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.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/15/south-africa-criticises-australian-plan-to-fast-track-white-farmer-visas
Not sure if posted but I think deserved
Hayne to witness. “Why does CBA need to ensure the mortgage broking industry remains viable?”
Ouch!
Bushfire Bill @ #1671 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 4:40 am
I think I’ve found the source of such thinking!
You know the rest! 🙂
Isn’t Labor’s proposal about investment in Australian shares only? It is here where dividend imputation applies, and that has been all the commentary. If so, people will take their money out and put in overseas shares, probably a wiser option in any case.
ASX goes down, and Labor gets nothing.
Gee, who would have thunk it, the Greens have gone and positioned themselves to attack Labor on Credits cash backs.
G
The Greens are going to prevent something that Labor wants to get up.
Really?
Shock. Horror.
daretotread. @ #1689 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 9:06 am
Cassandra’ predictions were true but was never believed.
You are half way there.
J341983 @ #1791 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:22 am
Those two issues really crueled Howard’s popularity among the Battlers’.
More smart politics from Labor. Learn from history.
If you want to know what Dutton is about, substitute ‘Rohingya’ for ‘South African Farmers’.
The slimey bastard is deliberately stirring up sectarian and racist hatred.
Ratsak ‘Labor need to simplify the argument to – “the credits are to ensure the company profits aren’t taxed twice, not to allow them be not taxed at all’
But some people shouldn’t pay tax!
This policy hits these people, by saying you must pay some tax and therefore Don’t give them the benefit of the credit.
Strangely, people who should pay tax get the credit to pay their liability, they are better off. The poorer people are worse off.
This is unfair.
PeeBee @ #1798 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:26 am
BB’s friend might not be alone, but I don’t think she has that much company among Labor voters.
The people we have not heard from yet are ordinary wage and salary earners who form the bulk of the taxpaying population who either get no benefit from tax imputation or who fully utilise it to offset the tax payable on their dividends or other earned income.
BW
Shock horror the Greens are saying Labor is going to win the next federal election.
ratsak @ #1805 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:30 am
Cynically, this is aimed at Liberal voters in Batman, as well as wealthy Inner City Elites who vote Green. Same same.
According to Trump the next war will be Star Wars.
The result of watching too much TV and not enough reality.
Boer war
Imagine how much good the Greens will do if they get the seat of Batman, which is a very real possiblity. Sigh……
J341983 @ #1766 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 9:06 am
a) Only a moron would believe that Russia (government not rogue elements) would use nerve gas to knock of a defector. Honestly what a batshit bonkers idea and anyone who believes it is a moron. Yes I do intend to say that. Only a total blithering idiot would believe such guff. Especially with the world cup round the corner.
No great country is ever blameless and I a sure that Russia like the USA and the UK and France etc get up to no good and assassinate people. However mostly they do so competently. They do not use nerve gas in a public place. Jeepers they would use some US sourced nerve gas or poison or weapon. Easy peasy for a government to have such stuff available. No need to defend Russia on this one. The act was so stupid that they are obviously blameless. Had he had a car accident, a home invasion that went wrong or the common or garden “suicide” I might believe the Russians involved. But this barmy idea. Truly it is PR designed for the readers of the Daily Express. Big Brother, Celebrity Chef or MKR stuff. Low level PR for the uneducated. If the cap fits you or other readers here then wear it.
b) I am stunned that anyone could post such a stupid statement. Now let us for a moment assume that it was true or perhaps that there was clear evidence that the Russians had taken out a British asset of some kind then yes there needs to be a response BUT that response must be measured in the light of possible Russian reaction. That of course includes nukes. This is so obvious that only a child or a fanatic could not see it.
Now it is conceivable that the UK might consider the offence so egregious that they will risk war, even a nuclear war. Well that is a judgment the British government has a right to make although a touch of public consultation may be warranted.
