BludgerTrack: 53.7-46.3 to Labor

BludgerTrack returns from hibernation, albeit with only one new poll result to play with.

The return of Essential Research provided the BludgerTrack mill with its first grist for the new year, but the model is at its least robust when it only has one data point to play with after a long gap. This means BludgerTrack strongly follows the lead of a poll that was less bad for the Coalition than their usual form, resulting in a substantial reduction in Labor’s still commanding lead on two-party preferred. Labor is also down six on the seat projection – one in each mainland state and two in Queensland. The Essential poll also included a new set of numbers for the leadership ratings, and these produced a weak result for Bill Shorten that has blunted his recent improving trend. Full results through the link below.

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.

3,129 comments on “BludgerTrack: 53.7-46.3 to Labor”

Comments Page 61 of 63
1 60 61 62 63
  1. Expat Follower

    We have to tax to make room in the economy for the government service we consume, I support any tax that requires you to make a profit before taxing. In my view capital gains tax is as close as one can get to a perfect tax. Removes the need for death duty; if the asset is deemed to be sold on death and it requires the asset to make a profit.

    I put it down as one of Keating’s great achievements.

  2. BiGD,
    What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine. And let’s all hold hands together as the taxpayers of Australia. It simply behooves us to elect the government whose policies we think will be the best for ALL Australians. 🙂

  3. C@t one could debate the point without the patronising sanctimony but that choice seems to consistently elude you?

    Not everyone minted it over the Howard/Costello years with oodles of ill-deserved riches.

    But, that aside, its a simple rational point im making. If you own a can of sardines and can sell today and be taxed half of what you would be taxed tomorrow then even those who agree with sardine tax philosophically will more likely sell their sardines now. That the majority would hang on to them out of some principled obligation to pay more tax themselves… im saying that is rather unlikely and it might be prudent to expect and account for a bunch if sardines hitting the market

  4. This is a bit rich from Grant Schultz:

    “Their choice and their democratic rights have been completely ignored, that’s why I cannot be a part of a party that doesn’t have any democratic principles and ignores the people of Gilmore,” he said.

    That from the guy who got his faceless numbers man, Gareth Ward, to blast Ann Sudmalis out of the seat before the election so he could stand in it.

  5. Goll:

    [‘Clem

    I’ll desist for your reputation.’]

    Please take charge of your emotions, maybe at least getting the right verb.

  6. Currently, Labor is happy to grandfather in relation to negative gearing.

    In contrast, Labor under Gillard was happy to remove grandfathering for single parent payments so that those recipients could be moved to lower payments. Raising the existing recipients to the income of those who had been grandfathered was, apparently, not an option.

    Enable the more wealthy. Demonise and kick the disadvantaged. Twenty-four years and counting – raising NewStart is not a priority either.

    And people ind it difficult to understand why there is such a disparity in equality.

    https://theconversation.com/prejudiced-policymaking-underlies-labors-cuts-to-single-parent-payments-10151

  7. Actually the best years for making lots of money for not doing much was late in the Howard years and the Rudd/Gillard years. If you borrowed big to bet on housing in Melbourne and Sydney in 2005 and after, and didn’t lock those interest rates in, getting the post GFC interest rate lows with a skyrocketing price rises all the way until 2015 plus the 50% capital gains discount for holding assets more than a year. How could you not make a fortune?

  8. Expat Follower,
    You say sanctimony, I say principle, and I’m just thinking that, if I had a can of sardines, I wouldn’t worry about the tax I have to pay on it today or tomorrow, I would think about the kids on Newstart who couldn’t afford sardines at all. If I knew where they were in my street, I would go down to their house and give them some of my tin of sardines. I certainly wouldn’t be quibbling about how much tax I was paying on my tin of sardines.

  9. Clem seems to have taken two blue pills with evening’s flagon of tawny port as he yells at all the ‘grouper’ seagulls down at St Kilda pier …

  10. Anyway, I’m up bright and early again tomorrow morning to go out campaigning for the party that has put an increase to Newstart on the table for discussion. Good night one and all. 🙂

    ps. I have had a lot of money and assets in my life. It never made me happy. I’m happier with clean air and water. Water for our native flora and fauna for them to survive. The love of family and friends. An environment that isn’t struggling under the weight of exploitation by greedy humans. And, hopefully, a government that respects the right of ALL its citizens to live with dignity and in relative comfort, having been afforded the basics of life from a generous not greedy society.

