Thinking back a few decades

[Phil Perry]

If someone had told me 30 years ago that in 2017 I would totally despise an (allegedly) Conservative Government, and those of our European 'allies' whilst simultaneously admiring the President of Russia. . . . .

 

I would have suggested that . . .

 

1) You imbibe fewer Class A substances, And,

 

2) Bugger orf off and annoy someone else with your nonsense. . ..

 

However....

 

 

[Bruce]

Me too Phil, on the other side of things a bit.

 

30 years ago I was a member of a labor party branch.

 

Only a few weeks ago, I was considering voting for Pauline Hanson, until I found out about the sustainable population party.

 

What I think has happened is that labor and liberal have drifted together under the pressure of opinion polls and the donations of property billionaires.

 

I dislike them all.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

This sure is an interesting time in politics. The old loyalties are crumbling as voters realise how much they've been taken for granted by the big parties. Australia now has more minor parties than ever.

 

Still, too many voters are past caring and easily manipulated into ticking boxes. Getting your name in front of people costs more than most candidates can afford. No wonder most politicians just give lip service to the rest of us, but only listen to Big Money. The big end of town has so much behind-the-scenes power the Turnbull's government is going after pressure groups like GetUp.

 

GetUp! - Fight for our independence

 

 

[facthunter]

Turnbull and his mob want to make it so Labor never gets back in Power. WHILE.. They are racked with factional problems that appear unsolvable. Labor and the Aust Tories the same? You need to look a bit harder. Turnbull and Co "wedge " them pretty effectively. Liberal is NOT Liberal at all. nor is it "SMALL" government. They want to tell power companies when they can close down OLD worn Out Power stations Like LIDDELL They talk of THEM building a coal fired power station.. They don't want to fund Universities or TAFE colleges. They are a sort of "copy" of the US TEA party. THE IPA write their agenda completely. The "MONEY" controls the IPA. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Of course government want to tell the owners of power stations what they can do with them. They also built the power stations, but they seem to forget that they sold them to private enterprise. They can't understand why they are no longer in control. Same goes for Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank

 

 

[Yenn]

What public transport? They closed our railway station in the eighties, never had a bus service.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Turnbull and his mob want to make it so Labor never gets back in Power. WHILE.. They are racked with factional problems that appear unsolvable. Labor and the Aust Tories the same? You need to look a bit harder. Turnbull and Co "wedge " them pretty effectively. Liberal is NOT Liberal at all. nor is it "SMALL" government. They want to tell power companies when they can close down OLD worn Out Power stations Like LIDDELL They talk of THEM building a coal fired power station.. They don't want to fund Universities or TAFE colleges. They are a sort of "copy" of the US TEA party. THE IPA write their agenda completely. The "MONEY" controls the IPA. Nev

Labor hasn't done themselves any favours with Sam Dastyari being caught with fingers in the Chinese trough and the ongoing whiff of Shorten's dodgy deals while union leader. This gives the impression to the voter that they're all as bad as each other.

 

However I believe that, while Labor certainly don't refuse money from the "big end of town", they at least have a more progressive and fairer set of policies than the LNP. As you say Nev, the IPA - and I'd add, banks, chambers of commerce and coal miners - write the LNP playbook. None of these institutions have the public good front and centre in their mind.

 

Labor has overall been pretty impressive with their policy releases while in opposition. They've dared to touch the golden cow of negative gearing & capital gains tax, while the LNP bleats about the "supply side" being the cause of high house prices (despite recent data showing an oversupply in housing stock overall).

 

The LNP has always had the mantra "we're the fiscally responsible party" - but that's been shown to be absolutely false.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...The LNP has always had the mantra "we're the fiscally responsible party" - but that's been shown to be absolutely false.

So true, Nev. Australia is now paying the price of dumb, short-sighted decisions made by the Howard government. A 25- year contract to export NW shelf gas for a pittance, leaving domestic industries paying far more for Aussie gas than our export customers. Middle class welfare and tax cuts instead of the investments in infrastructure we needed. Ignoring the RAAF's own selection procedure in the purchase of the F-35. Selling off our major airports to mates and giving the rest to local government...