HOWEVER if anyone in any government blithely takes diplomatic moves without thinking through the consequences, then they are irresponsible fools and are playing with the lives of millions. Perhaps the UK has confidence in its own intelligence services such that they can confidently call the Russian bluff. If so history will show them as wise rulers. If not they will be rightly condemned as blind irrational fools, by the stone age people left on earth who etch the sad story of civilization’s death in the walls of their cave dwellings.
BB
If she has another Northern Beaches unit she wants to sell for say 20 × the loss of $15,000 I’d be happy to buy it.
C@t
Yep. It is aimed at their voters in Batman.
Re the latest Labor tax proposal.
So far, running with a big target strategy re tax policy seems to have gone ok for them, but I reckon this is clearly looking like a bridge too far.
I note all the harsh comments on here and in other forums along the lines of “boo hoo, why should I have any sympathy for people who have $2 million in savings, etc?” But, thanks to a series of changes successively instituted by Rudd and now Turnbull, the whole structure of taxation rules affecting self-funded retirees – other than those fortunate enough to be already drawing a large, entirely tax-free pension from a defined benefit scheme – is a mess and requires a structured review. (And I trust that none of the posters who are going “boo hoo” about the case studies presented in the Fairfax media today are on tax free defined benefit super incomes of $100k plus: which would have an actuarial asset value of $3 million or more. Because, if they are, then they’re complete hypocrites.)
At the moment, there are retired people with identical incomes who are experiencing highly different taxation treatments. Some have defined benefit pensions, some drawing down regular amounts from accumulated superannuation, some living on income from investments, some with age pensions, and, in lots of cases, people will have a mixture of two or more of these sources of income. And the situation is becoming even more complicated for people in the 45-70 age range who are approaching retirement: those who were lucky enough to accumulate a lot of superannuation a decade or more back are in a much better situation than many people who are only trying to accumulate money now: eg, lots of recently-arrived migrants and divorced men and women and other people have had been required to start saving later in life. On top of Turnbull’s changes greatly limiting the tax free status of accumulated super, Labor’s proposed changes are going to hit some of the people who have only been able to start saving for their retirement later in life very hard. So it’s hardly surprising that they are upset about it. And a lot of them would be white collar workers who are retired or near retirement: a group which represents a pretty strong Labor-voting constituency (far more so, I suspect, that people who live entirely on the age pension).
Of course it’s questionable for people who aren’t paying tax, or paying very little, to be receiving substantial tax rebates. But this issue needs to be looked at in a broader context: as I said, a broader process of reform.
So, as I said, Labor might have gone a bridge too far here. Their overall suite of proposed tax reforms hits very hard at tax concessions for wealth accumulation. It’s a big target, somewhat ideologically-driven policy approach which could in some ways be compared to Hewson’s Fightback.
It also raises the question that I raised recently about how realistic are the current polling figures (eg, because of the possibility that a sizeable group of disgruntled Liberal conservatives are misreporting how they intend to vote come election time). After all, if Labor is truly leading by 54-46 or thereabouts, you’d have thought that a very, very small target strategy was the way to go. So does the ALP know something the published pollsters don’t?
PeeBee @ #1688 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 8:04 am
But that construction makes no sense! The company owes taxes on their profits. The pensioner owes taxes on their income. It’s apples and oranges; you can’t take taxes that the company pays on its profits and then pretend that they’ve actually been overpaid against the pensioner’s income.
I assume the underlying principle of the argument is “something something double-taxation”. But if that’s the case, then fine, end all “double-taxation”. The wages that I earn have been taxed, so I should not have to pay 10% more for just about everything due to the GST. Having GST creates double-taxation and should be abolished! If I want to use my post-tax wages to import some stuff from overseas, I should be able to do so duty-free (because double-taxation, dammit!!!). And luxury car tax? Stamp duty when buying a home? Forget about all such nonsense; it’s all double-taxation and must be abolished.
But no. Back in the real world the fact that my income has already been taxed (and at an effective rate that probably exceeds what most companies end up paying) in no way protects me (or anyone else) from incurring further tax liability against that same money. People investing in shares deserve no special protections.
The greed of some people is simply appalling.
How is it possible that you have heaps of assets, don’t pay tax, but get a tax refund because you own shares?
I understand how the imputation works, but getting a cash refund because you ‘shouldn’t’ pay tax stinks.
If these people want cash refunds, they need to start paying tax on their capital gains on their investments like the rest of society so they actually have an outlay to get a refund for.
“Isn’t Labor’s proposal about investment in Australian shares only? It is here where dividend imputation applies, and that has been all the commentary. If so, people will take their money out and put in overseas shares, probably a wiser option in any case.
ASX goes down, and Labor gets nothing.”
Either you or I are missing something.
Nothing would be good for the government, compared to the net negative situation they are in now. Nothing is what Labor are aiming for.
This isn’t about Labor taxing people who have Australian shares. This is about Labor stopping giving free money to Australian shares.
Currently, people own Australian shares. The government then gives them money as a reward for owning those shares. Labor is proposing stopping giving them that money.
It doesn’t matter to the government’s position whether those people move away from Australian shares or not. Labor is paying and receiving $0 from them in either case.
And if Australian stocks are artificially inflated by a government handout, it’s probably for the best that we let that bubble deflate.
OMG.
I would suggest that the “Labor voter” pictured lives in a blue-ribbon Liberal seat, so losing her lower house vote is no big deal.
But, assuming that she is pictured at home, if her income consistent solely of dividends which added up to under the tax-free threshold, how can she afford to live there? There’s obviously something else going on – superannuation pension, spouse’s income, trusts, etc. She won’t be eating dog food.
CNN: “Yeah, I’m voting. I’m 18… politicians have failed us… the gun laws in America are absolutely absurd”: Students in New York City are walking out to protest gun violence one month after the Florida school massacre cnn.it/2GrQPDt pic.twitter.com/HHXrMFV839
https://twitter.com/cnn/status/973924099520192512
Jackol @ #1660 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 8:28 am
I disagree. Unlike biologicals, Chemical agents can be very clearly identified and their providence traced. This is a very specific fuck you very much by Putin’s cartel, as was the Sarin attack on Ghouta in Syria: the technical analyses were very clear, despite the extensive countertrolling in the lay press. Unlike Sarin the Novichok (“newbie” or “tyro”) agent was an entirely Russian. This was a very carefully coded symbolic attack taking place a few kilometres from Porton Down. The Russians knew exactly what they were doing, and would have gamed out how the UK and USA, not to mention the Oligarch networks, would react.
Lovey @ #1804 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 7:29 am
It’s utterly irrelevant whether the ASX goes up, down or round and round. The proposed policy is based on dividends received from shares. Companies still pay out dividends irrespective of what happens to their share price. They paid dividends during the GFC. They paid dividends during WWII. They paid dividends during the Depression.
There has been a lot of stupid comments made on here by people who’ve got no idea how the share market works, but the above comment by lovey is by far the most stupid.
a r –
This is exactly what Dividend Imputation does – it magically converts company income that is paid as dividends into (only) personal income of the recipient, and assess the tax payable on the latter, rescinding the former. That’s the point.
If you think that’s reasonable, then the operation with respect to people on low incomes is perfectly consistent and fair.
If you don’t think it’s reasonable then let’s do away with Dividend Imputation altogether, not just prevent low income earners from gaining any benefit from it.
PeeBee @ #1810 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:32 am
They are not paying tax. The company is paying tax on their earnings. The question is whether these people are actually reaching into their pocket to pay money on their dividends – or whether they are simply upset because they are no longer getting a special bonus – not available to anyone else – because they own shares paying fully franked dividends.
Under the original dividend imputation scheme people were not given refunds of company tax paid – they were simply relieved of the burden of paying more tax on dividends that had already been taxed (and even then only if their marginal rate was no more than the company tax rate).
Turning these tax credits into actual payments changed the character of them. As a result, we are getting absurd arguments that the companies are paying tax on behalf of their shareholders (and we are not talking about withholding tax here), rather than paying tax on their own earnings.
Companies pay company tax on their earnings. Full stop. That is how they are assessed – they are not assessed on the taxation value of the untaxed profits in the hands of shareholders. That whole concept is absurd.
Jackol – ” I’m very deliberately outside of the transfer system”. Except that you are not outside that system. You get sent a payment by the government at regular intervals, albeit with the luxury of getting avoid Centrelink to do it. But don’t kid yourself that you are not being a drain on the taxpayer.
The bottom line here is that the federal Budget is in structural deficit, and has been for over a decade. Big changes have to be made to rectify that, and targeting largesse that overwhelmingly benefits the better off seems that the most logical place to start.
If I was Bushfire Bill I would say to his old lady friend, ‘Too bad, so sad. You don’t deserve to live the life of Reilly off the backs of hard-working Australian taxpayers. With the emphasis on ‘taxpayers’, as she has gloated she pays none.
Jackol @ #1660 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 8:28 am
Can I say that I disagree without being disappeared?
‘Zoomster, where I see it differently to you is that You did pay tax, as part owner of a company. As your taxable income is below the tax free threshold, you should get that back.’
I also pay tax every time I buy something (GST). Is anyone proposing I should get some of that back?
As an earlier poster said, it’s like saying that because I pay a plumber with money which has already been taxed, the plumber shouldn’t pay tax on that income.
This is exactly what Dividend Imputation does – it magically converts company income that is paid as dividends into (only) personal income of the recipient, and assess the tax payable on the latter, rescinding the former. That’s the point.
_____________________________
Magic is a good word to use here. Like all ‘magic’ it is just sleight of hand and deliberate misdirection. There is nothing magic about dividend imputation at all – until you turn it into a revenue payment.
rhwombat @ #1831 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:42 am
what I was trying to say (on multiple attempts – paranoia much?) was:
I disagree. Unlike biologicals, chemical agents can be very clearly identified and their providence traced. This is a very specific fuck you very much by Putin’s cartel, as was the Sarin attack on Ghouta in Syria: the technical analyses were very clear, despite the extensive countertrolling in the lay press. Unlike Sarin the Novichok (“newbie” or “tyro”) agent was an entirely Russian. This was a very carefully coded symbolic attack taking place a few kilometres from Porton Down. The Russians knew exactly what they were doing, and would have gamed out how the UK and USA, not to mention the Oligarch networks, would react.
Watching the banking royal commission I thought Kenneth Hayne reminded me of someone.
The someone is Charles Hawtrey of Carry On films fame.
Confessions says: Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 10:37 am
MSNBCVerified account@MSNBC
5m5 minutes ago
Michael Avenatti tells @NicolleDWallace that following Stormy’s footsteps more women have sought legal guidance over their sexual relations with President Trump. Avenatti would not confirm the number.
OMG.
*********************************************************
Just what I thought/hoped might happen – Stormy Daniels has risked everything and put it all out there and hopefully given other women that Trump has “allegedly” assaulted the inspiration and courage to tell their stories too – many paid to shut up and others too scared by threats to them and their families. Hopefully the FULL truth will now come to the surface …..
Dutton and the Liberals: soft on gun massacres.
rhwombat @ #1831 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:42 am
Apparently not. Now I’m getting more paranoid.
I disagree. Unlike biologicals, chemical agents can be very clearly identified and their providence traced. This is a very specific gesture by Putin’s cartel, as was the Sarin attack on Ghouta in Syria: the technical analyses were very clear, despite the extensive countertrolling in the lay press. Unlike Sarin the Novichok (“newbie” or “tyro”) agent was an entirely Russian. This was a very carefully coded symbolic attack taking place a few kilometres from Porton Down. The Russians knew exactly what they were doing, and would have gamed out how the UK and USA, not to mention the Oligarch networks, would react.
Jenauthor – in fact, some people get a cash prize from the government for paying NO tax. Unbelievable.
Jackol @ #1075 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 9:41 am
Yes, let’s do that. Pretty much nowhere outside of Australia and NZ bothers with this imputation and franking nonsense, though some nations have tried it and then given up. All in all a pretty strong indication that dividend imputation is not a thing that should be happening in the first place.
