Australian Politics Forum - Show us the alternatives says Morrison

Kat

Gold Member

Offline

Socialism IS the answer.

Posts: 17709
Everywhere and no-where
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #15 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:16pm

mariacostel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 11:56am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

It's called negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts !!

Now repeat after me Mr Morrison.

"Negative Gearing"

And say it one more time:-

"Negative Gearing"

You have only one string in your bow.

And you are boring and your opinions worthless because of it.

He doesn't, he's not, and they aren't.

Whereas YOU... well, to put a fine point on it, I've heard exactly the same
crap non-rebuttal from a certain other poster.

And no, he didn't have a clue, either.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30100
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #16 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:20pm

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:43am:

Why negative gearing on property sucks

Opponents of negative gearing argue that:

Quote:

It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion.

Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers.

In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties.

It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market.

Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes.

Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs.

A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing

Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions.

The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place.

The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed.

One day Naily will get it.

Then offset the interest payments from the rental income and then carry forward the net losses when the property is sold and not before hand !! The losses should be quarantined from any other source of income !!

Maybe one day you will get it if you take off your rose colored glasses Wink

If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders.

No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance.

So you agree that losses on an investment property should be carried forward and not written off against the unrelated income from a day job ? I knew you would see my point Wink

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #17 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:26pm

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders.

No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance.

Are you advocating that all businesses be brought under the same umbrella for taxation etc? Not such a bad idea. What we are discussing here is people who are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets and cashflows and potential profits every year.... why are they NOT incorporated or held to the same business standard?

What is so special about serial house ownership that it should have beneficial capital gains, when the entire purpose of it is to generate profit?

No, I don't advocate incorporation for all business. Just pointing out the folly of Nail's proposition. There are pros and cons to both and the owner will adopt the most suitable.

Nail's proposal changes nothing in terms of tax revenue. The carried forward losses being subtracted from income long after a profit is turned until one cancels the other. Only the timing of the tax collection changes. Try again.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #18 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:30pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:43am:

Why negative gearing on property sucks

Opponents of negative gearing argue that:

Quote:

It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion.

Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers.

In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties.

It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market.

Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes.

Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs.

A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing

Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions.

The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place.

The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed.

One day Naily will get it.

Then offset the interest payments from the rental income and then carry forward the net losses when the property is sold and not before hand !! The losses should be quarantined from any other source of income !!

Maybe one day you will get it if you take off your rose colored glasses Wink

If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders.

No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance.

So you agree that losses on an investment property should be carried forward and not written off against the unrelated income from a day job ? I knew you would see my point Wink

Only if they choose to conduct their operations as a corporation. It's like that anyway right now and always was. Sole traders have always had their incomes assessed on total revenues regardless of the source. The leveraging rules were only changed when CGT was first introduced.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85220
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #19 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 3:10pm

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:26pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders.

No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance.

Are you advocating that all businesses be brought under the same umbrella for taxation etc? Not such a bad idea. What we are discussing here is people who are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets and cashflows and potential profits every year.... why are they NOT incorporated or held to the same business standard?

What is so special about serial house ownership that it should have beneficial capital gains, when the entire purpose of it is to generate profit?

No, I don't advocate incorporation for all business. Just pointing out the folly of Nail's proposition. There are pros and cons to both and the owner will adopt the most suitable.

Nail's proposal changes nothing in terms of tax revenue. The carried forward losses being subtracted from income long after a profit is turned until one cancels the other. Only the timing of the tax collection changes. Try again.

So - timing of tax collection - which is the most important? Laying off until sale time for collection (and then taking a reduced tax cut, BTW) or garnering tax revenue now at a time when it is most needed... and taking it in full?

I humbly submit that these are alternatives that Morrison should be discussing in public so we can all get a glimpse of what may be - thing is - these are never discussed because they are simply not on the table, for the simple reason that politicians are getting too much benefit out of it right now AND at future sale time.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #20 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 3:41pm

It would seem that we the voters, regardless of our affiliations political, are all able to identify at least some alternatives Mr Morrison.

Perhaps then, the first best one would be a pay cut for you, given your failure to identify them effectively, which is after all YOUR FREAKIN JOB.

