After the ‘rich people’ have deserted the country and can’t be taxed any longer by the ALP, Shorten will tax workers and small business into oblivion and the death duties he has mentioned will take us to new lows such as crippled Venezuela
Australia Headed for a Perfect Storm…………
Thoughts from a concerned Australian including on the 2019 election
REASON : 3 current convergences
- China bubble potential burst and commodity price collapse upon which Australia is so dependent
- 22% of all apartments are empty due to massive government building programs sold to individuals and producing no income. This bubble will ultimately burst. Similarly with factories etc
- The Chinese, with little trust of their government had been laundering their money through buying houses into what they considered safer jurisdictions such as Australia particularly Sydney and Melbourne, and forcing prices to record, unrealistic levels. The Chinese government has now cracked down on funds leaving the country hence a huge decrease in demand in those centres causing the current drop in the market. Some analysts believe the market in Sydney and Melbourne could drop by 42% at best case to 75% worse case.
- Dramatic decrease in demand for commodities upon which our economy depends as our main export destination for these.
Would you trust this union hack with the future of Australia and the destiny of your kids? Only God can help Australia because this trade union fascist is under control of Islam and the International Socialist Organisation
- Housing market collapse as above-Add to the above factors the current Bank created credit squeeze during and since the banking enquiry where potential home buyers are having difficulty in obtaining finance. It appears the Banks are thumbing their nose at governments and showing them who the real bosses are by turning off the credit tap until the restrictions are put aside or lessened. Whatever their reason, this in turn has tightened housing and other markets resulting in the current slowing. Job losses due to the drop in the housing market will inevitably result.
- Shorten election policies if he wins the election-Socialist take from the “rich” to give to the poor -to pay for the freebies- Shorten’s promises amount to an increase in asset taxes to cover his spending spree on social and climate change programs. Just a few examples:
- Taxation policies – Shorten has misrepresented these to the population
- Franking credits -are NOT A GIFT as Shorten constantly refers to them – a FC is the tax that the company paying a dividend to shareholders has to take out of that dividend to pay to ATO before the dividend is paid to the shareholder– so that the shareholder then includes the dividend in their personal tax returns and pays more tax if not enough has been deducted or gets a refund if excess has been taken out in relation to their overall personal tax position)- essentially similar to the principal of tax taken out of a wage(PAYG)-you get a refund if your individual circumstances give you unaccounted for deductions. This penalises people who have sought to be independent and cover their own retirement and not rely on the government pensions or handouts. Their doing so benefits the government bottom line. IT IS NOT USING OTHER TAXPAYERS TAXES to benefit the shareholder but uses their OWN PREPAID TAX. If he cannot be trusted on a simple thing like this what does it say about the other policies and hidden costs and smoke and mirrors.
- Negative gearing– the right to deduct expenses and losses from an investment property from other taxable income. Essentially it can be considered similar to an equipment dealer (for example let’s say a dealer in trucks or bull dozers which can be of similar value to an average house or more) selling items and claiming any expenses or shortfall if there is one against their tax. Selling a house that is not a private home is just similarly a trading business deal with income and expenses with input tax credits. Why is it being treated differently re negative gearing just because it is a fixed building?
This in effect will decrease investment in property to rent, thereby increasing demand competition through under supply, thereby increasing rents. Isn’t Australia already suffering from a short supply and especially will this be exacerbated by the Shorten immigration policies of bringing in huge numbers of refugees already requiring huge government aid. The greatest effect will be on those on the lower end of the market who can’t afford it -rents could have a very significant increase. Shorten says his government will then build 250,000 new low priced houses to fill the supply need – guess who pays- the taxpayer again. And if other schemes are an example (e.g. buildings for schools, insulation debacle) the waste will be frightening. Why not let the taxpayer be incentivised to build, own and deal with the houses rather than government? Far more efficient and economic.
In addition to government housing, currently the government runs a subsidised rental scheme where private investors provide the house to rent and it is rented out to vetted poorer families at a reduced rate by the government subsiding the balance. This reduces government outlays. Why would an investor take the risks and outlays if it is not tax deductable. This would decrease with fewer properties then available to those in greatest need. This currently supplies an additional affordable housing program over and above direct government built housing.
- A string of others not elaborated on-halving capital gains concession in certain cases, death taxes etc. Venezuela was one of the richest countries but look at it now. Could we follow that path?
- Climate Policies-whether you agree with current global warming rhetoric or not, Shorten’s response to explanations that Australia cannot afford it and it will break the country is that Australia cannot afford not to act, yet all reports are that Australia’s contribution of 1.3% will not be measurable in overall “warming” of the planet or affect climate disasters. The policies have been costed out by an independent group as being approx. half a trillion dollars with the loss of 380,000 jobs and an 8% wage reduction for all.As an indicator which should raise questions : Look at the temp vs CO2 graph in Al Gore’s first movie An Inconvenient Truth which pushed all this into the public arena and seemed quite convincing- with the graphs separated so a comparison of timing of the movements in temperature with CO2 could not be seen. This was taken from an original research graph but in that graph temperature and CO2 were superimposed and this showed clearly ( and not surprisingly)that whilst both graphs followed each other as accurately portrayed in the movie, the key was that the temperature graph on the research document moved first and the CO2 graph followed. This could not have been anything other than a calculated misrepresentation in this presentation.CO2 is not a pollutant but the essential plant food and hence the main building block for all life on earth. Without it plants die (95% of the dry weight of a plant comes from the air- note the essential photosynthesis equations you all learned in high school biology classes). What will that do to the food supply? Death of most plants occurs below 150ppm compared to current 400 ppm CO2. An increase in CO2 will be a good thing for the planet as it increases the growth and production of plants and decreases water use( both gases uptake and release from the plant occur by diffusion through the stomata/pores in the leaf and hence increased amounts of CO2 results in faster diffusion of CO2 into the leaf and therefore less water escapes in the process) . As confirmed by the up to 30% increase in crop yields over the last 30 years in the Mid-West due to the 100ppm rise in CO2. This is worth billions of dollars to the global agricultural economy. Note also that nursery growers in various sectors release high amounts of CO2 into their greenhouses in order to greatly increase their productivity. Research has been confirmed by increasing CO2 to over 1000ppm (compared to the current 400ppm) and found great increases in productivity and also in drought resistance. Where did the huge growth come from in the era of the dinosaurs where plant growth was prolific with vast forests and the huge size of all living things during that era of high CO2 levels? It is reported to have been up to 4000 to 8000 ppm in the atmosphere and life obviously flourished.
- This is concerning especially when considered in the light of Princeton University physics Professor William Happer’s explanation of the logarithmic effect of adding more CO2 to the atmosphere (i.e. as CO2rates rise it takes double the CO2 to produce each degree of temperature rise ) and that we are in an historical Greenhouse drought. If you assume all of the temperature rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius over the last 100 years with an increase from 300 to 400ppm of CO2 was due to CO2 (which it is not anyway), to get the same 0.8 rise we would need a doubling of the CO2 and a further doubling to add each 0.8 of a degree as the amount of CO2 rises. Is destroying Australia economically worth “no result” environmentally. Add to this the fact that CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere compared to say water vapour which is a far more effective greenhouse gas due to the quantity( So to be genuine they should tell us to limit the water vapour ?– but at least they don’t think we are stupid enough to fall for that suggestion).
- And what if Climate change theories are wrong??? There is a plethora of research contradicting the current public theories
Read the rest of this entry