to finish the job of blowing our welfare budget by crucifying anyone who is saving the nation money by being independent in their senior years. I wish someone could tell me why both parties want the cost of supporting the aged to skyrocket, when they complain about it being too high. Is it just stupidity, or is there a sinister hidden motive? Maybe they are looking for a way to justify abolishing the aged pension?
TREBOR
10th Apr 2018
8:39am
Economists? You mean those little rut weavils who run around sticking figures in your face, and then citing unforeseen circumstances when they don't pan out?

If economists knew what they were doing we'd all be in high clover for life by now.... they simply have no real idea.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
10:28am
Two economists favour the LNP so they must be right! Funny most economists are saying the major problem we face is growing INEQUALY - which both parties are determined to make worse, but the LNP more so than Labor. Guess only two know what they are on about thought!
Old Geezer
10th Apr 2018
10:59am
With all this SFR bashing going on and the talk of many dinner tables you can't tell me that the generations to come are not taking any notice. What is this telling them? Gee the oldies are real mugs saving all that money only to have it taken from them why should we bother? Let's just have a good time and enjoy ourselves now instead.

Now let's look at a dinner table conversation where the oldies are pensioners. It would probably go something like this. Well we manage quite well if we are careful with our money and little more would help but we are so glad we enjoyed ourselves and did a lot of travelling while we were younger as we couldn't do it now. What does that tell the next generation? It certainly doesn't tell them to save for their retirement.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
3:48pm
I find it quite mind-boggling that the people who rant most about leaving a debt to the next generation are the same people who want to eliminate the benefit of work, saving, and responsible planning and see everyone in equal hardship (except the very wealthy, of course!).

I guess it's just envy blinding people, but surely nobody with a brain could seriously believe that making it futile to work and save is good for the nation?
Radish
10th Apr 2018
6:55am
I dont take any notice of these polls...the only one that counts is on election day.

A poll before a recent by election showed labor would lose...they won.
Adrianus
10th Apr 2018
7:47am
I agree Rad, but at the same time often there is something in the polls. e.g. We know they are saying that very few people want Bill Shorten as PM but more people like the Labor/Unions/Greens style of government, just not with Bill Shorten as leader? That's the way it looks to me anyway?
musicveg
10th Apr 2018
7:56pm
I think a lot of people don't like either Bill or Malcolm. Maybe they should both change leaders of each party and see what happens, would be interesting at least.
Rosret
10th Apr 2018
8:20am
Opinion polls are a biased sample.
My father was rung for his opinion once so he gave it and was then called by the same people 10 minutes later. Then the next month he was called again.
Opinion polls only matter when there really is a significant change in leadership behaviour. (like Trump). We have a political twins and its very much same same as the running of the country continues.
If you want to put fear into Australia, vote for parties like the Greens or One nation etc - then you will have an unstable economy and a cultural shift - watch the polls then!
Old Geezer
10th Apr 2018
10:50am
I get called at least twice a week with one of these polls and give them a different answer every time as it is none of their business how I will vote.

I just had a call centre ring me and ask my address. I told them 3 Mile Street, Beyond Whoop Whoop. They just accepted it.
George
10th Apr 2018
8:28pm
Never been called by them - maybe they contact the wrong people. How else could a non-performer like Julie Bishop be close to the PM (like him or not) in Liberal leadership preferences?
Radish
11th Apr 2018
7:37am
OG, I am sure you are not the only who tells porkies to these survey people. Like you I would not give out my views...no way. In this day and age they know all about you without giving them any more ammo.

That is why I put little credence in these polls. We do not know who they poll or where they poll...
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
4:02pm
People in the finance world are saying the ALP wants to lose the next election. His franking credit policy is political suicide, and the general consensus is that he knows it. It's highly unlikely it would ever pass into law even if they do win the election, but they are alienating a very large section of the community with that policy. It will impact just about everyone negatively, and the majority know it. Only a minority of people who can't seem to understand what it's all about will continue to vote for the ALP if he persists with it.
Old Geezer
10th Apr 2018
5:11pm
Only ones it wont hurt are the wealthy and that's who Shorten is telling everyone it will only hurt. How can he be so naïve or keep such a straight face and tell such a dam right out lie. Either way he is not the sort of people for a PM at all.
OnlyGenuineRainey
10th Apr 2018
10:27pm
I always regarded him as a slimy and unconscionable person. Just looking at him makes me feel sick on the stomach. You know he's lying because his mouth moves!
Radish
11th Apr 2018
7:38am
Teflon Bill I call Shorten...we know he is a shonky character...but he always gets off the hook.
Adrianus
12th Apr 2018
8:29am
You're right Rainey, this idiotic concept will have an effect on everyone.
The share market has been soft since Bill Shorten's "franking credit announcement."
I'm surprised Shorten and his mates aren't copping it from Industry Super union board members. I still don't know why the unions need to be so involved with Super?
With the polls showing Labor leading it gives investors another reason to sell. Analysts are not happy with the combination of Labor leading in the polls and Shorten's ideas on how to raise taxes and spend more. Shorten's lack of leadership is starting to worry investors. If he looks like getting close to victory next year, it will be ground hog day back to 2007.
OnlyGenuineRainey
12th Apr 2018
8:46am
I wrote a strong letter to the ALP leaders yesterday pointing out the enormous damage their policy would do and suggesting more constructive ways to address the budget problem. Doubt they'll pay any attention.

Financial advisers are saying the franking credit nonsense policy would NEVER pass. Too much economic damage would result and too many people understand that. There are a lot of shareholders in a lot of Aussie companies who will realise, if a serious risk presents, that it could do them massive harm, and Australian companies will be alerting their shareholders how much damage it threatens to the health of the economy by depriving them of investment capital and pushing investors to foreign investments.
OnlyGenuineRainey
12th Apr 2018
8:48am
Interesting that in all the comments I've seen the majority who support Shorten's BS have no concept of investing in shares and are just envious of people they think have somehow been ''lucky'' to acquire shares. Poor dears don't even know that they probably own shares (through their super fund if not privately) and will lose from this idiotic policy!
Old Geezer
12th Apr 2018
12:52pm
I just love those people who tell me that they bank with a building society or community credit union and would never again use bank.

Who do they think owns these building societies and credit unions? If on was to follow the ownership back though the various entities one would find out that they were actually owned by a major bank.

Our whole business structure relies on shareholders so if you upset the shareholders you well and truly upset the apple cart.
Adrianus
13th Apr 2018
11:42am
As we get closer to the election we will see a few projects shelved. This Labor party is the same party we had for those 6 horror years.
A country with a poor lacklustre economy cannot be so generous with welfare.
Misty
13th Apr 2018
12:32pm
The Labor Party are the ones who got us through the GFC, don't knock them.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Apr 2018
2:19pm
That's true, Misty, but much of their success was due to the foundations laid by the Howard/Costello government. Howard and Costello wasted much of the profits of the boom and got a lot wrong, but they also did a great deal that strengthened our economy - like changing franking credit rules to direct investment into Australian companies.

It's NOT a question of Labor vs Liberal. Performance varies depending on who is leading. The ALP that led us through the GFC is NOT the ALP of today. Nor is the LNP that laid the foundations for surviving a downturn the same LNP that is governing today.

