Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "Tax on 'hard-earned' super being talked about ‘as if its government money’: Laura Jayes" video.

  1. No Laura, you still don't get it. Chalmers opened this 'can of worms' with his speech saying in essence the WHOLE retirement system needed a major overhaul to make it 'equitable' and 'sustainable', comparing the amount of tax the government doesn't collect from EVERYONE'S superannuation to that of the money the government pays out on the aged pension. Not only that, fund managers should be directed by government how to invest clients money. Remember this is a guy so arrogant with delusions of grandeur he thinks he knows how to 'reimagine' global capitalism. When the 'shi# hit the fan, as any astute political operator would have foreseen, the damage control and spin merchants have been forced to step in and take control and quickly devise something half palatable. Where this has landed was NEVER what was planned.
    3
  2. The central question is NOT if this was a "broken promise". Anyone with half a brain should have expected Labor to go after super (and franking credits). The issue is just how radicle Jim Chalmers had planned to be, till it all blew up in his face, and the damage control and spin department had to step in to quickly devise a bit of 'smoke and mirrors' (the $3 Million) to try and put the fire out.
    3
  3. There is NO tax break in GCT on investment properties (and other assets e.g. shares). This is the greatest load of BS that seems to never go away. The only reason 50% of Capital Gains are included in assessible income (to be taxed at a persons highest marginal tax rate) is to account for inflation. Prior to the 50% rule being introduced a taxpayer was expected to keep detailed records of every capital improvement on a property, and then adjust each transaction by the appropriate CPI rate to convert everything into present values. This was then deducted from the sale price to determine the true capital gain in present monetary value. This historic process was both difficult for the taxpayer, and difficult to audit by the ATO. To simplify things they simply say lets assume half the increase in the price of the house was due to inflation, and half a true capital gain (to be taxed). It is actually relatively accurate.
    2
  4. The changes now only affect a "minority of people" solely because the whole media reacted to the obscene ideas original 'floated' by Chalmers. What he stupidly overlooked is that journalists, even those at the ABC, have considerable superannuation.
    1
  5.  @dontbeasheeple5883  I'm not supporting high taxes, just philosophically responding to the question you raise. If you follow your line of reasoning, why is the government entitled to a share of anyone's monetary rewards, no matter how it is generated? Clearly it IS just institutionalised theft. In a perfect world, we'd all pay the same dollar amount as a one off yearly tax for things like defence, and most other things would be user pay. The downside would be a violent and criminal society. About the only way I've ever be able to accept the high taxes imposed is see it as 'protection money' that has to be paid to keep the natives quiet.
    1
  6.  @dontbeasheeple5883  No, never took an issue to your comment. Was just 'chewing the fat' on the idea.
    1
  7. Jim Chalmers and Chris Bowen are incredible similar. Both ideological fools, driven by theory without any real world practical experience, both dangerous. The only difference is Chalmers is a slightly more polished fool than Bowen.
    1
  8. Stephen Jones is a complete idiot. This is the clown who described superannuation as a 'honey pot' for the government to be "spread around". What on earth has the 'average superannuation balance of $145K', obviously belonging the average person of average working age, lets say a 40 year old motor mechanic, got to do with what balances people may have, or should have, close to or after retirement age? Answer: Nothing.
    1
  9. This isn't positive. It is no more than the outcome of a failed attack on EVERYONE'S superannuation. Where it has landed is just something devised at the 12th hour by the damage control and spin doctors to try and hose down the out of control 'firestorm' Chalmers created by saying he wanted to 'reimagine' the complete retirement system.
    1