345 replies to this topic

[Ice]

I just stay under the 75K in the simplified tax system, It's just like the old system. Only do my tax once a year.

Yes thats what i try to do but some years i go way over then just hand over more money than i should

[N/A-PWR]

Hello Darryl,

 

 Just wanted to put a twist on this scenario as follows.

 

In the real world, businesses round up not down, and we all pay the same but get less product,

 because the publican cannot afford to give away his money or his lifestyle to good customers.

 

In summary of all things considered - watering down the beer by 20% would be noticed,

 with the 5th man having the biggest saving of 100% reduced to 80% not being feasible,

 and we cannot pay 4 men a $1 each to drink, the outcome would be like this:-

 

Let's say the 10 men were having a pint (500ml) of beer a day each ($10) = $100 a day.

 and the product change was 20% less beer for the same cost,

 but the next size glass down was only a schooner,

 the 10 men would only get a schooner (375ml, 75% of a pint),

 a day each for the same cost.

 

The 10 men then said to each other,

 we cannot have a good time anymore and we still need to have a pint a day each, that was that!

 and then relized that the pint price had increased to $14 (rounded up from $13.33),

 increasing the overall cost by $40 to $140 a day.

 

The 6 men that were paying already, thought that these are tough times,

 and got rid of 3 most complaining non-paying mates,

 so seven men could drink and stay the same as before,

 being $100 a day, having 7 pints and giving a $2 tip to the bar girl to take their mind off the loss.

 

 

 

apologies if this has been mentioned before

 

taken off numerous websites ( not mine)  for humour but also further thinking Cheers .... Darryl

 

On the thread subject,

 

he other night, I seen Ricky Muir showing us how to use the semi-automatic rifle on question,

 

should they be banned or not, and thought this is not about the AMEP at all. 

[Ice]

So much bullshit in this thread.
Thank frOck some of you blokes don't write the rules - we'd all be #@$^%&!

How long you been in a business ???

[Ice]

4-1/2 years

Wow that long
come and talk to me when you,ve done 30 years bud your just fresh meat

[Steve TPF]

You both need to pull your heads out of the sand the reason they wont change negative gearing is because most politicians have investment property's
now we couldnt possibly have the rich Daisy Chains not making more money could we now
many years ago Alan Bond turned over 400 million $$$ in one year he paid 1% tax now please explain to me how thats fair to the average Australian go on
investment properties push house prices up you numskulls if you think they dont you got no frOckin idea what your talking about
if you can afford to buy a second home you are doing ok in life most people cant afford to buy one let alone 2

Im a Liberal supporter have been all my life but its time i change this country needs to start to look after its people
not greedy pricks

 

 

 I'm fully aware that many politicians have investment properties - I've said previously (in another thread) that's why they won't change negative gearing rules.

 

Re: Alan Bond - yep, he worked the system to his advantage. So did Kerry Packer, who was once sued by the Tax Department for not paying enough tax. He won. Guess what: rich people will always have an advantage. The more investments they have, the more complicated the tax code - and the more they have to spend on accountants - the better off they will be.

 

 You think investment properties are pushing prices up? Well, if the government wanted to bring prices down they could do it. Limit overseas buyers, increase land releases to make more new housing available - reduce taxes on new homes. They aren't doing any of that - because they want the housing market to stay high. The greater the value of a property the more tax paid on it.  

 

you can afford to buy a second home you are doing ok in life most people cant afford to buy one let alone 2

 

I've got news for you - when I first bought an investment property I didn't own my own home - I was living in a shared house with several other guys. My parents helped me out to make it happen (do you think that's unfair too?) For the first 3-4 years I was taking a loss that negative gearing DIDN'T offset and I had SFA spare cash. I made a sacrifice so that I could invest for my future. Some years later, when increased rent took my property to the break-even point I got my own home - and again was crippled by a mortgage. I don't go out. I don't buy fancy clothes, have a smartphone or most of the crap other people have. I've sacrificed my lifestly to provide for my future.