 

 

[willedoo]

Labor has overall been pretty impressive with their policy releases while in opposition. They've dared to touch the golden cow of negative gearing & capital gains tax.

Marty, there's a bit more to capital gains tax than meets the eye. Originally, I'm fairly sure it was a lower tax rate than normal income tax. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 15% rings a bell. Then one budget, Peter Costello was bragging about introducing the 50% discount if you've owned the asset for more than a year (this is what Labor want to scrap). What the then Treasurer didn't talk about was that they also lumped capital gains tax onto your normal income. This means that you could pay up to 49% on at least a portion of it. So in a way, the 50% discount was some compensation for that.

 

Having said that, I calculated that in my position, I would pay a lot less tax under the old system. They spruiked that the new discount would save the punters tax, but in reality they got screwed over.

 

Which brings me to my situation. I'm putting my place on the market soon and moving. I have a twenty acre bush block in a growth area. I didn't buy it to speculate, and only bought more than two hectares because that was the size the block happened to be. I've lived on it for thirty years and that's all I've done with it. Principal place of residence. The capital gains exemption is only for the residence and two hectares (5 acres). So I have to pay CGT on the other 15 acres. If I was over 55 (which I am) and was selling a small business to retire, I would not pay one cent. I'm over 55 and selling my primary residence I've lived at for 30 years to retire, and I'll be up for about $50,000 tax.

 

The 50% discount is all people like me have going for them, and Bill Shorten wants to scrap that, so I'll have the privilege of doubling my CGT bill. Needless to say, I won't be voting Labor at the next election. If I bought properties less than 5 acres in size and turned them over every 13 months for a profit (which is a speculator), I wouldn't pay a cent. Likewise if I was selling a small business. But I've lived on my place for 30 years and am about to get screwed over because my place is bigger than 5 acres. And Billy Shorten wants to double screw me over.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Marty, there's a bit more to capital gains tax than meets the eye. Originally, I'm fairly sure it was a lower tax rate than normal income tax. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 15% rings a bell. Then one budget, Peter Costello was bragging about introducing the 50% discount if you've owned the asset for more than a year (this is what Labor want to scrap). What the then Treasurer didn't talk about was that they also lumped capital gains tax onto your normal income. This means that you could pay up to 49% on at least a portion of it. So in a way, the 50% discount was some compensation for that.

Having said that, I calculated that in my position, I would pay a lot less tax under the old system. They spruiked that the new discount would save the punters tax, but in reality they got screwed over.

 

Which brings me to my situation. I'm putting my place on the market soon and moving. I have a twenty acre bush block in a growth area. I didn't buy it to speculate, and only bought more than two hectares because that was the size the block happened to be. I've lived on it for thirty years and that's all I've done with it. Principal place of residence. The capital gains exemption is only for the residence and two hectares (5 acres). So I have to pay CGT on the other 15 acres. If I was over 55 (which I am) and was selling a small business to retire, I would not pay one cent. I'm over 55 and selling my primary residence I've lived at for 30 years to retire, and I'll be up for about $50,000 tax.

 

The 50% discount is all people like me have going for them, and Bill Shorten wants to scrap that, so I'll have the privilege of doubling my CGT bill. Needless to say, I won't be voting Labor at the next election. If I bought properties less than 5 acres in size and turned them over every 13 months for a profit (which is a speculator), I wouldn't pay a cent. Likewise if I was selling a small business. But I've lived on my place for 30 years and am about to get screwed over because my place is bigger than 5 acres. And Billy Shorten wants to double screw me over.

Willedoo, I'm sorry to hear about your situation, but I guess on the positive side you mention it's a growth area, so correct me if I'm wrong but would the $50,000 tax you pay be more or less than the added value over and above the average growth rate of an equivalent investment? (So for example, if you had put the purchase price of your 20 acre block in 1987 into a balanced managed investment, paid the management fees plus rent to live for that 30 years.)

