The latest fortnightly Essential Research poll has Labor’s two-party lead at 54-46, up from 53-47 last time. Primary vote numbers will be with us later. Also featured are Essential’s monthly (I think) leadership ratings, and they find Malcolm Turnbull little changed at 41% approval (up two) and 41% disapproval (on one), but Bill Shorten improving to 37% approval (up four) and 44% disapproval (down two). Turnbull’s lead as preferred prime minister is 41-26, compared with 42-25 last time.
Other questions relate to Adani, on which 30% favour the Greens’ position, 26% favour the Coalition’s and 19% favour Labor’s, though it would be important to see the question wording on that one. Other findings related by The Guardian are that 42% support and 39% oppose company tax cuts; that regulating energy prices had 83% support, an “Accord-style partnership” 66% support and boosting Newstart 52% support; and that same-sex marriage is supported by 65% and opposed by 26%. Essential Research’s full report should be with us later in the day.
UPDATE: Full report here. Primary vote gains for the major parties at the expense of other/independent, with the Coalition up one to 36% and Labor up three to 38%, with the Greens down one to 9% and One Nation steady on 8%. The poll was conducted Thursday to Sunday from a sample of 1025.
I noticed that the 57 year old ‘retired’ bloke that 7:30 dredged from the sewer than is outer-suburban Brisbane, was using a bench saw and is therefore able bodied.
He pays no tax on his $55,000 income and claimed he would lose $17k if the Labor party’s superannuation reforms went through.
He’s only a few years older than I am, so if Chris Bowen decides that my taxes should no longer subsidise his lifestyle, then he can go get a fucking job like everyone else.
I thought as a shareholder, you were a part owner of a company. When your company makes a profit you pay 30% of that profit as tax.
The profit remaining is either paid to share holders as a dividend or company retains some or all of the profit to invest further in the business.
The shareholder now declares the dividend they recieve as part of their income and a tax assessment is made on this total income.
The money would be taxed twice unless the tax paid by the company is passed onto the investor as a credit. This credit can be used to pay the tax the investor owes the ATO.
If the investor doesn’t owe the ATO anything as their total income is under $18,200, then I would expect that they just keep the credit.
From the brief reading of what has announced today (I’ve been out all day), I am under the impression that the credit would not be given to this investor and the government keeps it.
This does seem unfair to the low income earner with shares. They are paying tax through the company they are part owners yet their total income is below the tax free threshold.
don @ #549 Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 – 9:08 pm
Mum has moved to a retirement village now and is constantly organising/marhsalling her neighbours to trendy restaurants all over the district.
Her view is that if you stay home too much you go stir fry crazy!
Cheers.
Canavan is a clear and present danger to Australian society.
Canavan is an idiot. Sadly he surived citizenshipgate and continues to represent the mining sector in the Senate instead of the people who elected him.
“But go ahead, make blithe assumptions about my circumstances and make snarky comments about how much I may or may not deserve the system to be consistent and fair.”
jackol, i think you have raised valid points and i sympathise.
However, what i hope and expect will happen is that is that when the ALP is in a position to do this, they will have other complementary measures in place that will give back value in terms of services, allowances, thresholds, to lower income earners and or people in your situation.
Uncertain, and a somewhat difficult political sell, but that would make sense to me.
I’m sure I saw Emmo at the brief snippet I saw of Bill and Bowen’s presser today. Good to see he is still in the tent. I miss him and Combet, good operators.
ATM, normally sensible posters are predicting what will happen at the next election based on the announcement today.
Lot more to happen until the election.
That is a bit like predicting the ending of a novel after only reading the first chapte
As least it will be hard to describe Bill Shorten as ” wibbly wobbly ” and standing for nothing after today.
Cheers
Very good policy release today by labor btw. Clever, sensible and right. If Saul Eslake and Keating are supportive that’ll do me.
Kevin Rudd still whinging that he’s politically irrelevant.
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/973403274693890049
Ballsy Bill
Observer
Are you saying it’s better to put your super in Zurich, Black Rock instead of in an Industry super fund you don’t have to pay fees on eg Australian Super?
Absence of Empathy says:
He is younger than me so plus bloody 100 .
Ok, so next point
The SMSF are saying that this measure will reduce the income of their constituency
This I do not understand
Simply, income is a legislated percentage with the minimum legislated percentage being 5% at my age
So, on $1 Million the Allocated Pension legislated to be taken as a minimum is $50,000- PA, regardless of the performance of the funds under management
So can someone acquaint me with why the SMSF industry is saying what they are saying, and this measure will reduce the Allocated Pension income for the demographic they resoesent – exclusively?