It's about POLICY. And sadly the ALP has STUFFED IT TOTALLY on policy. So yes, I WILL knock them - until they wake up to themselves and formulate policy that is good for the nation.
Old Geezer
13th Apr 2018
9:08pm
Labor parties mess that they made during the GFC is why we are where ae are today. The excess of the system have not been washed through and so still haunt us so much so we can't gain traction to improve economically. It is simply unbelievable they could bring in huge money draining disasters like the NDIS and Gonski. We can't afford either of them and both should be scrapped. No wonder we have such a huge debt.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Apr 2018
5:25pm
We are where we are today because of the greed of the rich and the flawed concept that welfare should be needs based. Both have to be addressed constructively before our situation can improve.
musicveg
10th Apr 2018
6:52pm
I get sent a poll to do every now and again. You get to choose which party and have the choice to pick 'other' but not for who you think would be better as prime minister, you get the choice of Bill or Malcolm, I would rather pick 'other' but don't ask me who, I have no idea who would be better than these two.
KEVINJ
11th Apr 2018
9:36am
TO,, "YOUR LIFE CHOICES", STUPID CHOICE :-- I DID N O T U N -SUBSCRIBE.. I just

ticked the STUPID BOX, YOU Present, to S T O P EMAIL ALERTS SENDING M E, 100

E MAIL S, -- EACH STUPID MORNING. WHY ARE The FONTS S O STUPIDLY SMALL ????

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET WITH {{{{ I T }}}}......
JAID
11th Apr 2018
10:31am
Government has some serious work to do. It needs to be more agile yet think long term more capably. Factional and party interests press-gang strategy and thinking to the service of maintenance and the currency of power. There are valuable contributions which can be made from all sides.

I am not sure that Parliament as it stands is up to the challenge.
Misty
13th Apr 2018
12:42pm
Some people commenting here think the Labor Party are bad and I agree they have not come up to scratch in some previous years with their dumping of PM'S and Immigration Policy but the Coalition are worse, they are too busy fighting among themselves and trying to tell private companies how to run their business's, selling power stations to Chinese companies etc, to concentrate on what the Australian people want.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Apr 2018
2:15pm
Some people commenting here don't think beyond choosing one party over the other. It's NOT about which party is better. It's about what policy changes are needed to restore economic prosperity. Unfortunately, the Labor Party shot themselves in the foot with their idiotic nonsense on franking credits. Quite simply, it's BAD POLICY. It will redirect investment away from Australian companies - and the reason the Howard Government introduced franking credit refunds was to direct investment INTO domestic companies and strengthen the ASX - an act that significantly reduced the impact of the GFC on Australia.

Additionally, it's a patently unfair policy, by overtaxing people who rely on returns from stock market investing for income, taxing them at a much higher rate than people who secure the same level of income from a different source.

Probably the worst of it is that it's being sold with gross lies, claiming it is aimed at the wealthy when, in fact, it deliberately attacks LOW income earners with few to very moderate assets. It does NOT attack the rich at all, and it will have no impact whatever on high income earners. It will push tens of thousands of self-funded retirees onto pensions, possibly deprive pensioners of much needed extra income, and deprive all workers whose earnings place them at less than 30% tax rate - reducing their superannuation balances and therefore their retirement prospects.

Sadly, our political system results in bad policies being endorsed for no better reason than that they are peddled by the party the endorser happens to support. Instead of analysing the effects of the policy, people cheer it because it was announced by a member of the party they prefer. No wonder this country is in a mess when people can't see past LNP vs ALP and assess politicians on the merits of their policies.
Misty
13th Apr 2018
2:59pm
I have a good understanding of how the dividend imputation works OGR our Federal member came to a Q&A meeting in our town yesterday and spoke to the meeting about this. There is still a lot of fine tuning to be done on this policy before it can be presented to Parliament and Labor has to win the next election first before this can happen anyway.
Misty
13th Apr 2018
4:21pm
I also wrote to Chris Bowen's office about this a week ago and had a reply back the next day.
OnlyGenuineRainey
13th Apr 2018
7:42pm
Labor should have got it right before mouthing off. They've stabbed themselves in the foot big time with this idiotic nonsense, and if they don't abandon their stupid notions they will lose the election. Sad, because I was really hoping they would offer a reasonable alternative to the LNP that has performed so poorly. But it seems we are between the devil and the deep blue sea.

As for ALP politicians explaining how imputation works, they have demonstrated their propensity to lie about it. I doubt they are stupid, so clearly they are just dishonest. It shouldn't take political propaganda to understand how it works. It should be obvious. Company deducts tax from dividends before paying them. Shareholder who receives income claims credit for the deduction. No different to PAYG tax or bank withholding tax, except that Short-on wants to make it different unfairly and in a discriminating manner that will hurt the economy.
Old Geezer
13th Apr 2018
9:02pm
Yes it needs some fine tuning so much so that it needs to be scraped in it's entirety. There is simply nothing good in it for anyone. Any pollie that doesn't want it scrapped is not worth being in parliament as they imply have no understanding of it at all. The damage this will do is beyond imagination.
Old Geezer
14th Apr 2018
2:39pm
Further reading on how unfair this franking credit proposal eally is.

http://www.afr.com/personal-finance/superannuation-and-smsfs/bill-shorten-franking-plan-would-push-more-retirees-on-to-age-pension-20180405-h0yde3

OGR it give some good examples.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Apr 2018
2:53pm
Yes, OG, you are right about one thing. It's allowing people to vote who have absolutely no idea what they are voting on and just believe propaganda spruiked by their favoured party that has messed up the country.

Some years ago, I was in a line at a voting booth, behind a very ungroomed and rather smelly young man. The young man's mate was already in a booth. The mate turned toward the waiting line and shouted to his smelly friend ''I don't know who to vote for''. From behind me came the shouted reply ''Well, if ya wanna keep ya dole, ya betta vote Labor''. I despaired, from that point on, of ever seeing an election result in good government.
OnlyGenuineRainey
14th Apr 2018
2:55pm
Pity the article is only available to subscribers. Those who need the information won't be subscribers. Then again, most who NEED the information wouldn't heed it anyway. They would rather swallow propaganda.
Old Geezer
14th Apr 2018
3:47pm
Here is the article.

Bill Shorten franking plan 'would push more retirees on to age pension'

Worried about how Labor leader Bill Shorten's proposal to stop franking credit refunds would affect you? Those with big amounts in self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs) are grabbing the headlines in terms of "biggest dollar" impact. But from a lifestyle point of view – ie, a dent in the wallet – self-funded retirees without SMSFs and with lower balances would be the worst hit. (Now before you go rushing off to take action, remember this is still a proposal.)

Financial planner Anne Graham, managing director of Story Wealth Management, cites the example of a single retiree (let's call her Marg, 67) who doesn't get a part age pension because she has "too many" assets – ie, they're higher than the $556,500 cut-off for a single homeowner.

Let's say her assets are worth $630,000. Remember this includes a car, home contents and personal effects – let's say $30,000 in her case. While the remaining $600,000 sounds like a lot, Marg has probably economised throughout her working life to save more – precisely so she could avoid having to go on to the age pension.

Graham suggests she'd have $250,000 invested in Australian shares, $150,000 in cash and $200,000 in a super pension. That would probably give Marg income of just over $40,000 a year (based on 4 per cent dividends from shares, 2 per cent from cash, a 5 per cent pension drawdown, about $4300 in franking credit refunds and $13,000 withdrawn from cash).

But under the Labor proposal, she'd lose the franking credit refund – almost 11 per cent of her income. To maintain the same income, she would have to dip into more capital from her cash reserves. By Graham's calculations, by year six her assets would fall below the pension asset threshold and she'd be eligible for a part age pension. (To be fair, even with the franking credit refund she'd be eligible for a part pension by year seven, the Labor plan would just accelerate it.)

Eating into cash

"For many people on these income levels, the extra income from the franking credit refund is earmarked for Christmas or the holidays or paying the rates," adds Graham. "With that gone, they'd start eating into their cash and get to the age pension sooner as they'd be spending more of their own money."

From a financial planner's perspective, says Graham, there would be more incentive to "rearrange" clients' assets to bring them under the assets threshold for the age pension for the sake of keeping the franking credit refunds.