 

I'd like to see the data, but I think people in your situation may be in the minority on this one - property speculators would be the main target of this policy. Plus I'm willing to bet there'd be protections put in place or grandfathering provisions for people that have owned the "family farm" for decades.

 

You could also compare your situation with someone who owns acreage in a non-growth area. Their property may be worth the same or less than what the original price was. Yes they don't pay CGT, but then again, they don't make anything either - then they have to go buy a house on which the value has been artificially inflated by property speculators using negative gearing and CGT discounts to make a quick buck.

 

 

[facthunter]

Capital gain still has costs in looking after the assett. They should be deductable before the amount is assessed. Often it's just keeping level with inflation. A lot of it has been just holding it's original value.( Purchasing value in the market). If you sell and but another similar, you are back where you were (but in a different place ) and have payed a shitload of tax for the privilege.. People who have to move with job change are in the same boat if there are limits on the Value of the asset. Inflation should be DEDUCTED from interest based and asset value change. if we are being FAIR.. Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

Marty, the market influence of speculators is a different issue (although it does influence the inflating prices of property).

 

As well as the cases of family farm sellup, there growing numbers of ageing people who opted for a tree change retirement. Neither of these groups are speculators. When these people move into the next phase of life they inevitably sell up. That's when they will get bitten by the present CGT. You'll find that it will be very expensive by then to buy back in the city, or the elder care environment. For instance, we paid $350k to get my folks into a progressive care accommodation. The sale of their rural home on 25 acres of non productive bushland only brought $225k. Of course CGT was applied to most of the "profit".

 

 

[willedoo]

Marty, there are no grandfathering provisions. CGT applies to everyone who bought their property after the introduction of legislation in 1985. The law doesn't apply before that date, after that, everyone is fair game.

 

At times, consultants and think tanks have floated the idea of scrapping the primary residence + 5 acre exemption. That would mean every urban Australian would be hit by CGT on their suburban house if they sold. Thankfully, no government has been brave or foolish enough to take it on.

 

People are often critical of CGT exemptions when they are safe from it on their small suburban block. My crime is to own a purely residential block that just happens to be a bit bigger. I wouldn't mind betting those same critics on their town blocks would squeal like pigs if the general exemption was scrapped. And remember, post 1985, everyone is liable for the tax. The only reason town dwellers don't pay is because they have an exemption. People in glass houses (under 5 acres of course).

 

And another point to anyone living on a suburban block. Why should you get the exemption and I don't? Think about that one. We're both in the same situation - living on a primary residence property. You live in town, I live in the country. I pay, you don't. I honestly thought that by the 21st. century, Australia would be better than that.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Willedoo

 

A acquaintance Sold his rural property in small pieces.

 

keeping the family residence & airstrip till last, I don't know if it has any bearing on CGT but it was done for a reason. New owner plowed the airstrip away.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

Marty, there are no grandfathering provisions. CGT applies to everyone who bought their property after the introduction of legislation in 1985. The law doesn't apply before that date, after that, everyone is fair game.

At times, consultants and think tanks have floated the idea of scrapping the primary residence + 5 acre exemption. That would mean every urban Australian would be hit by CGT on their suburban house if they sold. Thankfully, no government has been brave or foolish enough to take it on.

 

People are often critical of CGT exemptions when they are safe from it on their small suburban block. My crime is to own a purely residential block that just happens to be a bit bigger. I wouldn't mind betting those same critics on their town blocks would squeal like pigs if the general exemption was scrapped. And remember, post 1985, everyone is liable for the tax. The only reason town dwellers don't pay is because they have an exemption. People in glass houses (under 5 acres of course).

 

And another point to anyone living on a suburban block. Why should you get the exemption and I don't? Think about that one. We're both in the same situation - living on a primary residence property. You live in town, I live in the country. I pay, you don't. I honestly thought that by the 21st. century, Australia would be better than that.

I feel your pain, I am in exactly the same boat.