  11. grimace,

    Some time ago, the mean & nasty Aunt Mavis postulated that Labor’s margin would be…? I have to tell you that she’s an imposter, assuming my – Mavis Smith’s -identity. Now that I’ve sorted it out, I’d be pleased if you would delete my no-good aunty’s prediction and in lieu substitute it with my prognostication: 92 seats to Labor – make that 94.

  12. C@t basically I think Expat was making the point about what the average majority would do with that tin of sardines and he would be right. He is really talking about being aware of and making allowances for proposed changes.

    I think.

  13. C@t i applaud your statement of principle. Newstart levels are not really grounds many would challenge you on. At the same time, there are a lot of youngsters with jobs who are also battling to get ahead and some might be making investment choices to that end. Punishing those choices and making it harder for them isnt a great outcome either?

  14. Not long back from Bill Shortens Townhall meeting in Yeppoon (Central Qld)
    Was a great night and very well attended. Albo, Brendan Oconner, and Sen Watts also in attendance and answered the relevant questions.

    There were a mere handful of protesters outside the entrance and were protesting “Bills Tax on Seniors”

    A couple of elder members of the audience spoke about share imputations etc. but were responded to with respectful answers from Bill. It went well.

    The vibe was fantastic.

  15. Pegasus @ #3002 Tuesday, January 22nd, 2019 – 8:56 pm

    In contrast, Labor under Gillard was happy to remove grandfathering for single parent payments so that those recipients could be moved to lower payments. Raising the existing recipients to the income of those who had been grandfathered was, apparently, not an option.

    Okay. Now contrast that to anything that the Coalition does (or tried to do, but failed because the Senate blocked it). It’s not hard to see which one is actually worse than the other. And it’s not the one that hasn’t been in power since 2013.

  16. The ALP`s policy on negative gearing and capital gains tax is a significant improvement on the current situation, however there are things that could be improved:

    Not continuing to allow people who own profitable investment properties to negatively gear other existing properties against the income from their profitable investment properties.

    Switching back to the Keating Capital Gains Tax policy of taxing the full capital gain, minus an inflation allowance, but allowing it to be spread over all the tax years over which the capital gain occurred.

  17. Andrew_Earlwood:

    [‘Clem seems to have taken two blue pills with evening’s flagon of tawny port as he yells at all the ‘grouper’ seagulls down at St Kilda pier …’]

    You, too, should come down from your high horse, addressing clem’s argument, rather than implying he’s a piss-pot.

  18. “but were responded to with respectful answers from Bill. It went well.”

    And there is the nub of it. Not out there telling people exactly what they want to hear on every topic, but not talking down to them, dissing their opinions or going all Shouty McShoutface, 🙂

    Give them honesty, respect and something of more substance than slogans.

  19. I am happy that there will be an ALP government, but the franking policy is bullshit.

    It says people who have a high income get back the tax the company paid on their dividends, people on low incomes don’t. Flat tax is considered regressive, this is worse.

    I would be much happier if franking was reduced across the board or removed altogether.

  20. The Costigan Royal Commission into guess who?

    And who set the Terms of Reference – ignoring that you never ask a question unless you know the answer?

    Remembered for shining the light on the biggest Industry in the Nation at that time – the Bottom of the Harbour Tax Evasion Scheme – where you bought a Company with losses to remove any tax obligation of Companies making profit and therefore having a tax liability – and looking to evade that tax obligation which was the outcome

    We still see this in various forms

  21. So, Labor’s masthead @ https://www.alp.org.au – A Fair Go for Australia: standing up for middle and working Australia – is not a slogan?

    It’s also a tad non-inclusive but at least it’s honest about it’s lack of interest in the unemployed, others engaged in unpaid work and other bludger types.

  22. What ‘argument’ is there to address Mavis? Clem just labels everybody who are not as hard boiled a socialist as him as a Grouper or Tory.