Suzanne Haddan, managing director of BFG Financial Services, also argues that you don't need to be a millionaire to be substantially worse off under the proposed changes.

"We have a client with retirement wealth of around $450,000 heavily invested in direct shares with income of less than $30,000 a year who is likely to suffer a drop in income of over 25 per cent. This level of income is hardly one that provides a lavish lifestyle." She notes this client is not eligible for the age pension due to a holiday home.

Nerida Cole, head of advice at Dixon Advisory, agrees with Graham that under the Labor proposal, more self-funded retirees would start to rely on a part age pension sooner. She says the segment of the population that would feel the most pain would be those who lost the part age pension in January 2017 (when the assets threshold for eligibility dropped). Because of this they would not be exempt from the Labor proposal – watered down last month to exclude anyone receiving a government pension or allowance. Also excluded are SMSFs with at least one member getting a government pension or allowance before March 28, 2018.

As financial adviser and AFR columnist Sam Henderson pointed out this week, don't get your "pension" definitions mixed up when it comes to SMSFs in this regard. It means a government pensioner, says the Maxwell Henderson CEO, rather than someone in SMSF pension mode.
Skewed to tax benefits

The Labor exemption was a relief for one of Graham's clients, who was "livid" about the proposal. A part pensioner, he had structured his portfolio to take advantage of the franking credit refund. "He's invested in a very concentrated portfolio of stocks that pay a high dividend which is fully franked," says Graham. "He stood to lose around $12,000 a year."

She explains his portfolio is not well diversified and has more volatility/higher risk than the firm's preferred portfolio because the focus has been on the tax benefits. "It's never re-balanced or changed. So in many respects, he's taken on a great deal of risk to obtain the tax refund and he's oblivious of the volatility in the capital value. So the portfolio could fall by 5 per cent (recent correction a case in point) affecting capital by, say, $25,000 on a $500,000 portfolio." It's a classic example, she says, of how the franking credit refund skews investor behaviour.

Another client with similar circumstances but no age pension will feel the impact. But, says Graham, his cashflow can be restructured and his lifestyle will not be affected. "He's in his 80s and it's human nature to resent having something taken from you when you've relied on it," Graham adds..

For the average moderate growth portfolio in SMSF pension phase, says Haddan, the estimated reduction in returns will be 0.5-1.0 per cent. "For example if we are expecting to earn 6 per cent a year with the franking credit refund, the returns may reduce to as low as 5 per cent due to the loss of the franking credit refund depending on the assets held."

A reduction of more than 16.5 per cent in returns is "not insignificant". Haddan adds: "I'm sure not many of us would like to take a 16.5 per cent pay cut but this could be the reality for some retirees under Labor's proposed policy."

Haddan points out that investors using platforms for their pension funds rather than SMSFs may not be negatively affected. "This group also receive refunds of their franking credits on the same basis as for SMSF clients but, given they are in an APRA-regulated fund, may not be negatively impacted," she says.
musicveg
14th Apr 2018
3:48pm
What are your thoughts on compulsory voting? Should we have it or not? OGR & OG, some people think if we did not have compulsory voting we would be like the USA, but I don't see that everyone has the knowledge to even vote.
Old Geezer
15th Apr 2018
4:06pm
By the time Shorten gets elected out interest rates will be at least double what they are today so investing in shares for dividends will be so much more risky for the return available else where. Add to that the failure to refund dividends and I know where the money will flow. Sorry Bill you have lost badly on this one.
Old Geezer
15th Apr 2018
5:24pm
There is a graph in this article that shows how self funded retires are better off when shares include franking credits.

http://www.ampcapital.com.au/smsf-suite/articles/2018/march/impact-on-retirees-from-loss-of-franking-credits?utm_medium=email&utm_source=ampc&utm_campaign=smsf-news&utm_content=article4-headline
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Apr 2018
6:15pm
OG, that article makes an interesting and very significant point.

Australia's franking credit policy REDUCES THE INCENTIVE for companies to avoid tax. This is because if they pay tax, they can offer their shareholders a significant benefit - one that attracts investment to the company. So Shorten is going to INCREASE THE INCENTIVE FOR COMPANY TAX EVASION. Not smart! And the exact opposite of what his supporters want to see happening!
Old Geezer
16th Apr 2018
10:55am
OGR Yes I thought the same. If tax avoidance wasn't already bad enough in this country Shorten will make it even worse.
Misty
16th Apr 2018
12:47pm
If people cannot comment here without constant verbal abuse left unchecked I won't even bother opening nay YLC'S emails again.
OnlyGenuineRainey
16th Apr 2018
5:13pm
I don't see any verbal abuse here, Misty. Just opinions about voting systems and policies. I thought people were entitled to have opinions. Certainly seems they are entitled to aggressively support the destruction of other people's lifestyles and refuse to respond with any validation - other than the Labor Party is wonderful - when challenged with facts.

OG and I were having a civilized discussion about the flaws in a policy.
musicveg
16th Apr 2018
6:51pm
OG and OGR are teaching me. They are being very civil, haven't said a bad word yet towards each other recently.
Old Geezer
17th Apr 2018
11:55am
OGR this article just shows that Labor has no shame. If widows didn't have enough to cope with. Now this.

https://www.smh.com.au/money/tax/labor-s-dividend-imputation-changes-a-tax-on-widows-20180406-p4z87t.html
Old Geezer
17th Apr 2018
12:03pm
Here is the article.

Labor's dividend imputation changes a 'tax on widows'

Labor’s latest attack on franked dividends is not a tax on the wealthy – it is a tax on widows.
Let me show you step-by-step. The imputation system, which avoids dividend income being taxed twice, will stay in place – what Labor proposes is to abolish the refund of excess franking credits. The only way you can have an excess franking credit is to have a low income. Therefore, the only possible targets are low income earners, and superannuation funds, where the tax rate varies between zero and 15 per cent.

But there will be no tax to be collected from large retail funds and industry funds, as they can spread the imputation credits over all their members: nothing for Labor here.
And they have promised to exempt all age pensioners: nothing for Labor there either.
So let’s think about who is left, on a case-by-case basis.

Self-managed super funds in pension mode with two members holding a total balance of less than $3.2 million
They could be seen as the prime target, because clearly all their excess franking credits will be lost under Labor’s proposal. But that is simply solved.
One option is to close the SMSF and roll the balance to a large retail or industry fund as mentioned above. The other option is to cash in their entire holding of Australian shares, which can be done tax-free, and roll over the cash now freed up to a second superannuation account with one of the big funds, choosing Australian shares as their preferred asset class. With this strategy, there is still nothing for Labor: the SMSF trustees can make any investments they choose – avoiding Australian shares – in their self-managed fund, and the pooled fund will invest in Australian shares for them, while optimising their mix for the current tax situation.
Self-managed superannuation funds with large balances
This would appear to be an easy target, but the Liberals got there first. Think about a portfolio of $10 million, which has a fairly standard asset allocation of cash 20 per cent, Australian shares 35 per cent, international shares 25 per cent and property 20 per cent. The annual income would be $390,000, including franked dividends of $140,000, on which franking credits are $48,000. When you gross up the income for the franking credits, the taxable income of the fund becomes $438,000.
Before the Liberals changed the system last July, the franking credits of $48,000 would have been refunded. But because the fund is 70 per cent in accumulation now, the tax payable by the fund becomes $46,000. Imputation credits pay all this, leaving just $2000 for Labor. I'm sorry Bill, but Malcolm beat you to it.
Older, wealthy, self-funded retirees
Their situation should remain unchanged. Let's say their main asset is a portfolio of $4 million of Australian shares in joint names paying franked dividends of $90,000 a year to each person plus franking credits of $38,571. The tax on that will be about $38,000 including the Medicare Levy, which means they may lose possibly $600 in franking credits – small bikkies in the scheme of things.
So who is left over to pay the tax? We have raised almost no extra tax so far.
Widows and widowers
Let’s return to our good friends the Browns, who you met in last week’s column. They owned their own home, had $75,000 in bank deposits, and also held a share portfolio worth $710,000 returning dividends of $32,000 plus franking credits of $13,700. Their pension was $19 a fortnight combined, so total income – including franking credits and interest – was $47,700 a year.
Unfortunately, Mr Brown died suddenly last week, leaving all his assets to his wife. Her situation will change dramatically. She is now a single pensioner, and the assets she has inherited take her over the Centrelink cut-off point. She will lose her pension, as well as the concession card that goes with it. The good news is that she will keep the franked dividends of $32,000 – the bad news is that under Labor’s proposal she will lose the franking credits of $13,700. Labor’s proposed measures have finally raised some money!

