Victorian MLC Moira Deeming: the pretty face of…

“I can’t wait until I’m legally able to hunt you down.” This curse…

Science & Technology Australia welcomes National Reconstruction Fund

Science & Technology Australia Media Release The nation’s peak body representing 115,000 Australian…

Calculated Exoneration: Command Responsibility and War Crimes in…

Being the scapegoat of tribal lore cast out with the heavy weight…

The Voice: Remember When The Liberals Were Still…

At the moment we're witnessing the Liberal Party at their absurd best.…

Nazis on our streets: don't judge protesters by…

On some level, it is straightforward for a Neo-Nazi protest to be…

Whither Constitutional Change?

Within a very short space of time, we are going to be…

A Hazardous Decision: Supplying Ukraine with Depleted Uranium…

Should they be taking them? Ukraine is desperate for any bit of…

Murdoch's Zero Sum games: divisive propaganda meant to…

The Murdoch media drives resentment with propaganda as constant as drums of…


Tax Is Bad, Welfare Is Bad; However, Shorten Threatening My Cheque From The Government Is Worst Of All!

Article from the Australian excerpt…“Earlier this year Mr Shorten unveiled his franking credits policy to claw back nearly $60bn over 10 years by abolishing cash refunds for excess dividend imputation credits.

“Modelling from the listed investment companies sent to the ALP this week argues it would increase the tax burden on individuals with low marginal tax rates and those who do not access a government pension. Depending on an individual’s income level and mix, the policy may reduce a low-income earner’s after-tax income by up to 30 per cent.

“Its analysis claims taxpayers earning less than $65,000 who are likely to be financially worse off include 18-65-year-olds running their own business, single parents, non-working spouses and self-funded retirees.” (emphasis added)

So, they’re at it again!

Labor seem to want to take money from people who have gone to enormous lengths to reduce their taxable income to a point where they’re classified as our low income earners.

How terrible!

I mean, surely someone who’s only earning a taxable income of $19,000 a year should be entitled to franking credits from the million dollars worth of shares they own. And non-working spouses, who somehow – in spite of their workless state – have managed to accumulate a large share portfolio from which they receive a refund from the government for the tax that the company paid on their behalf. They shouldn’t be taxed on this income twice… Or given that the tax already paid is being returned, it seems that they shouldn’t be taxed once, because, after all, they’re not working, and unlike the unemployed, they’re not lazy because they have share portfolio…

This is the negative gearing argument all over again. As Scott Morrison pointed out, some of those who were negative gearing weren’t high income earners. In fact, some of the people with 49 negatively geared properties were only earning a pitiful income. Although when $40 a day is enough to live on, their pitiful income was relative, but it was the sort of pitiful income that a teacher or a nurse would earn, and therefore we should be outraged that Labor would seek to take away the very means that allows them to reduce their taxable income from the gross of a million or so, down to the seventy or eighty thousand that makes us all pity them…

Unless we’re on $40 a day, in which case we can be dismissed as try to start class warfare or politics of envy or something like that.


I sometimes find the arguments a bit hard to follow.

Like when our PM went on “The Project” to tell us that the people smugglers had control of our borders when Labor was in power, which makes me wonder why we were bothering to pay people in the coast guard and customs areas.

The PM had a good result in Newspoll today. I know this because “The Australian” had a headline about Turnbull leaving Shorten for dead. My immediate thought was that this just proves the man lacks compassion and empathy if he’d just leave somebody like that. However, it was in relation to the poll where it showed that he was still preferred PM, even though Labor were still in front on a two party prefered. I mean, the two party prefered thing doesn’t count really, does it? As most sports people would say, I’d rather give up any of my premierships so long as I got the highest honour…

Ok, maybe sports people wouldn’t say that, but I’m sure that Malcolm would if he had the talent to succeed at anything apart from be obsequious to the conservatives in the Liberal Party.

And when it comes to that, he’s worth every penny of the income he doesn’t receive because it goes into a private charity. From there it goes to that place called None Of Business, It’s A Private Charity, but some went to hospital once…

Oh, and didn’t we all see the photo of Mr Turnbull putting a fiver into that homeless man’s cup? Probably what was left over from the fund after overheads. And slinging that guy was so much easier than actually doing something about homelessness, which would have resulted in lots of bureaucracy and red tape.


 280 total views,  2 views today


Login here Register here
  1. Egalitarian

    Great piece Ross with a dash of humour .Greed indifference and the self interest cancer seems to define many.

  2. Kyran

    Is it just me or does anyone else see a similarity between Scummo and Mr Magoo?
    “Mr. Magoo is a wealthy, short-statured retiree who gets into a series of comical situations as a result of his extreme near-sightedness, compounded by his stubborn refusal to admit the problem. However, through uncanny streaks of luck, the situation always seems to work itself out for him, leaving him no worse than before.
    Affected people (or animals) consequently tend to think that he is a lunatic, rather than just being nearsighted.”
    From this morning’s news we learn that salaried employee’s have had a payrise of 12.4% and we already know the corporations have had a 21% growth in profits.

