Anybody hear what Mark Latham wants to do to CGT?
- Thread starter perky29
- Start date
I did hear that.perky29 said:I heard on the radio on Wednesday morning Mark Latham wants to cut income taxes - but in turn raise the % of CGT payable on IP's (yet another dig at property investors)
I could not find any articles online though - did anyone else see/hear it?
I'm an ALP supporter. But that stand is not inconsistent with Labor's stand on "rich people" vs "Battlers'.
Pitt St said:
You can't leave that comment in , and not elaborate
See Change
That's interesting
I think that it would have an effect that's likely to deter Property investors from selling their IP's as quick as they normally might. It would have an overall effect on the property market of reducing stock and make it even tougher for battlers to get into property. If I was going to cop more tax on an IP sale? I think I'd be delaying the sale, hopefully find another means of obtaining cash (which is not that hard to do if you're in a position of profit on the property - CGT wouldn't be an issue if you were selling at a loss). If the market suited you could hold out for highest offers. Of course the Battlers are going to get huge tax relief given that they're likely to be in the lowest bracket anyway.
I wouldn't worry too much, it sounds like hot air.
I think that it would have an effect that's likely to deter Property investors from selling their IP's as quick as they normally might. It would have an overall effect on the property market of reducing stock and make it even tougher for battlers to get into property. If I was going to cop more tax on an IP sale? I think I'd be delaying the sale, hopefully find another means of obtaining cash (which is not that hard to do if you're in a position of profit on the property - CGT wouldn't be an issue if you were selling at a loss). If the market suited you could hold out for highest offers. Of course the Battlers are going to get huge tax relief given that they're likely to be in the lowest bracket anyway.
I wouldn't worry too much, it sounds like hot air.
Good old labour party at it again.
Remember the Hawke gov't scrapping negative gearing back in the 80's. Didn't take long to reinstate that one.
Although harser taxation of CGT would not impact as heavily it reduces interest in property investment which in turn leads to shortage of rental stock. Then the Gov't is forced to allocate more funds into this area which can be a drain on their coffers.
As it is with state land taxes, maintenence costs and huge transaction costs associated with property the share market with almost none of these is starting to look more and more attractive all the time. And now that it looks like its stocks turn to kick into its more bullish cycle any short shorted decisions by gov't will most likely come back to bite them.
Cheers - Gordon
Remember the Hawke gov't scrapping negative gearing back in the 80's. Didn't take long to reinstate that one.
Although harser taxation of CGT would not impact as heavily it reduces interest in property investment which in turn leads to shortage of rental stock. Then the Gov't is forced to allocate more funds into this area which can be a drain on their coffers.
As it is with state land taxes, maintenence costs and huge transaction costs associated with property the share market with almost none of these is starting to look more and more attractive all the time. And now that it looks like its stocks turn to kick into its more bullish cycle any short shorted decisions by gov't will most likely come back to bite them.
Cheers - Gordon
perky29 said:I heard on the radio on Wednesday morning Mark Latham wants to cut income taxes - but in turn raise the % of CGT payable on IP's (yet another dig at property investors
I could not find any articles online though - did anyone else see/hear it?
While previously being a union member and believing that good wages and working conditions will maintain Australia as such a beautiful place to live (comparative lack of crime, social harmony, freedom of speech & press)....I have voted Liberal for the last 12 years.
The unfortunate thing about the actual implementation of the ALP's economic ideology is that it the very people they intend to protect and further, become victims of poorly thought out policy......the abandoning of negative gearing previously pushed rents through the roof, hurting people that rented homes is one example....the Victorian state labour government under Joan Kirner sent the state broke and the WA state labour goverment under Brian Burke through away billions of dollars of tax payer dollars when it should have let natural selection run it's own course.
The GST would have to one of the best left wing taxes ever implemented....it gets nearly everyone, but the ALP didn't have the balls to introduce it even though they knew Australia needed it....I suppose they were "giving them what they wanted, not what they needed". How else are the vast majority of baby boomers who have not provided for themselves going to survive 30 years of retirement?? They expected a tax system that worked for their parents (who had around 4 kids each) to work for them (who had 2.3 kids each) and expect that the old line "I paid my taxes for 40 years and I deserve my pension" puts them on some kind of moral high ground......to me it doesn't matter if your on high moral ground, if you are scratching for pennies at 60 years of age, you only have yourself to blame.
That draws me to another political issue....people working longer. I have no problem with Costello wanting people to work longer, but if he wants it to happen, drop the income tax rates to a level where people want to stay in the workforce to earn income...they will not work for the good of their fellow man when they are buggered from working 40 years and want some time in the garden or fishing, plus copping a top marginal tax rate of close to 50c in the dollar. Of course you would need to raise the GST to compensate, but it is raising a good and fair tax (as it gets more people and is a flat rate) and reducing a tax that at this stage is picking up less people each year and does not encourage people as it is discriminatory.