 

 

[willedoo]

If someone had told me 30 years ago that in 2017 I would totally despise an (allegedly) Conservative Government, and those of our European 'allies' whilst simultaneously admiring the President of Russia. . . . .

Times are changing, Phil. A couple of years ago, if you'd publicly expressed any form of admiration or respect for the Boss, you would have been howled down. But nary a peep now.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I have no doubt that Vlad has as certain amount, perhaps a lot, of blood on his hands, what with being in charge of the KGB. . .However; there seems to be no one else with any chance at all of unseating him in a presidential contest. . .so I guess he will be around for the foreseeable. . .

 

 

[facthunter]

It appears to be a health hazard to run against him, or comment adversely so I won't say anything bad about Vlad our Lad. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

How does the boss stay in charge? It's said that in Russia, China and Saudi Arabia pretty much everyone in the ruling class is corrupt, but only those who don't support the incumbent leader are prosecuted in "show trials".

 

They are then stripped of their assets- a neat way to reduce government deficits.

 

 

[facthunter]

Love ME or you die. A Pretty persuasive proposition. Read excommunicated , die in hell, lose your head etc. ALL sound familiar?. A pox on all their houses. May time wound all heels.. Nev

 

 

[willedoo]

I have no doubt that Vlad has as certain amount, perhaps a lot, of blood on his hands, what with being in charge of the KGB. . .

It's a common mis-naming, Phil. Vlad was never in charge of the KGB. He retired from the KGB a mid level officer of Lieutenant Colonel rank. From there he ventured into politics and later on, Boris appointed him head of the Russian Federation's FSB (successor of the KGB). He held that post for about a year until being appointed Prime Minister under Yeltsin. In the 12 months he was director of the FSB, there wasn't much cloak and dagger stuff going on. Most people were just concentrating on finding something to eat.

 

He joined the KGB not long after graduating from uni, and was based in Leningrad, his home town. Duties were mainly keeping an eye on foreigners and uni students and seeking out new recruits. After that he was posted to East Germany, mainly collecting and shuffling newspaper clippings. It's an urban myth that he was the big evil head of the KGB. He was more like a mid level clerk. A bit boring, really.

 

Another point about Vlad is that Russian corruption wasn't invented by him. After the fall of the Union, everything was up for grabs and it was in Yeltsin's early years when the corrupt oligarchs rose in power and took over. They personally profited, but it strangled the country. With all the asset stripping and shutdown of industry and jobs, it's estimated that up to two million people starved to death in the first half of the 90's.

 

Putin was a Saint Petersburg politician when all this was happening. A few years later, after gaining the presidency, he weeded out enough of the corrupt oligarchs to make the country function and bring back some industry and jobs, but left enough so he wouldn't be overthrown or assassinated. And of course, if you can make a quid yourself, all well and good. That's how that country and many others work; it's a fact of life. We amuse ourselves by comparing these countries to our standards, but it's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

Another thing he did in the early years was kick out the Americans and reclaim Russia's resources and sovereignty. After the U.S.A. won the Cold War, they thought they finally had Russia until Putin came along and spoiled their party. They had a good run when Boris bent over and dropped his pants for them, but Vlad came along and stuck it right back up them. That's why the American administrations and agencies hate him. It's not Ukraine, Syria, Nukes, or the threat of the dreaded Russians coming; as usual it's all over money and pride (and oil, needless to say).

 

 

[Phil Perry]

It's a common mis-naming, Phil. Vlad was never in charge of the KGB. He retired from the KGB a mid level officer of Lieutenant Colonel rank. From there he ventured into politics and later on, Boris appointed him head of the Russian Federation's FSB (successor of the KGB). He held that post for about a year until being appointed Prime Minister under Yeltsin. In the 12 months he was director of the FSB, there wasn't much cloak and dagger stuff going on. Most people were just concentrating on finding something to eat.

He joined the KGB not long after graduating from uni, and was based in Leningrad, his home town. Duties were mainly keeping an eye on foreigners and uni students and seeking out new recruits. After that he was posted to East Germany, mainly collecting and shuffling newspaper clippings. It's an urban myth that he was the big evil head of the KGB. He was more like a mid level clerk. A bit boring, really.

