The choice in the 2019 election is stark.
1. Climate change
Vote Labor if you want real action on climate change.
Vote Liberal if you think we can't make a difference to the planet's climate so why bother.
2. Franking credits
Vote Liberal if you think people who pay no tax should get a tax refund (paid for by ordinary taxpayers)
Vote Labor if you don't think this is fair.
3. Negative gearing
We have a whole generation of people who cannot afford to buy a house.
Vote Labor if you think this needs to be fixed.
Vote Liberal if you think it is alright to own several negative geared investment properties.
4. Tax cuts
Vote Liberal if you think giving the top 3% of income earners $77 billion in tax cuts.
Vote Labor if you think low income earners need the tax relief more (than the high income earners)
65 blames negative gearing and the so called rich for the young ones not being able to buy a house
House prices have always gone up. What has also gone up is the cost of living hence why they cant afford it. A first home buyer can buy a house in tarneit/weribee areas with 10% deposit (20k) They cant, sorry wont, save because a lot of them are too busy eating smashed avo or dont want to live out there.
Why cant people own a second or third property and negative gear it? You do know they are doing it so they arent reliant on welfare which by the sound of it, you are. Pay taxes all their life, buy a weekender which gives them no income and which excludes them from the aged pension, but yet you want to strip them from this benefit?
I suppose you also think the rich are the one only ones who negatively gear their properties? You then believe the rich have more debts/expenses than the income they receive from a rental.
The majority of people who own 2 properties wouldnt earn over 90k i wouldnt have thought. I suppose we can rely on bowen to let us know. Aftre all he did know what the tax free threshold is.
Franking Credits. Why wasnt the low income earners or super accounts opened after march 2018 included in the list who will maintain the benefit? Why should a self funded retiree who has never received income support via the aged pension, be not allowed to continue to receive this benefit? Sorry i forgot he is rich thats why. Worked his but off owns a house in rye, torquay, cowes or wherever earns not a single dollar from rent, and only relies on the 5-10k he receives from this benefit yet you think its fair it gets removed? Better idea perhaps this same elderly couple in the example should sell their little weekender then they will be eligible for the aged pension in 5 years. Only issue is they get taxed via Capital gains and lose half of it. You dont understand the system. A lot of these retirees earning less than the aged pension, will probably now sell up and then be reliant on welfare. How is that better?
Over to you 65.