    Domino’s boss gets a salary package of $37mill and his employees have to go through FWA just to get some of their ‘entitlements’. The Lowy’s have, in addition to their salary package, a ‘dividend’ from their sale of the business. Any unfortunate trying to renegotiate their lease with Westfield has their rent tied to their profits. At least Macquarie group redistribute their earnings to many directors (it ain’t called the millionaire factory for nothing), but still manage to rip off substantial amounts from those unfortunate enough to do business with them. Ramsay Health Care, hmm, why does that name ring a bell? Something about a medical insurer getting enormous concessions from the government whilst making exorbitant contributions to political parties. James Hardie Industries can pay their executives but that nasty compensation fund for those effected by their toxic produce is an unsustainable entry on their balance sheet. Seek, another Aussie battler company, allowing the unemployed full and unfettered access to ‘aspiration’, with no prospect of attaching a means to pay for their aspiration (NB Aspiration is notoriously difficult as a means to provide food or pay bills). Amcor denied price fixing and collusion (How you doing, Mr Pratt?) then paid their part of the $36mill fine. Then there’s dear old Qantas, a staple in the diet of the tax and inequity discussions, which has famously engineered a ten year tax hiatus yet continuously gets dragged out by Mr Magoo to support his ridiculous arguments (except marriage equality). To round out the top ten salaries, we have another two health insurers – refer above.
    That near sighted git, Scummo Magoo, can’t see the difference between the salaries of these folks and those actually earning $60k, let alone $80k or $100k.
    Ah well. At least all of the companies in that top ten salary index issue dividends, which is also funny, given how many of them pay dividends on profits yet don’t make enough money to pay tax.
    Nah, Mr Brisbane, nothing to see here, move along. As long as Magoo is directing traffic, nothing can go wrong, right?
    Take care

  3. Kaye Lee

    Scomo will have a graph showing how much tax the top 10% pay compared to the bottom 10%. Strangely, we never see graphs comparing their gross incomes (before deduction magic).

  4. StephenGB

    I had a chap complain to me that he was having to pay 40% of his income in tax.

    My retort was that I wished I was paying 40% of my income in tax, he didn’t get it ?

    Can some mathematical genious work out how much he might be earning, with and without the legal tax avoidance schemes open to him?

    S G B (Yes you guessed, I am not a mathematical genious)

  5. Rossleigh

    Mm, neither is he.
    Our top tax rate is 37c in the dollar, and even allowing for the Medicare level that would only make it a maximum of 39%. This, of course, ignores the fact that the first $87,000 is taxed at a lower rate.

  6. Alpo

    “I mean, surely someone who’s only earning a taxable income of $19,000 a year should be entitled to franking credits from the million dollars worth of shares they own.”

    … Touche!…. The Neoliberal scam is getting closer to be finally dismantled… Change is coming…. Social Democracy will transform this country for the better, finally!…. The Australian Labor Party may be transformative even at the international level. There you have the EU still confused on how to address their very many problems; still hanging onto the bankrupt Neoliberalism, not understanding the raise of the far-right and Neofascism, unsure what to do, where to go. The bloody idiots invented Social Democracy, then they corrupted it since the 1980s with Neoliberalism, and now don’t know how to detox it and recover its health in order to offer a productive, fair and sustainable Social Democratic future to their People. My dear Europeans (and Americans), watch the Australian Labor party (and the NZ Labour party) in Government and you will see how we, downunder, can teach you how to build a Social Democratic society, where everybody has a future, everybody is relevant, everybody counts!

  7. Alpo

    “Scomo will have a graph showing how much tax the top 10% pay compared to the bottom 10%. Strangely, we never see graphs comparing their gross incomes (before deduction magic).”…

    Yep, perfectly correct, Kaye!… and on top of that, we are never asked to think how much more the top 1% of the income distribution could pay in taxes beyond the current nominal maximum of “$54,097 plus 45 cents for each dollar over $180,000″…. If you earn $190,000 p.a. the current rate is fair, but if you earn $10,000,000, is it still fair? Imagine that such person is asked to pay $3,000,000 (using a Buffett Rule approach) plus 50 cents for each dollar above $3 M. That person would contribute $6.5 M in taxes and be left with a very comfortable $3.5 M per year to “make ends meet”… that’s $291,666 per month, $72,916 per week, $10,416 per day, $434 per hour, $7.2 per minute!!!

  8. Wun Farlung

    He’s probably means 39% including the Medicare levy $87000 to $180 000 or 47% with Medicare levy over $180 000
    You retort is correct, the poor bugger isn’t the brightest bulb in the box.
    I have happily been in the 39% cohort for years and would be even more happy to go into the 47% bracket. I don’t think I need a tax reduction

  9. Kaye Lee

    Someone on taxable income of $180,000 pays $54,097 in tax. That is an effective rate of 30%.

    Someone on $500,000 pays $198,097 in tax. That is an effective rate of 39.6%

    (This does not include the medicare levy)

    Your friend must have a taxable income of over half a million to be paying 40% of it in tax.

  10. Josephus

    Two relevant publications:
    1. Book: A Game as old as Empire: The secret world of economic hit men (sic) and the web of global corruption, Ed. Steven Hiatt, Woodslane Press, 2007
    2. Pamphlet: The Rise and Failure of the radical Right, The Origins of Australia’s political disarray, Geoff Davies, Better Nature ebook, 2017.

  11. Stephengb

    Thank you folks, It is good to be acquainted with you via AIMN.

    S G B

  12. New England Cocky

    Uhm … Kaye Lee … anyone earning $500,000 per year AND PAYING $198,097 TAX OBVIOUSLY has the wrong accountant.

  13. Kaye Lee

    I did say taxable income. Actual income could be anything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: