Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor

Labor continues to dominate on voting intention, though few seem impressed by its stance on Adani.

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.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

2,546 comments on “Essential Research: 54-46 to Labor”

Comments Page 38 of 51
1 … 37 38 39 … 51

  1. RealBristolNews: @peterjukes Agree Swift international finance ban – six months – get UN to agree – cut off the moneylaundered cash the access to homes in the sun the holidays – Semion Mogilevitch and his Russian mafia boys will arrange an accident for Putin before 6 months are up

  2. “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.”

    —————————-

    What they get is a return of money paid out of their pockets from money they have earned. This is not money paid by someone else. The only thing is that if you are employed the employer is legally required to take it out. It is an approximation of the tax you will pay at the end of the year, with the difference between what you actually owe and what you have already been paid refunded or having to be topped up with an additional payment by you.

    But, these payments of franking credits aside, you don’t get from the tax office more than you paid in PAYG. If you make an overall loss, the tax office does not give you a payment to make up for it. The best you can do is carry forward your losses to offset against future years’ taxable income.

  4. citizen @ #1740 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 9:41 am

    The “Labor voter” who is so furious about the super changes that she will vote Liberal next election – an unfortunate choice of photo to illustrate this article.

    ” rel=”nofollow”>

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/money/super-and-funds/labor-voter-fury-over-losing-30pc-of-income-under-shorten-plan-20180313-p4z4b1.html

    Life is tough for these people – think of the body corporate fees alone. I don’t know why they don’t get more sympathy.

  5. Jackol – “People get refunds on tax paid on PAYE – that’s also a ‘drain on the taxpayer’ “.

    Except that people getting tax refunds on PAYE have already personally paid that tax. You are proposing that people continue to receive refunds on tax that someone else paid.

    I agree with you that there are also other areas in our complex tax system that need reform, and I would support any moves to do this. But it seems that those who benefit from the current arrangements are always keen to argue that it’s those “other”rorts that should be targeted first. You know, the ones that don’t affect them personally as much.

  6. I can tell you I’d love a yearly cash bonus from the federal government because I pay no Income Tax too! I’d even be prepared to siphon it through a couple of blue riband stocks and support the Stock Market so I could get it. 🙂

    I demand to keep my Pension though! 😉

  8. BW: “If you want to know what Dutton is about, substitute ‘Rohingya’ for ‘South African Farmers’.”
    If white Rhodesians and South Africans had taken to boats arrived on our shores unannounced, they’d have been welcomed with open arms by the Duttons of the world as victims of terrible persecution that we had an obligation to support and accomodate.

  9. Zoom,

    I agree with your reading of the tactics at play here.

    This is one step towards an end goal – and another chapter in the construction of a strong narrative – not the final end that Labor seeks.

    Cool heads in the financial media are pointing out that it’s not a radical reform, while it gives blowhards like Morrison enough rope to make themselves look very silly, again.

  10. lizzie @ #1759 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 9:57 am

    I can see why I have never understood the tax system. The happiest day of recent years was when I was told that we no longer earned enough to send in a tax return.

    I’ve always thought that the system was deliberately complex so that only those who could afford expensive professional advice could take advantage of it.

  11. Lovey @ #1846 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:53 am

    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.

    Where does Consolidated Revenue get any money from? If not for taxes paid there would be no consolidated revenue in the first place. No money to pay for lucrative government defence contracts, for example. Or politicians’ salaries. Or funding for wealthy schools that don’t need the money. Or roads and transport services used in one way or another by every person.

    As for Australian shares in an SMSF (not all of which pay franked dividends) people should have a balanced portfolio of assets, rather than selecting assets because they attract a government refund of company tax paid. Indeed, the only reason why these people can collect refunds is that none of the interest, rents, dividends, capital gains etc, are taxed in the first place and, therefore, there is nothing to offset the franking credits against!

  12. Darn

    Neil Mitchell has a habit of interrupting people who he wants to put off balance. This especially applies to Labor politicians. Not worth the angst of listening in

  14. TPOF –

    What they get is a return of money paid out of their pockets from money they have earned. This is not money paid by someone else.

    Well, technically their employer paid a certain proportion of your salary to the ATO, and once your tax return was finalized it was determined that less tax should have been paid, and you get a refund.

    In operation it’s the same principle as with refund of company tax with dividend imputation.

    The operation of dividend imputation means that the raw, pre-tax company income gets added to your personal assessable income, and you get the already paid company tax added as a credit. And that credit can turn into a refund if your net tax bill is less than zero. There’s no magical rort. It’s consistent and it applies to everyone who gets franked dividends. Until this ALP proposal.

  17. abcsydney: The South African government has dismissed fears expressed by Peter Dutton who says says white farmers facing violence in South Africa “deserve special attention” from Australia. ab.co/2tO0YaS pic.twitter.com/xhDxxN3WI2

  18. Hugoaugogo –

    But it seems that those who benefit from the current arrangements are always keen to argue that it’s those “other”rorts that should be targeted first. You know, the ones that don’t affect them personally as much.

    Of course I’m self interested in this, but I don’t believe unreasonably so. And if I’m not going to speak up for my interests (and, really, speaking on PB is not really ‘speaking up’ at all … but it makes me feel slightly more engaged than if I sat back and said nothing), who is supposed to exactly?

    And as I’ve explained many many times already, this refund mechanism isn’t a “rort” … it’s logical, consistent, reasonable operation of the tax system.

  19. BK says: Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 11:01 am

    A Florida ‘recount’ Special coming up ……
    _____
    PR
    Katherine Harris to step into the spotlight again?

    *************************************

    ………………….quite possibly BK – and with her old election buddy, Jeb Bush ????? …. Trump will be on the phone hustling them up to Pennsylvania to take charge with their past experience in managing a recount – to his satisfaction

  21. rhwombat @ #1834 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 9:46 am

    rhwombat @ #1831 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:42 am

    Jackol @ #1660 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 8:28 am

    As far as the Skripal nerve agent matter goes, I do agree with something Poroti said – whatever was actually going on it’s very unlikely to be what it appears on the surface, and the publicly available information about Skripal’s colourful history is a very curious read.

    However, any notion that Russia wouldn’t use such a blatant, obvious, method to attempt assassination is just silly. After killing Litvinenko with Polonium – it’s hard to imagine a more blatant signpost left that you’ve been done in by a major power than that, and Russia was clearly implicated – Russia has form in using grotesque over-the-top kills to make a clear public statement, and in all likelihood that’s what they were going for with Skripal here. Who that message is for, and what the exact message is … you’d probably need to be circulating in the Russian-UK spook circles to understand.

    Can I say that I disagree without being disappeared?

    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.

    RHWombat

    What in the name of Dog do the Russians stand to gain. A message near Portland House. Pull the other one. I think the Russians could do a little better than releasing some gas in a pub etc. Who is the message for. Not the UK government. They could do much better than that surely. A message to other agents – possibly but why use poison gas. Some more clearly KGB toy would do the trick ie one that every agent KNEW was from Russia but where there was plausible deniability. Moreover why would Russia want to upset the Brits NOW just a little time from the World cup.

    My own rather scary and perhaps paranoid guess is that the Brits KNOW or suspect that the US/Israel/Iran/Russia/UK conflict is going to blow around about World Cup time and they want an excuse not to have any Royals or dignitaries in Russia at that time and perhaps to not have many British fans there either.

    Actually RH the technical analyses in Syria were NOT clear. Not clear at all as you would know if you read anything other than propaganda. In any case there were many defectors from the Syrian army so more than possible that Syrian government weapons dis get into rebel hands. Are you aware that the Syrian government has just found chemical weapons held by the REBELS in Ghouta. Thought not.

    Allegations of this kind need to be made properly in courts of law where there are proper legal representatives and evidence is produced and tested. Hearsay evidence by parties with an axe to grind does not cut it.

    I KNOW also that you are wrong about biologics which can be traced to their origins much more easily than a chemical. After all you can mimic a chemical composition but you cannot easily change the polysaccharides on the cell wall of a bacterium.

    Moreover when you talk Russian/USSR weapons eg gasses or biologics then you must also KNOW that in the chaos of the collapse of the USSR all sorts of weapons and secrets were sold on, so the source could be anywhere in the world. To categorically point the finger at Russia you must as a minimum choose stuff developed in the last 15 years. prior to that rafferty’s rules applied and any one of many groups could access them.

  22. https://www.realestate.com.au/sold/property-apartment-nsw-rozelle-125683618

    Absolute Waterfront Two Bedroom + Study Apartment with Sublime Northerly Harbour Views

    Taking in unobstructed harbour views and overlooking the beautiful manicured gardens this recently updated lavish two bedroom apartment features an additional study/ home office with large open plan living & dining that flows onto a large sun-filled north facing balcony.

    Positioned on the absolute waterfront of the tightly held ‘Balmain Cove’ resort like complex this stunning property offers a lifestyle opportunity second to none. Residents can enjoy use of two swimming pools, a well equipped gymnasium with an opportunity for the boating enthusiast to lease or purchase a deep water marina berth.

    This may look familiar

  23. I thought the system was intended to be:

    1. Company earns a profit
    2. Company pays tax on the profit
    3. Company pays dividends from after tax income
    4. Shareholder receives dividend
    5. Shareholder is not required to pay tax on the dividend as the tax has already been paid

    That is very simple. Simplicity is good. Single-taxation is good.

    There is an alternative, where the dividend is paid by the company before company tax has ben paid. In this case, the dividend is taxable in the hands of the recipient.

    This is also very simple. Perhaps this is how the system should operate in all cases.

  25. briefly –

    There is an alternative, where the dividend is paid by the company before company tax has ben paid. In this case, the dividend is taxable in the hands of the recipient.

    This is exactly the effect of the Dividend Imputation system, and why the refunds occur in people with no, or low, taxable income because it is ‘correcting’ the application of company tax so that it effectively didn’t happen.

  26. ‘March Madness in the West Wing’: Internet jeers over report White House staffers have a ‘betting pool’ for who’s next to go

    White House correspondent for The Washington Post reported Wednesday on the administration’s “betting pools” over who will be next to be fired.

    “White House officials have begun betting pools of sorts among each other on who’s getting ousted next,” Josh Dawsey tweeted.

    Ken Sirkin @KenSirkin7795

    They created their own Dead Pool.

    Mark Salter @MarkSalter55

    One by one every member of the administration will be ritually humiliated before Trump ends it all in a James Cagney White Heat scene.

    MORE : https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/march-madness-west-wing-internet-jeers-report-white-house-staffers-betting-pool-whos-next-go/

  28. Now Counsel Assisting is giving the CBA’s General Manager – Loans a good working over about the non-disclosure of significant broker payments and trails to customers.

  29. I see that Mike Carleton is furious about the tax changes (on twitter). Methinks he won’t be getting big payments from the govt anymore. I thought better of your Mike. My fault, I’m sure.

  30. briefly says:

    Dutton is chasing votes from ON and the Shooters. He is a thug.

    That and doing a bit of twerking in front of the Lib RWers as we head to NewsPoll 30.

  31. Jackol @ #1861 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 11:08 am

    TPOF –

    What they get is a return of money paid out of their pockets from money they have earned. This is not money paid by someone else.

    Well, technically their employer paid a certain proportion of your salary to the ATO, and once your tax return was finalized it was determined that less tax should have been paid, and you get a refund.

    In operation it’s the same principle as with refund of company tax with dividend imputation.

    The operation of dividend imputation means that the raw, pre-tax company income gets added to your personal assessable income, and you get the already paid company tax added as a credit. And that credit can turn into a refund if your net tax bill is less than zero. There’s no magical rort. It’s consistent and it applies to everyone who gets franked dividends. Until this ALP proposal.

    Technically, you pay it. It’s just that it’s a hell of a lot more efficient to get the employer to take it out and send it to the tax office before you get what’s left, so the government passes a law requiring it. People have other payments taken out before they get their final pay too – like union fees and health insurance. Also, people who receive interest and other benefits, including dividends who have not provided their TFN to the payer get slugged a withholding tax. These are advance payments on that person’s tax. These payments are totally independent of the financial situation of the payer.

    No matter how much you and others want to argue it, franking credits are simply not like that. They relate to the company or business, not to the shareholder. The whole system of company law is based on the existence of the company as a separate legal entity from the shareholder or even the employees right up to the CEO. You, as a shareholder, are not liable for the company’s debts if it goes belly up, for example. That is why the company is taxed as a separate legal entity.

    Now, your argument that we should do away with imputation credits altogether holds water against that background. That is, why shouldn’t the government clip every dollar as it passes from one hand to another? But that is a different issue and relates to other fiscal policy objectives.

    It does not support the fictitious – and totally unsupported in law and logic – idea that companies pay company tax as an advance on shareholder’s distributions, rather than in its own right.

    I have a lot of sympathy for the special position you find yourself in, but it does not help when you invent a justification that has no valid basis in the operation of company, taxation or any other law.

  32. Reporter embedded with Roger Stone details election efforts to meet Assange: ‘He wanted to destroy Hillary Clinton’

    The director of an acclaimed documentary on longtime Donald Trump advisor Roger Stone revealed that he prepared to travel to London for Stone to meet Wikileaks founder Julian Assange during the 2016 presidential campaign.

    “The interview that we do in our film where we ask him about Assange, that was filmed in August of 2016 and in June of 2016 was when Julian Assange said publicly that he had more Hillary Clinton emails that he intended to release,” Pehme continued “and after that, Roger took obviously great interest in these emails because Roger wanted to destroy Hillary Clinton.”

    https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/reporter-embedded-roger-stone-details-election-efforts-meet-assange-wanted-destroy-hillary-clinton/

  35. briefly @ #1119 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:17 am

    I thought the system was intended to be:

    1. Company earns a profit
    2. Company pays tax on the profit
    3. Company pays dividends from after tax income
    4. Shareholder receives dividend
    5. Shareholder is not required to pay tax on the dividend as the tax has already been paid

    Not quite. It should be:

    1. Company earns a profit
    2. Company pays tax on the profit
    3. Company pays dividends from after tax income
    4. Shareholder receives dividend
    5. Shareholder pays personal income tax on the dividend, just like on any other personal income they receive

    Or perhaps more clearly:

    1. Company earns a profit
    2. Company pays tax on the profit
    3. Company pays dividends from after tax income
    —
    1. Shareholder receives dividend
    2. Shareholder pays personal income tax on the dividend, just like on any other personal income they receive

    The problem with the your version is that it treats “company” and “shareholder” as if they’re the same entity for taxation purposes.

  36. jenauthor @ #1821 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:37 am

    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.

    Yes, but it’s not only greed, but the overbearing sense of entitlement. I guess the two go hand in hand.

  38. antonbruckner11 @ #1876 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 11:22 am

    I see that Mike Carleton is furious about the tax changes (on twitter). Methinks he won’t be getting big payments from the govt anymore. I thought better of your Mike. My fault, I’m sure.

    It is your fault. Mike is just another baby boomer Rozelle basket weaver – happy to support left wing principles as long as they do fine. His next step is to join the Di Natale Greens.

  41. Russia is intent on antagonising its NATO-affiliated counter-parties without actually going to war. The purpose of this is to strengthen domestic political support for the military clique that rule Russia; to make it easier for them to liquidate dissent in Russia; to set up the pre-conditions for a more aggressive military posture in their own neighbourhood.

    Putin is telling the entire world that he neither feels bound by the law nor that he respects the sovereignty of other States. Russia is resisting the sanctions regime in the way that an “outsider” resists pressure – by breaking the rules.

    North Korea has made some gains by breaking all the rules. Putin obviously thinks there may be an advantage here for Russia too.

