hooman posted:

Also wouldn't estate taxes be a non ideological position because it works against wealth inequality which causes economic problems?

hooman posted:

http://www.ksbw.com/article/seaside-high-teacher-accidentally-fires-gun-in-class/19426017

High School teacher teaching gun safety accidentally shoots roof and injures student with ricochet. This is artfully timed.

Also wouldn't estate taxes be a non ideological position because it works against wealth inequality which causes economic problems? Obviously you'd need enforcement/taxation/gifting laws to make sure it isn't evaded but yeah.

froglet posted:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-03-13/sa-growers-push-for-right-to-farm-legislation-amid-urbanisation/9543306

Tl;dr - people buy houses near farms and are surprised to hear tractors and animals or smell farm odors.

Solemn Sloth posted:

There are some legitimate parts of the right to post argument, but some of it boils down to “I should be able to blight other people’s threads without compensation or recourse”

Anidav posted:

Wow lol at the Victorian tears over the tank building going to more likely to turn liberal state Queensland.

Solemn Sloth posted:

There are some legitimate parts of the right to farm argument, but some of it boils down to “I should be able to blight other people’s land without compensation or recourse”

Solemn Sloth posted:

Eh, not necessarily the case. In Victoria the case used to push this narrative is Blackmores Wagyu Beef Farm.

Basically a couple bought a property that was enclosed on three sides by a beef farm. They were quite happily living there for 5 years, then the farmer radically changed his practices which brought heavy amenity impacts to the couple. They complained to the council, and the council found the use of the farmland had changed to the point where planning permission was required. A permit was denied on the grounds of amenity, and the farmer and the farmers federation chucked one of the biggest tantrums you’ll ever see, resulting in Victoria committing to a reform program which is still ongoing.

bell jar posted:

how are queenslanders gonna build a tank when they cant even build a flood wall lol

Solemn Sloth posted:

There are some legitimate parts of the right to farm argument, but some of it boils down to “I should be able to blight other people’s land without compensation or recourse”

Knobb Manwich posted:

I'm crying because they keep calling me a tankie.

froglet posted:

To elaborate on this - if you were on 50k + super and slaary sacrificed 5k, some employers recalculate your super as if you were on 45k.

Alternatively, they'll say you adding 5k is the same as them adding the 9.5% and won't pay you super.

I hear the government was going to change this with legislation, but in the past year or so you can get around your employer's being cheap jerks by contributing post-tax then filling in a form to declare it so you get a tax deduction.

bandaid.friend posted:

I remember this one, the new practices attracted an immense number of birds, which caused trouble for a camp site

abc.net.au posted:

Labor's plan to abolish cash refunds for some shareholders has reopened the debate about how much government support retirees deserve.

The ALP announced on Tuesday that if a person is not eligible to pay any tax then they should no longer be able to convert excess credits into a cash refundfrom the tax office.

That inspired frustrated retirees to contact the ABC about their concerns over the policy, which would kick in from July next year if Labor wins the next election.

Some were annoyed about what they saw as yet another switch in the rules about their savings, because they had already been affected by changes brought in last year by the Coalition.

And they were bitter about the prospect of losing thousands of dollars a year if Labor's policy is implemented.

Those who emailed the ABC described the tax rebate cheque they received as representing presents for the grandchildren or "the occasional eye fillet".

There is political danger for Labor in that sort of anger — shadow treasurer Chris Bowen has revealed that 200,000 pensioners would be affected by the change in varying degrees.

But it is also an opportunity, with the expectation the policy will save $5 billion a year which can instead be channelled into income tax cuts.

Pensioners and retirees quickly become political weapons during these debates.

"They are battling," Malcolm Turnbull declared on Wednesday of the pensioners and self-funded retirees most likely to be affected by the Labor plan.

But battling is in the eye of the beholder.

Many of those in these circumstances are choosing to rely on the earnings they receive, including the cash payments that Labor wants to scrap, rather than gradually drawing down on their savings.

Mr Bowen pointed out that superannuation amounts of up to $1.6 million are tax-free, so people can appear to have low taxable income and might even be called "battlers".

But they can hold significant amounts in their superannuation.

"So for example, people in the top 1 per cent of self-managed super funds are getting $83,000 in refunds, that is more than the average wage and that is not sustainable," Mr Bowen told 7.30.

The Government calls it double taxation, but Mr Bowen draws the line at someone using the credits to reduce their tax liability to zero.

"We are not going to give you a refund when you have not paid tax," Mr Bowen said.

Former Liberal leader John Hewson agrees with the Labor plan, arguing there are better uses of government money than helping people who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in shares or the bank.

But he said he was surprised it was not being "grandfathered" to exempt people who have set up their investments under the current rules or give them more time to restructure.

Labor's Jenny Macklin argues the Government cannot claim to be pure when it comes to pensioners, arguing it has made plenty of attempts at adjusting the aged pension and the rules that apply to it, including lifting the pension eligibility age to 70 and scrapping the energy supplement of $365 a year.

Economist Chris Richardson has long argued that those policies, as well as Labor's latest plan, are all necessary to wind back the overly generous tax breaks for seniors introduced under the Howard years.

Solemn Sloth posted:

It’s loving disgraceful that the idea that retirees should actually have to draw down on their principal to fund retirement is somehow controversial

Tokamak posted:

My prime cut of meat

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

https://twitter.com/samdastyari/status/973707530852380673

Don Dongington posted:

The funniest part about the boomer outrage is that if you're pushing retirement and you don't have 400+K in equity on your house (let alone any investments), then what the gently caress we're you doing these last 15 years? Howard and the Rudd/Gillard govts handed you the keys on a silver platter and you still hosed it up.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Knobb Manwich posted:

I'm crying because they keep calling it a tank.