Hopefully anybody potentially in this situation will have taken good estate planning advice to ensure a more effective distribution of assets when one party dies, so the survivor can retain a part pension and all the franking credits.
So how could Labor have made such a massive mistake? First, it was done in haste – remember it was announced just a few days before the Batman byelection. Second, it is obvious that the costings were based on the situation before the June 30 changes.
Labor claims the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) did the costings. While the PBO undertakes costings for parliamentarians on a strictly confidential basis – and is not permitted to release the details of any costing advice unless the parliamentarian has released that costing advice – the PBO is independent and has established a practice of correcting the record if they have been materially misrepresented. PBO costings always take current policy settings as their starting point.
Finance Minister Mathias Cormann commented, “The so-called rich will be able to manage around this latest Shorten tax grab, it will be hard-working aspirational lower income Australians who will pay the bill for Labor’s latest ill-thought our tax attack.”
Well there you have it. I guess you will need to make up your own mind about the accuracy of the costing – I reckon the figures speak for themselves.
noel@noelwhittaker.com.au
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Apr 2018
5:46pm
Well, there you are, Misty. NOW you can claim to have a good understanding - IF you read the article OG posted carefully and comprehended what it is saying. It is validating what I've said all along. The ALP policy will ONLY HURT THE LESS WELL OFF. It cannot and will not touch the wealthy.

Now, since you apparently can get responses from Chris Bowen, how about you ask him a question for me ('cause I asked but he didn't respond).

Bill Shorten says there are Australians getting $2.5 million in cash franking credit refunds and paying no tax. Now, we know that to get $2.5 million they would have to be collecting dividends of at least $8 million per annum, and that's just on fully franked Australian shares. So could you please ask Mr Bowen what he has done to address the fact that apparently some Australians are earning more than $8 million a year and paying no tax?

See, the problem I have is that this has nothing to do with paying cash franking credit refunds to people whose incomes are below the tax thresholds or tax-free in retirement. This has to do with the fact that Shorten is claiming people earning more than $8 million a year - and holding some $110 million+ in Australian fully franked shares alone (and anyone with those holdings would surely be diversified and have other holdings) - are paying no tax. How? There's something SERIOUSLY wrong in the ATO if that is true. And taking franking credits of struggling SFRs isn't going to fix it.

If Shorten wants to change the franking credit taxation law, he should at least show the courtesy of telling the truth - and if he's telling the truth, then he should be doing something about people earning $8 million a year not paying tax, and leaving franking credits alone until he's addressed the much more disturbing issue.
VicCherikoff
13th Apr 2018
2:20pm
Time that we used technology to vote on a list of issues that are clearly spelt out for ordinary Australians (no politispeak) and ranked in importance to the long term health of the environment, the economy, population limits and social issues. This would eliminate Party Power grabbing wealth from the population and little to nothing being done on the real problems facing the country.

Some issues eg the environment, tax avoidance by big business and defense may need expert panels as overseers. I propose that there must be the intention of removing environmental management from politics entirely. Short term politicians are too self interested and ill-informed to deal with long term issues of human survival on the planet.

We would vote electronically via the blockchain which could ensure the transparency of voting and remove all chance of manipulation.

If the above were implemented, we would not need Federal, State or local governments as they exist now and local issues would be raised by locals, everyone votes on both national and local matters and independents stand to administer the outcomes which would be real mandates from the people, not Party politics.

Sure, we would need to find Statesmen and women to represent us internationally but think of the corruption and dishonesty we could avoid. They would also have a clear indication of what the population wants, not go travelling to plan what they do once their government terms are over.

As for polls, none are worth the time or money spent on them. We need to change the system, not just vote in more fools.
musicveg
13th Apr 2018
2:55pm
Sounds good to me. Think of all the money they could save if they stopped paying life time pensions to pollies, they should only get what everyone else gets at the same time as everyone else and meet their own asset test. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
Lookfar
14th Apr 2018
7:16pm
Sounds great VicCherikoff, but I do spot one significant difficulty, - currently the Media, - newspapers, TV, Radio, facebook etc. are owned by the Ultra rich, - just a few families, less than a hundred people or so, and they, through their companies, control what information people receive, tailor it to re-inforce their extremely materialist belief system, "rich is good" "rich people must be intelligent as they are rich, "rich people must make all the decisions of our lives because they are rich" - this they hammer day and night, and the more gullible amongst us believe it and vote accordingly, usually against their manifest best interests, as you will see often on this discussion site. - have you any antidote to this sickness?
Cheers,
Geoff.
musicveg
14th Apr 2018
8:08pm
Well said Lookfar, something I have always thought about but more so recently. 1% of the richest own half the world's wealth. In Australia Top 1% of the richest own more than the bottom 70%.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/22/top-1-per-cent-of-australians-own-more-wealth-than-bottom-70-per-cent-combined

"It shows wealth inequality in Australia has been on the rise over the past two decades, with the gulf between the amount of wealth held by the top 1% and the bottom 50% now the greatest at any time over this period.

The wealth share held by the top 1% in Australia has been growing almost continuously over the past two decades, while the wealth share held by the poorest 50% of Australians has been falling almost continuously over the past two decades." :Copied from the news article.

I wonder when they will stop, maybe until they own the lot and we are all renters and begging for food.
OnlyGenuineRainey
15th Apr 2018
6:53am
While I agree that the media is heavily controlled by the rich, I think the general sentiment in society is more along the lines of ''poor is good'' and ''pensioner is entitled''. Currently, I'm seeing a lot of nastiness and abuse towards those who worked a little harder and saved a little better and are self-funded with only just over the thresholds. Seems everyone wants to take everything these people have. The attacks on them on forums are quite vile, and grossly unfair. People who happily put their hands out for tens of thousands a year in pension income - up to $2 million over the course of their retirement - are declaring that people who receive a measly $8,000 a year in franking credits and live off their hard-won savings (saving the taxpayer up to $2 million over their retirement) are ''rorters'' and should have their income slashed.

I'd hate to put the power to dictate policy in the hands of these greedy, self-serving pensioners who are blinded by envy and just want to see anyone they THINK has more than them hurt - or in the hands of those with a Communist mentality that people shouldn't be allowed to benefit from working hard and/or saving well.

That said, I do agree that the greedy rich are also problematical, and yes, I suspect they do want to reduce us all to renters and beggars. The big problem, though, is that a large portion of those who have very little are supporting them in that endeavour.