    Those who argue that this use of chemical weapons is likely to be unauthorised because it was indiscriminate misunderstand. The point is to gain attention. This is the nature of terrorist events. Russia has gained everyone’s attention, quite unambiguously.

  43. TPOF –

    It does not support the fictitious – and totally unsupported in law and logic – idea that companies pay company tax as an advance on shareholder’s distributions, rather than in its own right.

    I have a lot of sympathy for the special position you find yourself in, but it does not help when you invent a justification that has no valid basis in the operation of company, taxation or any other law.

    You’re still not appreciating exactly what Dividend Imputation does. It is transferring the dividends from being company income to being personal income, and assessed as such.

    So no, company tax should not be paid on dividends (according to the Dividend Imputation mechanism), it should be retrospectively converted from company income to personal income and subject to personal income tax.

    Yes, this is just wikipedia, but it accords with how my tax returns work every year:

    An eligible shareholder receiving a franked dividend declares the cash amount plus the franking credit as income, and is credited with the franking credit against their final tax bill. The effect is as if the tax office reversed the company tax by giving back the $0.30 to the shareholder and had them treat the original $1.00 of profit as income, in the shareholder’s hands, like the company was merely a conduit.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_imputation#Operation

  44. Palm Beach?

    Better than an apartment in Rozelle

    [Mike Carlton‏ @MikeCarlton01 · Mar 7

    A near perfect body wave at Palmie today. It’s a bugger, retirement.]

  45. adrian @ #1883 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 11:25 am

    jenauthor @ #1821 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 10:37 am

    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.

    Yes, but it’s not only greed, but the overbearing sense of entitlement. I guess the two go hand in hand.

    Totally agree on entitlement. I’m as greedy as the next bastard and I’ll be happy to take advantage of these laws as a self-funded retiree now that I have come into a little spare cash, because people a lot better off than me are doing a lot better out of it. But I’m not going to argue that I’m entitled. I just feel happy that despite these changes I will not need to be on the old age pension. When I see a lot of people who are genuinely struggling to live at all age points, I think there is little to feel entitled about.

  46. P1

    We pay PAYG tax withheld & a PAYG income tax installment. The later looks like provisional tax to me but I have no head for accounts.

  47. The change to dividend imputation introduced by Howard/Costello was originally aimed at rewarding ‘traditional families’. That is, a working husband and a housewife who does no paid work or a small amount of part-time work. Hardly anyone who is genuinely living off an income under the tax-free threshold can afford to have capital saved in shares, but a man with a high income can transfer his shares to his wife’s name and get a tax break (I could use less sexist language, but let’s be realistic).

    The Howard years were chock full of these kinds of ‘reforms’ that were pitched as being intended for battlers when the reality was that only wealthy single-income households could possible take advantage.

    The fact that this particular reform also favoured wealthy retirees was an unintended bonus.

  48. The more of Hayne that I see the more I like him!
    He’s just destroying the basis of the use of percentage-based commissions to brokers.

  49. “You’re still not appreciating exactly what Dividend Imputation does. It is transferring the dividends from being company income to being personal income, and assessed as such.”

    Sorry Jackol. I think we will just have to agree that we each think the other is wrong.

  50. citizen @ #1696 Thursday, March 15th, 2018 – 6:13 am

    Interesting the case studies media trots out

    In The Age a 64 year old teacher who will lose 30% of her and her husband’s retirement income because they saved for their retirement and have a portfolio of Australian shares including the banks and Telstra

    Nothing else explained of their circumstances other than this

    Each media company (including ABC) must have a list of people they use for their “case studies”. There’s no way they would instantly find people who fitted their narrative.

    This then implies that the people they use are motivated to have a strong opinion one way or the other.

    I wonder how people register to be on these lists.

    A few years ago I read that the “case studies” that journalists used were their family, friends and members of their social circle, and that they hit up the same group of people time and again.

Comments Page 38 of 51
1 … 37 38 39 … 51

Leave a Reply

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