Doyley
You are right.
Labor went to the last election with a policy to reform the tax treatment of real estate investments.
Some believed it was electoral suicide. It wasn’t.
The same people will be firing up over today’s announcement.
Good on Bill for refusing to go small target.
imacca – thanks. I don’t mean to sound so whiney. I understand there will necessarily be losers out of tax reform etc.
As I said earlier I was posting my circumstances and thoughts more to provide some context as to why the ‘wealthy investors’ spin was not necessarily entirely accurate.
And as I also have said a few times today, the real problem is surely that there is a largish population of quite wealthy people who are managing to get their taxable income down to the point that they actually see this refund … and surely it is these deductions etc (and, yes, probably a lot of it is the rise of SMSFs – of which I have no part in – and the other Howard-era borking of the superannuation rules).
But if these are the actual problems, then fix the actual problems!
Henry
Vote 1 Combet.
Dio
Geographically you might be wanting to think Caymans, Cypress, Panama…
There is a vast amount of DNA in that amazing poo. /i>
Don’t spoil my joke Don.
Shit stirrer.
Observer
I guessed they meant income of the fund may be down. And if you want to die a zillionaire the last thing you want is reduced income in the fund.
No
I am saying that the likes of Zurich, Vanguard, UBS, Schroder et al, to me at least, are far better options than funds under the ownership of Australian banks from data available to me and dating back 25 years
I have no exposure to Industry Funds so can not comment on their performance – or fee structures
Rudd really needs to disappear off to a UN sinecure somewhere and stfu.
BW
Evidently I don’t earn nearly enough to make the Caymans etc worthwhile.
Frankly if any party wants to spend their capital on anything, I’d prefer it to be on international companies avoiding tax or off-shore tax havens rather than self-funded super retirees.
don says:
Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:00 pm
…
Not so.
If the market goes up, and your shares get the same percentage dividend, you get extra in your dividend ‘cheque’.
———————————————–
Don as far as I am aware dividends are normally paid as x.xx per share not as a percentage of the share price. While the dividend earning are often expressed as earning x%, so yields can be compared, the actual dividend received is determined by the number of shares not the share price.
In the your example the dividend cheque would stay the same but the % yield would go down.
Keating signs off on today’s announcement!
http://www.afr.com/news/paul-keating-backs-labor-over-dividend-imputation-wind-back-20180312-h0xdl7
Observer: ‘So, on $1 Million the Allocated Pension legislated to be taken as a minimum is $50,000- PA, regardless of the performance of the funds under management’
If your fund earned 15% during that year, your $1m would then be $1.1m at the end of the year.
Your pension would therefore increase to $52,000 the following year.
Sorry that should be $55,000 the next year.
Jackol:
Like imacca I empathise with your situation. It sounds like this policy change will make a substantial difference to your way of life if it proceeds, and the knock-on effects that has will be very difficult for you.
I’m of the view that the country needs to start winding back the indulgent and unnecessary tax offsets that were generated during the Howard years because the coalition had no idea how to manage the mining boom. But the flipside is there are always people whose circumstances mean they fall through the cracks and become unintended consequences as it were.
I don’t know what the answer is, and can only defer to the experts.
Henry:
Nobody will give him a job, hence he’s constantly hanging around like a bad smell.
WB is out and about on Twitter selling his wares. So, if you have not ponied up recently, do so now!
Greensborough Growler (AnonBlock)
Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 – 9:06 pm
Comment #545
sprocket_ @ #544 Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 – 9:04 pm
Fargo, I agree. Labor will be lucky to win any seats after this dividend imputation policy.
I’m happy to take any bet of any quantity on that prognostication!
After GG I will line up for some of that as well.
Rossmcg
Historic performance is no guarantee of future performance
Hey?
So everyone is in the same boat
Perhaps we should be able to claim from government cash payments to cover any deficient market performance and impact on the quantum of funds we have in Superannuation – with no means testing of course!!!
Fascinating panel discussion just now on ‘Matter of Fact’, with Stan Grant and Russian experts, on Putin.
‘Diogenes says:
Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:27 pm
BW
Evidently I don’t earn nearly enough to make the Caymans etc worthwhile.
Frankly if any party wants to spend their capital on anything, I’d prefer it to be on international companies avoiding tax or off-shore tax havens rather than self-funded super retirees.’