Are they misled by the rich to think policies are ''just taking a little from the wealthy (Bill Shorten's massive lie, for example), and lacking the intelligence to examine the facts, or are they just spiteful?
Old Geezer
15th Apr 2018
4:09pm
Yeah I guess we could all be happy chappies smoking pot and not worrying about much else as well.
Misty
16th Apr 2018
12:33pm
I object to being bullied by certain people on this site and being made out to be dumb and stupid just because I lived a different lifestyle to them, Kathleen can speak for herself but I don't know why they would wantg to pick on her too. MODERATOR TIME TO PUT A STOP TO THIS.
Reagan
16th Apr 2018
4:01pm
Stop whining for pete's sake! Have you apologised to Ray yet???
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Apr 2018
7:42am
Misty, maybe it APPEARS you are being picked on because you don't understand what is being said. We are defending our right to enjoy our lifestyle, and we strongly object to people suggesting it's okay for it to be destroyed unfairly and for no benefit to anyone - but just because someone loves the ALP.

Frankly, I'm sick of the elitist attitude of pensioners and the constant accusations of greed and selfishness. It's no wonder this country is stuffed when so many seem to think it's a punishable crime to work hard and save well. Your lifestyle wasn't so different. You just chose not to make a financial plan and execute it. You had the same opportunity as I and many others did - or better. You chose to spend instead. You are among the majority, unfortunately for this country. And that's the whole point OG and I are trying to make. If those who plan and save for retirement are constantly beaten down and deprived, nobody will. Then we'll have a much higher cost to support retirees and much more pressure on the government to reduce pensions in one way or another. Everyone screams at proposals to cut pensions, but everybody wants to steal from those who are contributing to keeping them affordable.

Maybe think past the political BS and self-serving lies your local member is telling you and consider the more far-reaching LOGICAL consequences?

I don't see anybody here objecting to taxing the rich. But Short-on IS NOT PROPOSING THAT. The guy earning $250,000 a year keeps his tax reduction. The guy with $5 million in super keeps his. The guy getting $2.5 million in refunds never existed! He'd have to have about $110 million in shares and an $8 million dividend receipt annually - so that's just BS spreading massive BS! The people who will suffer have worked hard and saved carefully and have low incomes - less the majority of pensioners in many cases - and are being deprived of everything they worked and saved for. They will be forced onto pensions and cost the government a lot more than their piddling little franking credits Shorten is stealing. Or they will be forced to take investment out of Australian companies and transfer it abroad. And his claims about it being a rort are fraudulent. The current system is consistent with ALL other tax policy - i.e. that if too much is deducted from your income before it's paid to you, you get it back. And his claims about people not paying tax are fraudulent, because SFRs contribute up to $40,000 a year to the budget by living frugally off their savings.

Maybe a little courtesy and respect wouldn't go astray? Suggesting someone's income should be demolished unfairly rates as bullying in my book. And as for Kathleen - saying it's ''too funny'' isn't likely to endear her to anyone. Sorry!
Old Geezer
17th Apr 2018
11:50am
Well Misty you have broken one unwritten law in that you are commenting on something and your comments tell me you have little knowledge of what you are commenting on or worse still are baiting people with your comments. I can't get much clearer than that.
OnlyGenuineRainey
17th Apr 2018
5:57pm
Misty, if only you could see the woods through the trees, you might realize that by opposing bad policy, we are actually looking after your interests. Pensioners are quick to approve taking money off anyone they think has more than they do, but they forget that the affluence of some enables pensions to be paid. When there are far fewer people saving and investing, there will be far less money to pay pensions, and then there will be far more pressure to reduce them. We are already seeing proposals to cut pensions by delaying retirement age. It can ONLY get much worse if there are more people taking larger pensions and less people being self-sufficient. A small ta refund is far more affordable for the government than an aged pension. It' been pointed out, above, that there is no opportunity for Shorten to increase the tax take except by attacking a small portion of the less well-off. Those people WILL divest assets and claim pensions. They have to. They have no choice. They didn't work and save to have it all taken away and be worse off than if they hadn't bothered!

The ALP is going to create so much pressure on the pension system that pensioners will ultimately suffer. That's what OG and I are opposing. Far from ''bullying'', we are doing you a service - if only you could clear your eyes and see it.
Misty
17th Apr 2018
7:32pm
Regan what do you mean"Apologise to Ray"?, I cannot find anyone called Ray commenting here.
Reagan
18th Apr 2018
8:21am
Try here
https://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/the_meeting_place/post/age-pension-welfare-or-entitlement
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Apr 2018
12:58pm
I've been examining the economic management strategies of both major parties (and the Greens) and I think the best way to describe their approach is by an analogy:

Father is struggling to pay bills and sinking further and further into debt. Examines allocations to various areas of expenditure.

$2000 in an account for bills. $3000 in bills expected (rates, electricity, car registration, car service, gas), but nevermind. There's money there.

$1000 in wife's housekeeping account. She needs that for kid's school uniforms next month, and won't have enough for their textbooks, but nevermind. There's money there.

$500 in older son's account. He's saving for university, and paying his own school fees and for textbooks, but there's money there.

Younger daughter has no money. She spends on CDs, magazines, sweets, ice cream, etc. Typically goes through her allowance within 2 days of receiving it.

Right. Solution to problem. Borrow more money to give daughter more. She is ''needy''.

And that, folks, is how the LNP and the ALP are running our economy! So yes, let's beg for more for renters. And when we all sell up in despair and claim rent assistance... well, just borrow more and take more from the handful left who have savings put aside for their future needs.
Lookfar
18th Apr 2018
4:55pm
O G Rainey,I am disappointed in you last series of posts, I understand that you may have lost objectivity because you may be directly affected, I also note that you have become a fellow traveller of OG,
The origin of geezer is an interesting one. It appears to derive from the now obsolete term guiser, meaning someone who walks around in disguise, a performer in a masquerade.
and we all thought he was just an employee of the Koch Bros. under threat of death if he admitted it, - Whatever, I notice you attack the Australian people who are pensioners, ( 80%) saying they are Elitist and envious, - ridiculous, they can't be both, and would like to point out that those are Neo-Liberal arguments, and that the Neo Liberal's goal is to destroy the middle class and take their money, it is only a side salad to take the poorer people's money, they don't have much. - 'To Shorten, he is slimy like all politicians, that is part of the definition of the word, but as I understand it, he is targetting those who have evaded tax by putting it into Superannuation, so pay no tax, fine, that was their inducement, but then claim Franking benefits on their not taxed income, so effectively double dipping, - well, I would be happy to hear from you why I am wrong, (and saying I am wrong is not an answer, I require a real answer,) and I must admit, that someone who does nothing, pays no tax, but still gets thousands of dollars (or millions) from the tax department feels wrong to me, whether their Tax Accountant, (a race possibly even more slimy than politicians) sold them that goods/tax evasion, is not relevant, it was wrong in the first place, - and as for your emotional wailing that a single dollar is poignant to you, and anybody who gets less is BAD, I refer you back to the Neo-Liberal philosophy, the which it seems you have been sucked in by, with all it's mindless and stupid greed.
Kindly prove me wrong, but do not use SHOUTING, a bully method, as I regard all shouting as not only a breaking of Internet rules but also farcical bullying, as we are not next to you so shouting is meaningless, - less than meaningless, - foolish, stupid, vapid.
Your railing about Oz or anyone else disagreeing with you as socialist or communist is out of touch, Australia started as a Democratic Socialist country, - not by name but by nature, the Govt printed the money, built the roads, ports, infrastructure, etc, the railroads, the water system, the electricity system, etc. and of course some of that has been farmed out to states and local councils, and generally worked well until greedy Neo-Liberal politicians decided to sell our country's assets to pork barrel their mates, now we are suffering from that.
Thing is, Rainey, all politicians are the slimy same, - the main reason we would vote for labour is to provide a future for our grandchildren, Grand Children, and only Labour, of the two major political parties is going that way, - all your franking nonsense is just that, Tax avoidance legal or otherwise is just a facade of corruption, even if it benefits you personally, - your grand children will suffer from your greed, no excuses. - Let go your pain of no longer being a Billionaire, you are lucky to be just a millionaire, - and probably don't even need that, just look at what is happening in Syria, etc. you could have nothing, probably not even life itself.
I am disappointed in you Rainey, for whatever reason, you are not the Rainey we loved, I guess falsely, Good Bye.
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Apr 2018
6:44pm
Lookfar, you ARE wrong. Firstly, I'm NOT a millionaire, not that $1 million is a lot of money these days, when pensioners are handed around $2 million over the course of their retirement.