 

Im a Liberal supporter have been all my life but its time i change this country needs to start to look after its people

not greedy pricks

 

I agree this country should start looking after its people - but how do you define "greedy pricks"? 

Am I a "greedy prick" because I've used one of the few decent investment opportunities available to low-income earners like me? Because I want to provide for myself in my later years rather than relying on government handouts? Super is a write-off: they keep moving it further away and changing how you can take it. I either provide for myself or I work till I drop.

 

 You want negative gearing abolished? Fine. I'll agree to no tax reductions for my investment - as long as you agree that I pay no capital gains tax when I sell it. How does that sound? You don't want to "subsidise" my investment - I don't want to share my gains with you. That's the flip side of investment that Waleed Aly doesn't mention - when investors sell they pay tax. Lots of it. Do you really think the government is taking an overall loss on this? That they allow people to claim deductions that are worth more than the tax they pay when they sell? 

 

 Lets say you get your wish and negative gearing is scrapped. The "rich pricks" you hate will invest somewhere else - the little guys like me will wear the pain. And how will you benefit? Will houses become cheaper? No. Will those tax deductions start flowing your way? No. In fact, it probably won't make one bit of difference to you at all.

 

 I am not your enemy here. I am just a regular bloke who is trying to provide for himself. Screwing me will not make you better off - and it will only be a minor inconvenience to the big-timers who have many options to choose from.

[S pack]

 You want negative gearing abolished? Fine. I'll agree to no tax reductions for my investment - as long as you agree that I pay no capital gains tax when I sell it. How does that sound?

That is a bloody good idea.

When you purchase an investment property you decide to either claim tax deductions on the property and be liable for CGT when you sell or not claim tax deductions and have no CGT liability when you sell. Brilliant, I'd vote for that.

[RallyRed]

With a tax system that is about 10,00000,0000 pages in length...we aint gunna solve it here. But hey....

 

Agree that it does seem a bit iffy that rich bast##s can have 20 propertis and run them all at a loss, such that they pay no tax to speak of.

I guess they are providing house for people to live in. 

They are paying expenses to purchase, manage, maintain, renovate, sell, land tax, stamp duty etc etc...

 

But its a bit of a popularist line of crap really, all this attacking of the Negative Gearing for properties.

 

Small business people often get a new car for the ""business"" and yet it seems to spend most of the time running the kids to school and soccer?..why does the taxpayer need to subsidise that?

Professionals ( Doctors in particular) always seem to have important conferences in Switzerland or Florida?...fly bussiness class...., oh, and tack on a surfing trip on the way home, why not?...is all a tax deduction.

Real smarties set up family trusts and distribute taxable  investment income to multiple family members and such until the per person return becomes non taxable and land values fall bellow the Land Tax threshold, gee , even the dog probably gets a $$ distribution each year...no tax payable there either.

Multinationals just laugh at us as they shift taxable profits offshore.

Then of course there;s the ledgends who shift their personal wealth to the Cayman Islands..........nothing to see here....oh!!...quick look over there...there is a bloke on $75k a year with 3 kids who has a second house....oooh...what a grub..he  needs to be sorted out now, he's wrecking our country.

Its a gee up.

 

Negative Gearing ( running at a deductable loss) is somehow OK for all the richies, ...unless its for mum and dad investors, ...we cant have the working class getting in on it,..its a good lurk this aying little/no tax every year....... so lets set up an argument and set the wage slaves with investment properties, against the wage slaves without  investment properties. That way they will never twig to the fact that its all the rage in the rich circles.

 

Its a smoke screen people.....not the real issue.  Keep ém busy with this shit, so they dont see who's REALLY ripp'n the country off.

 

IMHO

[Steve TPF]

With a tax system that is about 10,00000,0000 pages in length...we aint gunna solve it here. But hey....

 

Agree that it does seem a bit iffy that rich bast##s can have 20 propertis and run them all at a loss, such that they pay no tax to speak of.