Perky, should the ALP win government later this year, take a chill pill and watch closely.....their attempts at economic "fairness for all" will end in disaster once again for the battler and open the candy shop for those people that are prepared!
Glenn
Somehow we are always caught in good politics = good economic desisions. Whereas the real driving force is not economic but social. Economics is a means to an end : the social environment.
Of course one of the most interesting 20th centry political movements was the rise and fall of the union movements, from nothing to a combined group (1940~70's) who could basically force any demands thru goverment and hold society as a whole to ransom. The unstoppable rise of the knowledge workers (white collar, arse sitting workers) and the decline of the labor force (blue collar, movement orientated work) has totally undermined the power base of the unions.
We can all laugh at the last 10 years of Japan's economic mismanagement and inablility to make the changes required to return Japan to growth. However it is all very logical, Japan like everywhere else the economy is a means to an end, the social maintenance is the goal. The solution to Japan's problems is easy any 21 year new-grad economic/business major could probably come up with a excellent plan, however what is stopping Japan from making the economic changes is the social problems. Any plan would need to break the social contract between the government and many of its people causing street protests and displacements of entire industries and the people they employ. For example everyone knows about boondoggles of concrete (roads over rice fields going nowwhere) in the country costing billions, but few can takle the the dependance of the 1,000,000 of country workers to this drip feed/life line of jobs and money, those dependant on it turn support by the political party (LDP) that keeps the lifeline open no matter the long term costs of it. Japan also has enough land under cultivation to feed it's population, but again Farmers (a type of union) are totally against any reforms to farming practices (cutural), so we have the case in which Japanese have to pay the worlds highest food prices and Japan has to import most of it or starve: just to keep Nakano-san (and a 1,000,000 more of him) on his grossly inefficient little 1000m2 plot of rice paddies happy.
As mention above the more we try to help/support some groups the more we infact hurt them in the long run. Sorry to say but I see OZ polictics with 47% tax 11% GST as a choice between two very "left" socialist parties, left leaning socialist and right leaning socialist.
For more information about Ponzi read here
Of course one of the most interesting 20th centry political movements was the rise and fall of the union movements, from nothing to a combined group (1940~70's) who could basically force any demands thru goverment and hold society as a whole to ransom. The unstoppable rise of the knowledge workers (white collar, arse sitting workers) and the decline of the labor force (blue collar, movement orientated work) has totally undermined the power base of the unions.
We can all laugh at the last 10 years of Japan's economic mismanagement and inablility to make the changes required to return Japan to growth. However it is all very logical, Japan like everywhere else the economy is a means to an end, the social maintenance is the goal. The solution to Japan's problems is easy any 21 year new-grad economic/business major could probably come up with a excellent plan, however what is stopping Japan from making the economic changes is the social problems. Any plan would need to break the social contract between the government and many of its people causing street protests and displacements of entire industries and the people they employ. For example everyone knows about boondoggles of concrete (roads over rice fields going nowwhere) in the country costing billions, but few can takle the the dependance of the 1,000,000 of country workers to this drip feed/life line of jobs and money, those dependant on it turn support by the political party (LDP) that keeps the lifeline open no matter the long term costs of it. Japan also has enough land under cultivation to feed it's population, but again Farmers (a type of union) are totally against any reforms to farming practices (cutural), so we have the case in which Japanese have to pay the worlds highest food prices and Japan has to import most of it or starve: just to keep Nakano-san (and a 1,000,000 more of him) on his grossly inefficient little 1000m2 plot of rice paddies happy.
As mention above the more we try to help/support some groups the more we infact hurt them in the long run. Sorry to say but I see OZ polictics with 47% tax 11% GST as a choice between two very "left" socialist parties, left leaning socialist and right leaning socialist.
For more information about Ponzi read here
Labours 'on the record' performance regarding economic, fiscal, investor etc etc periods in Australias history is well documented.
It simply does not support a capitist outllook and any promises to scrap taxes and levies will be contra'd by obligations to support lazy boned bludgers and union movements that will again ring the country to its economic knees and record high interest rater etc etc etc etc etc etc .... and then some?
Agree - Latham is a politician
It simply does not support a capitist outllook and any promises to scrap taxes and levies will be contra'd by obligations to support lazy boned bludgers and union movements that will again ring the country to its economic knees and record high interest rater etc etc etc etc etc etc .... and then some?
Agree - Latham is a politician
Beware The Economists
Dear All
Good debate. Surprising we don't talk politics more often because Pollies set the goal posts for the game.