 

Another point about Vlad is that Russian corruption wasn't invented by him. After the fall of the Union, everything was up for grabs and it was in Yeltsin's early years when the corrupt oligarchs rose in power and took over. They personally profited, but it strangled the country. With all the asset stripping and shutdown of industry and jobs, it's estimated that up to two million people starved to death in the first half of the 90's.

 

Putin was a Saint Petersburg politician when all this was happening. A few years later, after gaining the presidency, he weeded out enough of the corrupt oligarchs to make the country function and bring back some industry and jobs, but left enough so he wouldn't be overthrown or assassinated. And of course, if you can make a quid yourself, all well and good. That's how that country and many others work; it's a fact of life. We amuse ourselves by comparing these countries to our standards, but it's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

Another thing he did in the early years was kick out the Americans and reclaim Russia's resources and sovereignty. After the U.S.A. won the Cold War, they thought they finally had Russia until Putin came along and spoiled their party. They had a good run when Boris bent over and dropped his pants for them, but Vlad came along and stuck it right back up them. That's why the American administrations and agencies hate him. It's not Ukraine, Syria, Nukes, or the threat of the dreaded Russians coming; as usual it's all over money and pride (and oil, needless to say).

Sorry Willie. . .my bad, I Meant the FSB,. I read a couple of essays part written by solzhenitsyn he of the Gulag Archipelago fame, amongst others which detailed KGB ops and many of it's officers.

 

They had quite a network ! Have not really followed his story in more recent times. GOOD post mate.

 

 

[willedoo]

Thanks Phil.

 

There's plenty of documentaries on Putin, but this one by Andrei Karaulov is interesting and worth watching for a bit of an insight into that period during the 90's. There's a bit lost in translation, and should be taken with a grain of salt, but still worth a watch.

 

 

There's another thing I find interesting about Putin. Most people in the West have formed their opinions on him based almost entirely on the writings of American journalists. They say it and we believe it.

 

Cheers, Willie.

 

 

[gareth lacey]

Watch the Putin interviews with Oliver stone ,it was over 2 years in the making, he is a very astute politician, smart as and gave some very interesting answers to questions on arms,Russian economy, political interference in US elections , above it all he puts Russia first ,as all politicians should do in their respective countries he comes across as very intelligent, and unlike some of the pollies of all persuasions from many countries he is tough, one answer to immigration was : if you come to our country you abide to our laws ,assimilate ,we do not bow to yours

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Watch the Putin interviews with Oliver stone ,it was over 2 years in the making, he is a very astute politician, smart as and gave some very interesting answers to questions on arms,Russian economy, political interference in US elections , above it all he puts Russia first ,as all politicians should do in their respective countries he comes across as very intelligent, and unlike some of the pollies of all persuasions from many countries he is tough, one answer to immigration was : if you come to our country you abide to our laws ,assimilate ,we do not bow to yours

Regrettably it has become glaringly evident that REAL Investigative REPORTING has now been replaced with sloppy 'Opinion' pieces, often disjointed and rarely fact checked to any degree. Proper investigative stuff like Woodward and Bernstein's Washington Post expose of the Watergate business has sadly all but vanished with that once respected journal now regarded by many in the USA as a joke paper, mainly concerned with Trump Bashing. Nothing wrong with that, but since most of the Federal departments, ie DOJ, NSA, FBI seem to be run like some kind of joke Mafia, the CIA being totally out of any control and acting like an undercover worldwide government in itself. .

 

I would have thought that there Must be other things for good reporters to dig at in some depth. . .Unless perhaps they are collectively worried about being 'Suicided' in the back of the head one dark evening. . . who knows. . .

 

* * * * *EDITED TO ADD * * * * *

 

I gather that anyone reporting anything negative with regard to the infamous Clinton Foundation, appears to end up dedded, usually in the most strange circumstances. I believe that the 'Suicide' toll now exceeds sixty persons. . ..