I guess they are providing house for people to live in. 

They are paying expenses to purchase, manage, maintain, renovate, sell, land tax, stamp duty etc etc...

 

 

 ^^ This.

 

 The reason properties are negative geared is because they operate at a LOSS. Which means the people renting them are paying LESS than they would if they were actually BUYING the same property. So negative-geared properties are SUBSIDISING the renters. Can someone explain to me how this is unfair?

[caterham2]

IF we lose negative gearing then a lot of small investors will leave the housing sector. IF this happens the government/ public housing departments will have a LONG line of people at their door because :

 A: the investors will dump their property on the market and get away from the problem.   OR

B: the rents will have to go up to the amount needed to service  the mortgage on the property at least  and then the renters will get a shock. ( welcome to the real world!) 

There is a substantial shortage of public/ low cost rental property now as it is,  I cannot imagine ANY Government wanting this shortage to blow sky high on their watch, it would lose them votes surely.

I think the coalition won't meddle with the way that it is too much, they will instead leave something  up their sleeves to bash Labor with regarding the Labor plans for negative gearing.

My wife and I have 2 properties that were negatively geared for some time, but with the past years of low interest they have inched up into the black. If not for the wonderful long term tenants we have, we would have

sold the properties by now and put the money into Superannuation with the concessions available that help offset the other nasty which is Capital Gains tax. One way or the other the Gov't is going to get their hands on some of this money, what I object to is it being redistributed to non deservers that lounge in bed all day waiting for my hard earned to turn up each fortnight via Centrelink  

[EunUCh]

The only "decent"  person who can represent the people and their concerns is one who can not hide behind bullshit is the one who can walk down the main street of an  Australian town/city  without a plethora of of bullshit being slung back at them by bullshit main stream

media tagging them as a "this or that" .

Any public servant paid by the taxpayer has the right to further the Commonwealths commonwealth by means of law under the law.

 

We all have the right to invest , make the Country better for the betterment as a nation  for (us) the people without being deprived 

of our civil liberties as people (private persons) to make and spend money as we see fit for the betterment of the Country Australia.

 

Ricky Muir might well be a member , if he is not , he might like join all us 'nutcases' and put his view forward in "parliament".

 

Edit: when was the ATO Gazzette published and by who's authority ? sect 128 may be?

Edited by EunUCh, 01 May 2016 - 08:35 PM.

[orangeLJ]

Sigh

Some people need to do accounting 101 and a basic business course.

A small business operating at a loss doesn't necessarily lose the owner/operator money. You'll often find it's creative accounting more than real world economics.

Many billion dollar multinationals will operate at a loss year to year for tax minimisation or to help write down company values etc etc. a big profit is only useful when you're going out with a share option.

Negative gearing isn't the devil. It's not tax evasion or stealing from the tax payer. It's just another method of lowering your income. Much the same way as claiming vehicle usage, technology purchases etc etc is on you income tax.

The media have whipped it into a circus and the 'poor working class' have gobbled it up as the cause of all their financial woes.

In atleast happy to read a few logical replies in here from people who understand the system and the basics of the microeconomics and tax

[RallyRed]

As above...

 

Negative gearing isn't the devil. It's not tax evasion or stealing from the tax payer. It's just another method of lowering your income. Much the same way as claiming vehicle usage, technology purchases etc etc is on you income tax.

The media have whipped it into a circus and the 'poor working class' have gobbled it up as the cause of all their financial woes.

 

 

.....yes yes and yes....and yes. Just like i tried to say, but you said it better and clearer. Thanks

[Ice]

30 years "managing" your own business and you are still labouring on the tools daily ? 
 
You are doing something wrong !!

No im not doing anything wrong you try finding someone thats does the same job as me i take care and pride in my work and you know this
there not out there most dont give a rats they just want there money in the bank every friday
thats the difference

[Ice]

Any body cant read a stick while someone else is holding it
its not rocket science

[Ice]

Can ^