Secondly, you have no idea of my needs. You know NOTHING about why I saved or what I legitimately need my savings for.

And thirdly, I have NEVER benefited from tax concessions of any kind, other than a fair and equitable refund of over-paid tax deducted from my dividend income when my earnings placed me under the tax threshold. I never had employer-funded superannuation. I started an SMSF very recently with my own personal savings, accrued from depriving myself of holidays, restaurant dinners, and a thousand other comforts and pleasures most people take for granted. I have never owned a negatively geared property or benefited from capital gains tax. I have never earned enough to even think of claiming deductions. My income was never high enough to make it worth the effort.

More to the point, though, you are WRONG about franking credits. WRONG on two points. First, tax IS paid by deduction from my share of the company profits. It's paid at 30%. Shorten doesn't plan to change the fact that shareholders receive a credit for that. He'll hand back the 30% as a tax reduction to anyone who earns a taxable income, or who has substantial wealth and is liable to pay tax. He just won't refund what the low-income strugglers are entitled to receive, given that they were unfairly deprived of 30% of their entitlement. That's NOT socialism. That's feeding the rich at the expense of the less well off.

Additionally, one ought to consider that by self-funding, a retiree is couple is saving the government some $40,000 a year. That's money in the tax man's hands that can be used for other socialist objectives. Now, what you are saying is that in ADDITION to being deprived of $40,000 a year that is handed to people who didn't save, SFRs should also be deprived of 30% of an income LESS than the aged pension, despite the fact that if they invested in property, bonds, term deposits, foreign shares, precious metals, private mortgages, or a host of other investments, they would NOT pay that unfair tax AND despite the fact that if they were twice as wealthy or earning a high income, they would NOT pay that unfair tax.

I am still the Rainey I've always been, but I'm sickened by the elitist nastiness of some who are happy to take handouts but then support stripping self-funded retirees of the tiny benefit that is allowing them to continue to be self-funded and save the government millions over the term of their retirement. I'm sick of the ''I'm poor therefore I'm entitled'' mentality. And I'm sick of the envy.

Lookfar, I've been poor - really poor! The reason I am not, now, is because I was so desperately poor and miserable that I determined to find a way - somehow - to rise above poverty and give my kids a better life than I had. It was hard. Bloody hard! I worked my guts out. I went without comforts others regard as essential. And I'm sick of this ''poor me I couldn't save'' crap - because that's what it is. The majority of Australians would not have a clue what it is to be as poor as I was, or to struggle as I did - with no education, no opportunity, no support, and a disabled partner and child.

Do I have empathy? You bet. Am I charitable? Absolutely. Do I sympathize with people who are doing it tough? Definitely. Do I share OG's attitude. NO NO NO NO NO! But - and there is a but - what Shorten is doing is unconscionable, dishonest in the extreme, and economically destructive. It is a direct hit on strugglers. Nobody who is wealthy will be hurt. That's been well evidenced. And the fact that some here who happily take tens of thousands each year from the public purse seek to deprive those who DON'T take from the public purse of a fair and equitable refund of tax they are NOT legally liable to pay is disgraceful. I am saving the tax man at least $30,000 a year AFTER counting franking credits.

The remedy if Short-on has his way is easy. I simply cash out, buy a more expensive home, and claim a full pension. The budget loses $30K a year, rising every 6 months. I am $10,000 a year (at least) better off in income terms and my assets are preserved.

My children are NOT responsible for the over-spending of others. They are ENTITLED to the benefit of my hard work and saving. And by demolishing that benefit, Shorten is going to destroy the economy. Your grandchildren WILL suffer if he's allowed to direct investment out of Australia and make it futile to work and produce.

I believe in a healthy degree of socialism. I believe in supporting the disadvantaged. If you've read BigBear's posts, you know that a lot of our pensioners are NOT DISADVANTAGED. We have a system that rewards people for pretending need, and punishes those who accept personal responsibility. And I'm sick of the stupidity of such a system. It is driving billowing debt that will eventually hurt the poor most - because we will run out of capacity to support the genuinely hard up if we keep feeding the BigBear's and the irresponsible and making it futile to work and save.

Sorry, Lookfar, but there is no justification for Shorten's attack and it WILL harm the economy and drive debt UP. Labor won't provide for our grandchildren, because it will push us all into equal poverty with it's Communist mentality. There is NO TAX AVOIDANCE involved in franking credits. The tax is taken - just like it's taken from bank interest (if no TFN is quoted) and PAYG earnings. If you are liable to pay more than 30%, you are billed extra. If you are liable to pay 30%, you are credited. If you are NOT liable to pay 30%, you are morally and ethically entitled to a refund. And the only people Shorten is unfairly and immorally depriving are those who are too poor to pay tax. If there are people avoiding tax to gain from franking credits, address that. Don't throw good, honest, hard-working strugglers under the bus because of a few cheats.

The bottom line that proves Shorten a liar is his claim that people are getting $2.5 million in cash refunds. They would need over $110 million in shares with fully franked dividends and $8 million + in dividend income - PLUS income from other diversified investments that someone with that wealth would obviously have. Who are these people and why are they not paying tax? Persecuting SFRs with less than $1 million isn't a solution to that problem, if it exists. And it's disgusting to be trying to con the unconscious to support the unconscionable with lies like that!

BTW. Final point: Shorten missed the boat entirely with this BS, because he didn't bother to note that the LNPs cap on money in pension phase in super has eliminated the franking credit benefit for the wealthy. He is attacking the battlers - nobody else. Because there is no longer any capacity for people to have more than $1.6 million in tax free super.
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Apr 2018
7:01pm
Sorry, Lookfar, I said ''final'' but I had an afterthought.

There are two possibilities regarding franking credits. Either:
(1) the tax is paid by the company, NOT the individual, and the individual shareholder has no right to any recognition of having contributed. Hence, franking credit refunds are a ''rort''; OR

(2) the tax is DEDUCTED from the individual's dividend income and the recipient is entitled to have that deduction recognized as tax paid and be credited accordingly. In that case, the refund is NOT a rort.

Now, under Australian tax law, if you pay too much tax by deduction from income or advance Pay as You Go tax, you get the excess back. That's a standard and has been for a long time. So, if (2) above applies, then the dividend recipient is entitled to a cash refund if their income is below the taxable threshold.

On the other hand, if (1) applies, then no cash refund should be paid.

Now, here's where Shorten's argument comes badly unstuck and he's proven to be a liar and a hypocrite. See, he says if you are wealthy or a high income earner, then (2) applies and you get a credit for tax taken from your dividend and a reduction of your tax payable BUT if you are poor and a low income earner not liable to pay tax, then (1) applies.

You can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. And if the rule is applied inconsistently, then Shorten is dishonest and unfair - and so is anyone who endorses his policy.
Old Geezer
18th Apr 2018
1:39pm
Labor’s $3.75bn retiree savings grab revealed

More than $3.75 billion would be wiped from almost 2000 small ­retail superannuation funds and 50 of the largest retail funds over the next 10 years, in a second-round hit to 2.6 million member accounts under Labor’s plans to scrap refundable tax credits for retirees.