I don’t mind progressive taxation principles being applied to SMSF retirees like myself.
The tax department does not mind deeming various incomes.
I reckon that that the deeming principle should be applied to the multi nationals.
C@t:
Channel?
C@tmomma
Let me guess, Putin is totes EVERYWHERE.
Confessions – thanks. Again, as I said earlier today, my situation is not terrible, I’ll do ok regardless. This measure, if it gets up as proposed, will impact, but I’ll just try to adapt and be a bit more frugal. Many people live in much worse conditions than I do, and fundamentally I am constantly grateful that I have found a stable lifestyle (as frugal as it is) that I can sustain for the foreseeable future. I have made various choices in my life, and those choices have consequences that I have to live with, and I’m not going to hold anyone else responsible for that.
I would be immensely happier if I thought it was actually good, fair, policy though. Interestingly Bowen didn’t even really try to defend the measure on fairness grounds – his rationale was primarily about “we could afford this in 2000, but we can’t now”.
Good night all. Good day for it! 54/46. The Shorten/Bowen team coming up Trumps. heh heh.
Toby Esterhase @ #483 Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 – 6:25 pm
They obviously were not listening when Joe told them it was the end of the age of entitlement.
Cuts to overtime, no pay rises, increasing casualisation and job insecurity, introduction of paid internships, crippling housing costs, cuts to education and training and health and childcare and…
Just no end to the greed of those damn workers.
kevjohnno says:
Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:27 pm
don says:
Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 9:00 pm
…
Not so.
If the market goes up, and your shares get the same percentage dividend, you get extra in your dividend ‘cheque’.
———————————————–
Don as far as I am aware dividends are normally paid as x.xx per share not as a percentage of the share price. While the dividend earning are often expressed as earning x%, so yields can be compared, the actual dividend received is determined by the number of shares not the share price.
In the your example the dividend cheque would stay the same but the % yield would go down.
_____________________-
Don as far as I am aware dividends are normally paid as x.xx per share not as a percentage of the share price.
Sure, but over time the dividend is related to the share price.
In the case you put forward, all else being equal, if the dividends go down as a percentage of the share price, the share price would go down again, as the market saw the yield % being less.
In general, the top reliable stocks (e.g. the Australian banks) maintain a pretty standard % yield. If the value of the shares go up, so do the dividends.
If one particular bank has a poor % yield, the share price will inevitably go down
as the market reacts to that – and the dividend (if it were to be a standard $x.xx per share) then becomes a better % of the share price for new investors.
Tough luck on those who bought high, but them’s the breaks.
Though if you bought MQG.AX last September, you’re laughing.
Boerwar @ #587 Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 – 9:39 pm
Good night.
Maybe you can tell us what you think of the Greens tomorrow. I’m a little unclear!
PeeBee @ #552 Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 – 9:12 pm
This is quite a turn around from the normal bleats one reads on PB about companies committing the great sin of making a PROFIT and then shareholders living high on the hog on their DIVIDENDS!
Now all the concerns seem to be for the poor companies paying tax and then their shareholders also having tax liabilities on dividends to which can be applied the tax credits for the tax already paid by the company, provided the shareholder is actually paying tax.
Can’t please all the people all the time.
As with many things, the devil will be in the detail and I will wait until I can read the full proposal.
I would not be surprised if something is done to assist those like Jackol who have no other income and no tax liability that will benefit from tax credits. But that will be a small minority and the real targets will be hit.
Observer
Morrison could probably come up with a plan to ensure no SMSF ever had a losing year.
He seems to have plenty of either ideas to protect the wealth of his constituency.
Greensborough Growler @ #559 Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 – 9:17 pm
Funny, I didn’t see that at all, just comments on a serious issue.
Trump needs to stop his own country from blowing up!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-blast/police-link-two-deadly-package-bombs-in-austin-texas-to-earlier-attack-idUSKCN1GO1YX
bemused @ #593 Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 – 9:49 pm
Well, peculiar is you!
Henry @ #571 Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 – 9:27 pm
Have a good cry Henry.
Good to see a healthy debate on the merits are dubious counterarguments against Shortens super reform idea. And it is. Only the wealthy and those abusing a legal but unethical tax avoidance double-dip stand to lose so, too bad. The measure will generate more than enough revenue to assist those caused genuine hardship.
Jackol:
Fair enough.
Socrates @ #594 Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 – 6:54 pm
Except in his own words, Jackol is not super wealthy or double dipping. But happens to be a victim of unintended consequences.
Socrates –
How is it unethical, exactly?