THE CLAIM
I have also seen this claim in print and raised it before in forum. I heard he would take away the 50% CGT rebate to lower personal taxes to 42c or 30c something like that.
MY THOUGHTS
I like Latham and he has got Howard off his butt policy wise.
I fear Labour economists.
Crean is the Treasurer, my fear increases.
If CGT/NG is changed what about treatment of shares. More confusion!
Fin Review says business owners state Latham has little understanding of reality of running a business.
These all sum up to a major concern on Labour Economic ability. Let’s face it; the best Labour Gov had a Treasurer (Keating) that even the most right wing Liberals would find aggressive.
EFFECT OF CHANGES?
Funny how a lot of armchair experts who bag NG have short memories.
Only 7 years ago it was all about Aussies don’t save enough! We buy cars and DVD and Mobiles!!!
Now we have the highest investment ever in IP and Shares by more individuals and they talk of playing with the drivers of this change?
BEWARE THE ECONOMISTS (with apologies to economists in the forum, they are the good ones) Changing one rule to pay for another is fraught with assumptions.
For example: if I had have lost 50% not 25% of my return on recent sale of IP to CGT I would not have sold at all.
Outcome....Return to Gov from CGT = nil, Income Tax = less through ongoing NG of my income. Where’s the win!!
COMPANY TAX
It was fascinating to read that Company Tax returns have risen overall despite the tax being lowered to 30c. Why? Because more were willing to pay the lower amount. Previously lease a new imported car was a popular option to avoid tax with all the balance of payments impacts it brought.
So whilst in my heart, a wholesale review and revamp of tax would be great policy and leadership, my head tells me the politics would get in the road and it could be out of the frying pan into the fire!
Regards, Peter 147
Dear All
Good debate. Surprising we don't talk politics more often because Pollies set the goal posts for the game.
THE CLAIM
I have also seen this claim in print and raised it before in forum. I heard he would take away the 50% CGT rebate to lower personal taxes to 42c or 30c something like that.
MY THOUGHTS
I like Latham and he has got Howard off his butt policy wise.
I fear Labour economists.
Crean is the Treasurer, my fear increases.
If CGT/NG is changed what about treatment of shares. More confusion!
Fin Review says business owners state Latham has little understanding of reality of running a business.
These all sum up to a major concern on Labour Economic ability. Let’s face it; the best Labour Gov had a Treasurer (Keating) that even the most right wing Liberals would find aggressive.
EFFECT OF CHANGES?
Funny how a lot of armchair experts who bag NG have short memories.
Only 7 years ago it was all about Aussies don’t save enough! We buy cars and DVD and Mobiles!!!
Now we have the highest investment ever in IP and Shares by more individuals and they talk of playing with the drivers of this change?
BEWARE THE ECONOMISTS (with apologies to economists in the forum, they are the good ones) Changing one rule to pay for another is fraught with assumptions.
For example: if I had have lost 50% not 25% of my return on recent sale of IP to CGT I would not have sold at all.
Outcome....Return to Gov from CGT = nil, Income Tax = less through ongoing NG of my income. Where’s the win!!
COMPANY TAX
It was fascinating to read that Company Tax returns have risen overall despite the tax being lowered to 30c. Why? Because more were willing to pay the lower amount. Previously lease a new imported car was a popular option to avoid tax with all the balance of payments impacts it brought.
So whilst in my heart, a wholesale review and revamp of tax would be great policy and leadership, my head tells me the politics would get in the road and it could be out of the frying pan into the fire!
Regards, Peter 147
see_change said:
I think he meant that you can avoid CGT by not selling.
Latham's just trying to get attention and support of the middle and lower class by these suggestions. Politicians!
One thing I dont like about politicians is that those who don't know anything about the issue likes to simply make new rules. And worse, appoint committes who dont know nothing (but think they know it all) and make rules just to gain support!
All they want is to be in power for their ego.
One thing I dont like about politicians is that those who don't know anything about the issue likes to simply make new rules. And worse, appoint committes who dont know nothing (but think they know it all) and make rules just to gain support!
All they want is to be in power for their ego.
austini said:
I tend to agree. It seems to me that Latham is hitting a lot of hot issues, but is mostly stiring up contreversy and not following through on them completely. His whole approach stinks of doing the popular thing without real consideration for the conciquences or how to pay for it.
I also think it's unfortunate that middle income investors will be the hardest hit at the end of the day. These are the people which in the long term will cost the government less as they'll be able to afford retirement rather than becoming a liability for future generations. Why be punished because you have a plan for providing for yourself? It's better than being broke at retirement and asking for a pension.