Clear proof, we do not get what we pay for.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

21st Century Dialup Network Senior Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 399 Brisbane Gender:	Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison Reply #21 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 3:46pm Negative Gearing, Super Tax Concessions, Diesel Rebate, Private Health Insurance Rebates to name a few.
Back to top	Good Government V 305???? IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30100
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #22 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 3:51pm

Phemanderac wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 3:41pm:

It would seem that we the voters, regardless of our affiliations political, are all able to identify at least some alternatives Mr Morrison.

Perhaps then, the first best one would be a pay cut for you, given your failure to identify them effectively, which is after all YOUR FREAKIN JOB.

Clear proof, we do not get what we pay for.

Morrison is a c.nt. He thinks that hoarding property is more important than an individual's health Sad

I'll definitely be voting greens because they are willing to actually do something about the negative gearing tax rorts.

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30100
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #23 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 3:54pm

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 3:10pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:26pm:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:10pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders.

No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance.

Are you advocating that all businesses be brought under the same umbrella for taxation etc? Not such a bad idea. What we are discussing here is people who are dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets and cashflows and potential profits every year.... why are they NOT incorporated or held to the same business standard?

What is so special about serial house ownership that it should have beneficial capital gains, when the entire purpose of it is to generate profit?

No, I don't advocate incorporation for all business. Just pointing out the folly of Nail's proposition. There are pros and cons to both and the owner will adopt the most suitable.

Nail's proposal changes nothing in terms of tax revenue. The carried forward losses being subtracted from income long after a profit is turned until one cancels the other. Only the timing of the tax collection changes. Try again.

So - timing of tax collection - which is the most important? Laying off until sale time for collection (and then taking a reduced tax cut, BTW) or garnering tax revenue now at a time when it is most needed... and taking it in full?

I humbly submit that these are alternatives that Morrison should be discussing in public so we can all get a glimpse of what may be - thing is - these are never discussed because they are simply not on the table, for the simple reason that politicians are getting too much benefit out of it right now AND at future sale time.

NG is a forbidden topic among most reporters. Even Leigh Sales wouldn't talk about it on the 7:30 report last night when it is such an obvious question to ask in this debate.

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30100
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #24 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:00pm

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:30pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:43am:

Why negative gearing on property sucks

Opponents of negative gearing argue that:

Quote:

It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion.

Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers.

In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties.

It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market.

Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes.

Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs.

A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing

Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions.

The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place.

The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed.

One day Naily will get it.

Then offset the interest payments from the rental income and then carry forward the net losses when the property is sold and not before hand !! The losses should be quarantined from any other source of income !!

Maybe one day you will get it if you take off your rose colored glasses Wink

If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders.

No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance.

So you agree that losses on an investment property should be carried forward and not written off against the unrelated income from a day job ? I knew you would see my point Wink

Only if they choose to conduct their operations as a corporation. It's like that anyway right now and always was. Sole traders have always had their incomes assessed on total revenues regardless of the source. The leveraging rules were only changed when CGT was first introduced.

You're just trying to obfuscate the issue. Everyone knows it's a scam except the people who take advantage of it which is probably yourself and most of the polies.

CGT applies to shares as well but no-one in their right mind would negatively gear a share on margin because there is a huge likely hood that losses could mount up very quickly. Not only that the underlying company usually aims to be productive as a business whereas property is a totally unproductive asset with an almost guaranteed capital gain.

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #25 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:31pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:00pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:30pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 1:59pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 8:43am:

Why negative gearing on property sucks

Opponents of negative gearing argue that:

Quote:

It encourages over-investment in residential property, an essentially "unproductive" asset, which is an economic distortion.

Investors inflate the residential property market, making it less affordable for first home buyers or other owner-occupiers.

In Australia in 2007, nine out of ten negatively geared properties were existing dwellings, so the creation of rental supply comes almost entirely at the expense of displacing potential owner-occupiers. Thus, if negative gearing is to exist, it should only be applied to newly constructed properties.

It encourages speculators into the property market, inflating for instance the Australian property bubble that began in the mid-1990s, partly the result of increased availability of credit that occurred following the entry of non-bank lenders into the Australian mortgage market.

Tax deductions and overall benefits accrue to those who already have high incomes. This will make the rich investors even richer and the poorer population even poorer, possibly creating and prolonging a social divide between socioeconomic classes.

Tax deductions reduce government revenue by a significant amount each year, which either represents non-investors subsidising investors, or makes the government less able to provide other programs.