    I’m a centrist by inclination. There have always been centrists in Labor. That’s why hard boiled socialists have always berated Labor. They have done for over 100 years now. Labor has always had socialists and centrists within it. Having divergent philosophies makes Labor stronger. What is galling about Clem’s holier than thou approach is that he’s just fucked right off out of the party altogether. I’d suggest that’s a pretty good sign he was never Labor in the first place. Equally galling is that I (and other centrists in Labor) are at one with about 90% of Clem’s tick list for ideological purity. It’s just that we centrists arrive at the same or similar conclusions not out of slavish adherence to ideological dogma but on pragmatic utilitarian reasoning. In short I believe that the reward for public service is public progress. I believe in the positive role Government has in affording equality of opportunity. Therefore, as a centrist by inclination, by practice I am a social democrat. How could I not be.

  23. Question

    It says people who have a high income get back the tax the company paid on their dividends, people on low incomes don’t

    _______________________________

    In fact, they don’t get back the tax. What happens is that the value of the dividend plus the value of the franking credit get added to the person’s taxable income and tax is assessed on this total at the relevant marginal rate. The franking credit is then offset against the tax payable. Most taxpayers actually finish up paying some tax on the dividends because the maximum franking credit equates to 30% while taxpayers earning over $37,000 per annum (including the value of the dividend plus franking credit pay 32.5% marginal tax plus medicare levy).

    What happens is that some people get the dividend tax free, while most pay some tax on it, but not the full marginal rate.

  24. Question : “It says people who have a high income get back the tax the company paid on their dividends, people on low incomes don’t. Flat tax is considered regressive, this is worse.”

    As far as i can see, people on low incomes should seek unfranked dividends. The dividend payment is higher (as 30% tax has not been paid) and they get the money earlier (at dividend payment time, which is by definition before personal tax payment time). Then they pay tax (at personal tax payment time) at their marginal rate (which will be less than 30% as they are low income, and may even be 0; if their marginal rate is 30% or more, then they should seek franked dividends and will then be able to use the credits to reduce their tax payment)

  25. In fact, they don’t get back the tax.

    Except they do the the tax back. The company, a separate legal entity, pays tax, like a separate legal entity should do. Then the clown that get the dividend gets it back. If that clown doesn’t assessable income above the tax free threshold they get it all back and income, that has been in two hands and should have been taxed twice, on basic principles, is not taxed at all. Not once, not twice, but zero times.

    If you were in a world of desperate lack of capital, it might begin to make sense. We are in a world where massive pools of money are desperate for places to invest. It is insane. Income should be taxed twice. It is one place where Paul and I have parted ways in our thinking.

  26. Question,
    Re franking…..
    My understanding is that companies pay tax (or not) , and then declare a dividend (or not)
    They don’t pay tax on the dividends.
    This is important distinction. Shareholders are not part owners of the company, because if they were then they may also be liable for its losses.
    They are a special class of people called limited liability shareholders. As such they can’t claim they have paid the tax out of their dividends, and are entitled to a refund. They didn’t.
    So all the crap that speak about this issue is just that.

    And the ‘people on low incomes’ who own shares are typically those who either have high gross incomes but low taxable incomes (negative gearing on housing, anyone?) or are people on decent superannuation pensions which Costello made tax free in 2003.

    Sorry,I’m not sympathetic.

  27. Sorry, but no sympathy for Grant Schultz – he himself was supposedly behind efforts to get Sudmalis disendorsed. I imagine she’s indulging in a bevvy tonight thinking that what goes around, comes around.

    As for Mundine? What Bill Shorten said.

  28. TPOF,

    Anybody in a tax bracket over 30% will get back the entire 30% paid by the company. That is the entirety of the tax the company paid.

  29. Expat Follower @ #2955 Tuesday, January 22nd, 2019 – 5:33 pm

    Just so i can be informed on the proposed ALP CGT changes:

    If asset is held for >1 yr currently 50% of realised cap gain is taxable, am i correct that ALP want 100% taxability in all cases?
    This will apply ‘retrospectively’ in the sense that assets held today that would be taxed at 50% will instead be taxed at 100% if sold post change?
    Any realistic chance of this being abandoned when in govt?
    Any realistic chance of greens opposing it in the senate? I spose a higher chance with indep bop senators?

    This is the one policy of theirs im not excited about, could drive a tax minimisation fire sale that otherwise wouldnt happen. I’d be delighted if i have this wrong and can be set straight…

    The CGT discount is being reduced from 50% to 25%.

    From: https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing

    Labor’s Proposal
    Labor will reform negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount to ensure that our tax system is fair, sustainable and targets jobs and growth.

    Negative gearing

    Labor will limit negative gearing to new housing from a yet-to-be-determined date after the next election. All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered.

    This will mean that taxpayers will continue to be able to deduct net rental losses against their wage income, providing the losses come from newly constructed housing.

    From a yet-to-be-determined date after the next election losses from new investments in shares and existing properties can still be used to offset investment income tax liabilities. These losses can also continue to be carried forward to offset the final capital gain on the investment.

    Capital gains tax

    Labor will halve the capital gains discount for all assets purchased after a yet-to-be-determined date after the next election. This will reduce the capital gains tax discount for assets that are held longer than 12 months from the current 50 per cent to 25 per cent.

    All investments made before this date will not be affected by this change and will be fully grandfathered.

    This policy change will also not affect investments made by superannuation funds. The CGT discount will not change for small business assets. This will ensure that no small businesses are worse off under these changes.

    Labor will consult with industry, relevant stakeholders and State governments on further design and implementation details ahead of the start date for both these proposals.

  30. Now you’re talking, Andrew; and, moreover, you could well be right (a Freudian slip?) – I really don’t know, other than to suggest that Labor’s factions all deserve to be heard & respected. Incidentally, I’m a centrist, bordering on the centre-left.

  31. M L,

    Franking credits come about for Australian investors after Australian companies have paid the 30% company tax. The dividend is paid after the tax has been taken out.

  32. AE

    “Having divergent philosophies makes Labor stronger. What is galling about Clem’s holier than thou approach is that he’s just fucked right off out of the party altogether.”

    So, do you disagree with zoomster’s view which she has expressed many times wtte good riddance to those alp members who have left the party and joined the Greens, the Greens can have them?

  33. Labor’s CGT proposal is pretty weak there is no justification for any discount it should be ZERO. If a taxpayer has held an asset more than 10 years, indexation would be appropriate, computers can do a lot of maths fast, it isn’t hard.

  34. Just a thought on Labor’s proposed changes to negative gearing, CGT and dividend imputation. We don’t know what the legislation will look like after it gets through the senate! It’s very likely that independents will hold the BOP, and who knows how the Greens will play it. We can be sure that vested interests will be pleading their case, and Labor may need to make some concessions to get their changes through. I thought that the initial dividend imputation change Labor proposed had already been softened, so full and part pension holders could continue to get their current imputation credit benefits (which is fair enough I think-doesn’t impact the revenue benefits much and takes away a line of attack against the change)

  35. Labor may need to make some concessions to get their changes through.

    If they are making concessions to the greens in the senate to get stuff through, it will get a lot tighter not looser, and in relation to tax that would be good because all the proposals are a bit soft and need toughening up.

  36. so full and part pension holders could continue to get their current imputation credit benefits (which is fair enough

    Full and part pension recipients would be a lot better off with a higher pension and non of this investor charity. Let the company pay tax once and it stay paid, and the individual again, or not, as befits the individual’s circumstances.

  37. Mavis Smith @ #3012 Tuesday, January 22nd, 2019 – 7:09 pm

    grimace,

    Some time ago, the mean & nasty Aunt Mavis postulated that Labor’s margin would be…? I have to tell you that she’s an imposter, assuming my – Mavis Smith’s -identity. Now that I’ve sorted it out, I’d be pleased if you would delete my no-good aunty’s prediction and in lieu substitute it with my prognostication: 92 seats to Labor – make that 94.

    Done

  38. Question at 11:09pm. Agreed

    Question at 10:36 pm, 2nd sentence is incorrect. Companies do not pay tax on their dividends.
    This simple error leads many people to think they have some sort of entitlement to a refund because ‘ they paid too much tax on their dividends’
    But they didn’t. The tax is paid before the dividend is declared.

  39. Franking credits is using money which would otherwise be tax revenue to purchase votes at an election.
    Abolishing franking credits is a decision based on the premise that those receiving the benefits of franking credits dont vote Labor anyway.
    Franking credits and genuine benefits for the people? No, just another scheme and unfortunately one of many designed to benefit a small group to the detriment of a larger group.
    It’s a LNP thing.

Comments Page 61 of 63
1 60 61 62 63

Leave a Reply

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