In a direct challenge to Bill Shorten’s claim that APRA-­regulated super funds would be largely unaffected by the $56bn tax grab on retirees, updated Australian Tax Office figures due to be released show the majority of APRA funds claimed refunds for imputation credits in 2015-16.

The refunds assessed by the ATO amounted to $309 million for the year, which if averaged over the 10-year life of Labor’s tax policy would amount to $3.75bn, based on a 3.5 per cent growth rate.

While Labor’s policy would draw the bulk of the refunds from self-managed super funds — estimated to be $2.6bn — and high-wealth individuals, Treasury analysis of ATO data reveals the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority-regulated funds that would be affected represent 2.6 million member accounts.

Labor claims that only 10 per cent of APRA-regulated funds would be affected by the changes, but the government said the ATO data revealed that 2013 of the 2603 APRA-regulated funds received franking credit refunds worth $308,844,250 in 2015-16.

The majority of the funds had fewer than five people. Of the 2363 small APRA-regulated funds, 1963 received refundable franking credits worth $74m.

While the Opposition Leader has argued that the large retail funds would not be affected, the Treasury analysis reveals that 50 out of 240 of the large APRA regulated funds — comprising hundreds of thousands of members — received refundable franking credits worth $235m.

The 2031 APRA-regulated funds potentially affected are on top of the 200,000 self-managed super funds that were the primary target of Labor’s policy.

As people often hold more than one super account, it is estimated the number of people who are members of an ordinary retail or industry super fund that would be affected could be several hundred thousand and possibly more than one million.

The analysis used by the government contradicts claims by Labor and industry super funds that the policy would have little to no impact on the majority of funds because most imputation credits would be exhausted because of the tax liabilities of most funds.

The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia has warned that retail investors could be affected by the policy directly through their superannuation funds as well as any shares outside their fund.

Mr Shorten was forced into a politically damaging change to the policy last month, two weeks after it was announced, following an admission that low-income pensioners with modest equities ­investments would lose annual franking credit refunds.

The strategic retreat to protect 300,000 pensioners and welfare recipients from the policy shaved $3bn from the $59bn that Labor claimed would be savings but which the government has ­attacked as a tax grab.

Scott Morrison said the new analysis meant that many pensioners and retirees stood to be hit twice by Labor’s plan.

“This is just another example of how shifty Bill Shorten has been over his plan to thieve the ­legitimate tax refunds of older Australians, now revealed to hit hundreds of thousands of Australians, including pensioners, through their super fund ­accounts, costing them around $3.75 billion,” the Treasurer told The Australian.

“Once again Labor’s retiree tax has been exposed as hitting pensioners and retirees on low ­incomes. This has occurred either through the further incompetence of his shadow treasurer, Chris Bowen, who has muffed this policy from day one, or Bill Shorten’s own menace in deliberately hiding the impact.”

Mr Bowen yesterday maintained that the only 10 per cent of cash refunds went to APRA funds.

“Labor was upfront when making the announcement on ­reforms to dividend imputation that 90 per cent of all cash refunds to super funds accrued to SMSFs with just 10 per cent going to APRA-regulated funds (based on 2014-15 ATP data),” he said.

“Industry Super Australia, which represents the superannuation of five million Australians, has said that Labor’s reforms ‘will have little or no impact on the super of most Australians’ and ‘super funds where most Australians have their retirement savings will be largely unaffected by this proposal because the imputation credits are exhausted offsetting tax liabilities of the fund’.

“The fundamental issue is that Australia can no longer afford to give out cash refunds — it is projected to cost the budget up to $8bn a year in the next 10 years.”

ASFA chief executive Martin Fahy said the industry was calling for a halt to any more changes to superannuation from both side of politics.

“Until legislation is drafted and the detail fully specified, we cannot be certain how many people or funds will be affected,” Mr Fahy said.

“ASFA remains concerned about possible unintended consequences of such a measure on ­retirement outcomes.

“Furthermore, we continue to call on politicians to cease tinkering with the superannuation system as it undermines confidence.”

Mr Shorten has defended the policy, claiming that the refunds are paid to a “few very wealthy people who are already very ­comfortable”.

Industry super funds, which are heavily influenced by union membership on their boards, have welcomed the policy but claim the proceeds should be ­reinvested to improve the super system.
Lookfar
18th Apr 2018
5:30pm
dear Guizer, all Australian politicians 'Test The water' with new plans, - where is your criticism of the actual acting politician Tony Abbott who wanted to spend 4 billion dollars that would help Eastern Australia's electricity situation, by 6.5%.
The cash refunds, yet another unfortunate tax rort, need to be expunged, plus all other tax rorts, all people need to share in the creation of the future Australia, not just the middle class and the poor, - as in other countries, a rich person driving along the road in his swank, foreign exchange negative vehicle, needs to be hauled out, interrogated, and required to justify why he would waste Australia's money on a purchase to drive on Australia's roads.
Possibly it is a time for the chickens to come home to roost, the Govt has a responsibility to all it's taxpayers to provide a decent standard of living with their pension, now they don't do that, most pensioners are struggling and stressed, thieving foreignors claim that the pension is Welfare; and the Liberal party, who are basically not Australian in their hearts, leap at such an excuse to take even what little we pensioners have.
80% of retired folk are on the pension, give or take, - the majority of people who have money have inherited it, and it corrupts their soul, - inheritance should be only allowed for the family home, etc. and the commercial assets awarded to the young businessman with the best case as to what he would do with those assets, - reviewed by his peers and others who have a long range view.
Than most of the worry would be gone.
OnlyGenuineRainey
18th Apr 2018
6:10pm
''Mr Shorten has defended the policy, claiming that the refunds are paid to a “few very wealthy people who are already very ­comfortable”.

Mr Shorten is telling massive lies! Very wealthy people WILL NOT be affected. It's the strugglers battling to stay self-funded who will be hit, and there will be no savings because they will be forced onto pensions. It's IDIOTIC policy conceived by an IDIOT. The ALP almost had my vote until this stupidity proved their incompetence.
Lookfar
18th Apr 2018
7:58pm
Dear Rainey, perhaps you could provide some hard proof for your asseverations, just saying doesn't make it so, although folk in amerika seem to think it does, - hmmm.
Articles in a newspaoer, the which is owned by the super rich is not enough, you need to provide proper evidence.
Cheers,
Geoff.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Apr 2018
7:14am
Geoff, I DID produce the hard evidence. Plain logic. I don't need some politically or commercially influenced newspaper propaganda to evidence what is patently obvious to any thinking person.

There have been copious articles arguing one way or the other, depending on political persuasion and personal situation. But the ultimate test is CONSISTENCY OF LAW.

If X, who earns $250,000 a year is entitled to a tax credit for the tax paid on his dividend before he received it, then it's patently dishonest, hypocritical and unfair in the extreme to say that Y whose income is only $22,000 a year and has legal tax deductions for medical expenses and work clothing, etc. is NOT entitled to a tax credit for the tax taken from a dividend from the same company.

If A, who has $5 million in superannuation, can claim a tax credit of $10,000 because he receives tens of thousands of dollars in fully franked dividends, then it's patently dishonest and hypocritical and extremely unfair to suggest that B, who - between him and his wife - have only $900,000 in a superannuation account can't claim that credit merely because their balance is lower and neither pay tax on their very small income.

And how hypocritical and unfair is it to suggest that C and his wife, who have a $4 million house and $500,000 invested in shares, and a total income - with a substantial part pension - of $60,000 a year, should be able to claim the tax credits and cash refund, because they are ''pensioners'' (therefore apparently elite!) while B, who has a $450,000 house and shares a $34,000 a year income from $900,000 in super, but gets NO PENSION or concessions is stripped of nearly 30% of that $34,000 a year income?