PSyvret: Tax scare campaign has zero substance couriermail.com.au/rendezview/new…
http://www.couriermail.com.au/rendezview/morrisons-tax-scare-campaign-has-zero-substance/news-story/a55e0da3d3460db0818a0c0111f908b4
Hugoaugogo –
People get refunds on tax paid on PAYE – that’s also a ‘drain on the taxpayer’ – maybe rule that the ATO can never refund anything.
The ‘payment by the government at regular intervals’ is a refund of the tax paid by the companies that I own shares of …
I’m happy to concede that not being an income tax payer I am necessarily a drain on the rest of the taxpaying base, but not because of this. I am not contributing anywhere near as much towards hospitals, defence, running the legal system, etc etc as others are.
I agree big changes have to be made. I beg to differ on where to start. The ‘rorts’ highlighted in this discussion have all been about people on high incomes who get to reduce their taxable income to zero. That seems like the most logical place to start to fix.
rhwombat –
I’m a bit confused … it sounds like you’re agreeing with me, but in a much more informed way?
Albanese on 3aw with Neil Mitchell NOW.
For those arguing for bigger changes – the bigger the change, the louder the condemnation.
By introducing a small change, the issues are highlighted – and people become aware of the bigger problems, and start agitating for change.
You then, as an astute political party, are in the game of responding to pressure, rather than imposing changes that no one understands.
Who knew (apart from those directly receiving the benefit) how these imputations worked prior to this week? Now it’s being discussed to death, examples of how it impacts on people (or doesn’t) are being aired, and other areas where similar action needs to be taken are being highlighted.
All of this leads to informed decision making – repeal this idea before the election, it hurts too many people; stop right there, don’t take this any further; there’s room for further change, it has support in the community, let’s go for it….
PeeBee, I’m not going to bother saying I’m not a fan of the changes again after this. I completely understand that it creates an unequal treatment.
But the fairness argument is bullshit. The tax isn’t income tax. It’s company tax. The people affected are not paying a cent in tax. They are simply no longer getting the tax the company paid back as cash. There’s just as many of not more fairness arguments for removing the credits as for retaining them.
Yes it will create a differential treatment. Differential treatment is all throughout the tax and transfer system.
Yes going after the entire idea of tax free super earnings would be cleaner. It would also be a great way to ensure Trumble wins the next election.
Welcome to reality. It’s imperfect. Labor’s entire policy suite will clearly be immensely better for the nation than the alternative. The ALP will clearly have other complimentary policies that will significantly compensate if not overcompensate the truly low income people affected.
We don’t know how this will play out politically, but as with the NEG Gearing and CGT policies I suspect that the noisy minority that gets the media exposure will help Labor sell the policy rather than kill it as they hope.
The aspirationals have less time for aspirations when they can’t even get a pay rise to match inflation. It ain’t the early 2000’s any more.
a r – if scrapping Dividend Imputation was the ALP’s proposal I’d have no grounds for complaint on a fairness basis, and I’d see it as a quality reform.
That’s not what they’re proposing.
Gulbury, no need for the insults, I know I fluffed your feathers recently. I am an anonymous person here, so don’t take it so personally.
You are implying that investors are not bothered about asset values, only the dividends.
VE, yes I may be missing something and agree that if nobody had Australian shares in their SMSF then there would be no tax credits. But tell me, where does this money come from in the first place? I presume not Consolidated Revenue, it is from the tax companies paid.
GOP gearing up to challenge District 18 results, impound all voting machines used in special election
Republican officials are alleging voting irregularities in the District 18 special election, and have asked election officials in all four of the District’s counties to impound their voting machines, pending a potential recount.
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-nation/2018/03/14/GOP-to-challenge-District-13-results-seek-to-impound-all-voting-machines-used-in-special-election-pennsylvania-congress-rick-saccone-conor-lamb/stories/201803
************************************************************
A Florida ‘recount’ Special coming up ……