A negatively geared property never generates net income, so losses should not be deductible. Deductibility of business losses when there is a reasonable expectation of gaining income is a well-accepted principle, but the argument against negative gearing is that it will never generate income. Opponents of full deductibility would presumably at least allow losses to be capitalised into the investor's cost base.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_gearing

Sorry Naily, you'll have to do better than pluck a wiki excerpt. There are a number of errors in their assumptions.

The taxation revenue angle has already been fully explained to you in another thread. Ignore it if you wish but it doesn't make it so. Attempting to deflect the argument with the preposterous claim that the CGT is absent if the property is not sold ignores the obvious situation that the absence of capital gain and an absence of rental income is not a viable investment in the first place.

The excerpt gives no consideration to the excess burden created by withdrawal of the tax benefit in that the income stream of the lender is also extinguished and therefore their taxable component vanishes as well. Net result is precisely zero. Swings and roundabouts indeed.

One day Naily will get it.

Then offset the interest payments from the rental income and then carry forward the net losses when the property is sold and not before hand !! The losses should be quarantined from any other source of income !!

Maybe one day you will get it if you take off your rose colored glasses Wink

If they were incorporated that would indeed be the rule. It has never been the case for unincorporated entities and sole traders.

No coloured glasses here. I already get it. You simply have no clue regarding public finance.

So you agree that losses on an investment property should be carried forward and not written off against the unrelated income from a day job ? I knew you would see my point Wink

Only if they choose to conduct their operations as a corporation. It's like that anyway right now and always was. Sole traders have always had their incomes assessed on total revenues regardless of the source. The leveraging rules were only changed when CGT was first introduced.

You're just trying to obfuscate the issue. Everyone knows it's a scam except the people who take advantage of it which is probably yourself and most of the polies.

CGT applies to shares as well but no-one in their right mind would negatively gear a share on margin because there is a huge likely hood that losses could mount up very quickly. Not only that the underlying company usually aims to be productive as a business whereas property is a totally unproductive asset with an almost guaranteed capital gain.

You're the one obfuscating. You claim that there is forgone tax. Except for the CGT concession it is demonstrably untrue and you know it. The problem is the CGT concession not NG.

There will be many share portfolios that are concerned only with the capital gain without any consideration to the dividends.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #26 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:48pm

John Smith wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

Show us the alternatives says Morrison

gee ... where to start Cheesy

- cut corporate subsidies
- cut / change the capital gains tax and negative gearing rules (not abolish)
- abolish superannuation subsidies
- cut subsidies to private health
- cut subsidies to private education

that'll do for a start .... plenty more where they come from

Basically a list of benefits you dont receive. How about we cut all child care subsidies and all Family Benefits? I bet you dont like that because... yep, you get those.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75097
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #27 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 5:59pm

mariacostel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

Show us the alternatives says Morrison

gee ... where to start Cheesy

- cut corporate subsidies
- cut / change the capital gains tax and negative gearing rules (not abolish)
- abolish superannuation subsidies
- cut subsidies to private health
- cut subsidies to private education

that'll do for a start .... plenty more where they come from

Basically a list of benefits you dont receive. How about we cut all child care subsidies and all Family Benefits? I bet you dont like that because... yep, you get those.

still making crap up aren't you? Grin

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30100
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #28 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 7:25pm

crocodile wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:31pm:

You're the one obfuscating. You claim that there is forgone tax. Except for the CGT concession it is demonstrably untrue and you know it. The problem is the CGT concession not NG.

There will be many share portfolios that are concerned only with the capital gain without any consideration to the dividends.

No I'm not. Tax on any business profits are a fact of life so I don't see why CGT is the issue when CGT applies to shares as well. Nobody is complaining about CGT on shares and expect the government to change the rules.

What you are advocating is that other tax payers underwrite the risk in your investment properties whilst you benefit from the capital gains when you sell it.

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

stunspore

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5097
Gender: male

Re: Show us the alternatives says Morrison
Reply #29 - Dec 16^th, 2015 at 7:42pm

mariacostel wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 4:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 16^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

Show us the alternatives says Morrison

gee ... where to start Cheesy

- cut corporate subsidies
- cut / change the capital gains tax and negative gearing rules (not abolish)
- abolish superannuation subsidies
- cut subsidies to private health
- cut subsidies to private education

that'll do for a start .... plenty more where they come from

Basically a list of benefits you dont receive. How about we cut all child care subsidies and all Family Benefits? I bet you dont like that because... yep, you get those.

Sure, why not? Single and paying taxes.

Back to top

IP Logged