And it is PATENTLY HYPOCRITICAL AND UNFAIR to suggest that a couple who is saving the government $40,000 a year should be deemed to be ''rorting'' by claiming a credit for tax deducted from their income, yet the couple who is happily taking a $25,000 a year part pension is NOT rorting by claiming the same amount of refund as a cash handout, and neither the couple with $5 million in super nor the guy earning $250,000 a year are rorting by claiming a tax reduction.

Why is it ONLY THE POOR GUY STRUGGLING TO SAVE THE COUNTRY MONEY WHO IS BEING ATTACKED?

Explain YOUR logic to me, Lookfar. Don't rely on BS propaganda that is politically motivated. Shorten and his crowd can twist it all sorts of ways to persuade the unthinking majority - sadly. But it's true what they say. 95% of the population is unconscious. They rely on propaganda in their favourite newspaper or spruiked on television by their favoured politician or his preferred economist commentator instead of THINKING THROUGH THE LOGIC. Prove to me that you are not part of the 95%.

I've not quoted any newspaper article by the super rich. I've analysed the OBVIOUS FACTS that demonstrate that it's one favourable rule for the rich and another unfavourable rule for the poor. And that's not consistent with ALP policy, so every ALP voter should be telling Shorten NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Get back to what the ALP professes to believe in, or lose my support. Otherwise, they are hypocrites.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Apr 2018
7:46am
Lookfar, I wonder how many ALP supporters would cheer if Shorten announced next week that wage earners whose taxable income is low cannot claim any cash tax refund, no matter how much tax is taken from their income over the course of the year. Only those who have higher taxable incomes can claim credits for tax paid?

Worse still, what if he declared that only those who work in low-paying retail jobs won't be able to claim any cash tax refunds, but every other wage earner will still be treated as before?

That's what he's doing to people who, in retirement, rely on returns from investing in Australian companies for their livelihood. He's saying they can ONLY claim their overpaid tax back if they are wealthy enough to still pay tax even after all legal deductions and rebates are counted OR if they get their income from sources other than Australian shares.

AND he's saying the fact that a couple contributes up to $40,000 a year to the federal budget DOESN'T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. They are still ''rorters'' to want to be taxed in the same way as wealthier people and high wage earners - and even low income workers or businessmen, or people whose income comes from other types of investment.

But people who take fortnightly income from the pubic purse are NOT rorters for taking far more than the ''rorter'' who takes nothing except his small tax refund! How is that a reasonable assertion?

In other words, he's singling out JUST ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE - those who chose to retire self-funded by investing in Australian companies - to attack unfairly using an entirely different set of tax laws than those that apply to everyone else.

And by doing that, he's depriving Australian companies of investment capital that enables them to grow and employ more people, AND he's encouraging more tax evasion by companies, because franking credits that benefit their shareholders are a strong incentive to pay tax honestly.

And I'm sorry if I come across as angry towards those who support this disgracefully UNFAIR and DISHONEST attack on one select group, but it angers me that no matter how much EVIDENCE is produced, the likes of Misty and Kathleen can still do nothing more than harp about the wonderful ALP and claim they understand the policy well because somebody told them something or because THEY think the people being hurt have too much money (as if they'd know!!!!). Not ONE SINGLE WORD OF LOGIC OR DETAIL TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIM THAT IT'S FAIR, REASONABLE, OR ECONOMICALLY SOUND. NOT ONE WORD.

And, by the way, EVERY Australian who worked in this country for the past 30 or so years COULD retire self-funded. Self-funded DOES NOT MEAN WEALTHY. It merely means they chose to save and possibly to invest wisely - but just saving would have been enough for most, who could have earned 15%+ interest for several years and well over 6% for most of their working lives and who could easily have acquired a home that soared in value and could now be exchanged for a smaller and more modest dwelling. I'm not saying everyone SHOULD have done that. We paid tax to fund age pensions and we are all morally ENTITLED to them.

But who the hell claims it's fair to deprive those who are NOT claiming that entitlement a small tax refund to enable them to achieve the same income level as those who are? Anyone who does is either MEAN, NASTY AND SELFISH IN THE EXTREME or TOO DUMB AND UNCONSCIOUS to see through politically-influenced LIES.
Old Geezer
19th Apr 2018
2:33pm
OK this proposed dividend policy will cost me quite a bit of income with my current investments. However I have already worked out how to change my investments so that I get the same income as I get now or possibly more and Labor is not going to take another cent off me.

Do you really think that people with smart accountants are not going to change their investments and just cop this extra tax?

It is those who don't have the knowledge or smart accountants that will lose a substantial amount of their income and those are the people who need this extra income they get from the refund of franking credits.

If you think this is fair and it is only the privileged that will be hurt then you have got it completely wrong. The privileged will just change their investments and have a good laugh at Labor.
OnlyGenuineRainey
19th Apr 2018
6:45pm
No reply from Lookfar, Misty or Kathleen. Presented with LOGIC and FACT, they just clam up. Sad! Intelligent people either refute with FACT, or withdraw and agree to support opposition to something that is clearly shown to be unfair.
Micha
19th Apr 2018
9:18pm
Misty is too busy at the moment sending me PMs and causing a rumpus on the other forum.
Misty
20th Apr 2018
12:14am
I have nothing more to say to either of you, I am sick and tired of these YLC'S topics and being verbally abused because I do not always agree the views of certain people commenting here,
Lookfar
20th Apr 2018
9:32am
O G Rainey, I informed you I do not tolerate Shouting, in discussions, most decent websites prohibit it, but YLC has some almost illiterate ildies that don't know they are shouting, - you do not have that excuse.
Logic is not logic when it is just your point of view, I don't think you have any real proof and anyway, if Shorten has made a mistake or been poorly advised the suggestion will disappear, just like many madnesses from Tony Abott.
It seems to me you are just getting your rocks off by banging on against labour, well we shall see what you say about the Liberals and banking fraud, now that the Liberals have been caught out protecting their mates by the Banking Commission they tried to stop, then tried to misdirect, "If you are a politician, what do you do when your bad judgement – or worse – has been dramatically called out for all to see?

That’s the question which has faced the government as appalling behaviour by the Commonwealth Bank, AMP and Westpac has been revealed this week at the royal commission into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry.

Former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce went the full-monty confession. “In the past I argued against a Royal Commission into banking. I was wrong. What I have heard … so far is beyond disturbing”, he tweeted.
Lets see if Rainey is disturbed?
Old Geezer
20th Apr 2018
2:43pm
UNFORTUNATLEY OGR IS RIGHT ON THIS STUPID PROPOSAL BY NONE OTHER THAN A STUPID PARTY THAT HAS NOW DONE ITSELF ENOUGH DAMAGE TO LOSE THE NEXT ELECTION. there I AM NOW SHOUTING AT BOTH YOU LOOKFAR AND MISTY. I CNA SEE THE TEARS IN YOUR EYES FORM HERE MISTY.
Misty
20th Apr 2018
3:08pm
Yes OG tears of laughter, you are obviously in a bad mood by the look of this post. Lighten up, life is too short for this sort of anger.
Lookfar
20th Apr 2018
3:33pm
Poor OG, are your masters American? - it is so funny when you see an American in a foreign country, speaking to somone who doesn't speak English, - when they are not understood, the american speaks louder, but of course the hearer didn't understand it when it was softer, why would they understand it when it was louder, - soft gibberish and loud gibberish are still gibberish, but then the american speaks much louder again, clenches his fists, goes red, assumes a hostile posture, roars as loudly as he can, the usually much smaller Asian cringes before imminent physical attack, - but can do nothing, this seething volcano of stupidity is still speaking Gibberish


Join YOURLifeChoices, it’s free

  • Receive our daily enewsletter
  • Enter competitions
  • Comment on articles