Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Labor, Liberal, Greens, Democrats? Here's the place to discuss.

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Trader » Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:22 pm

Q. wrote:Low and middle class don't claim excess franking credits!


Ok, lets look at an example.

For simplicity, lets put the full portfolio into CBA, and assume no other income (ie, they are living the retired life).

28,400 shares at an average price of $73.30 = $2,081,720 portfolio.
In 17/18 CBA paid $4.31 in dividends.
For 28,400 shares, that's $122,404, fully franked, meaning you also got $52,459 in franking credits.

Your income is now $174,863, and the tax owed on that, is $52,331. You've got $52,459 in credits, so you actually get a return of $128.

-------------------------

So the above is an example of someone with a portfolio of over $2,000,000 that currently gets "excess" franking credits and would receive cash back from the ATO.
Anyone with a smaller portfolio, would also receive cash back from "excess" credits.

Q. wrote:Average superannuation balances at the time of retirement (assumed to be age 60 to 64) in 2015-16 were $270,710 for men and $157,050 for women.

This policy doesn't affect low and middle income earners.


If average is $200k, and this policy impacts anyone with up to $2m in their portfolio, I'm fairly confident to say this WILL impact all low and middle income earners with a portfolio and no other income stream.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 2550
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 329 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Q. » Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:39 pm

Trader wrote:
Q. wrote:Low and middle class don't claim excess franking credits!


Ok, lets look at an example.

For simplicity, lets put the full portfolio into CBA, and assume no other income (ie, they are living the retired life).

28,400 shares at an average price of $73.30 = $2,081,720 portfolio.
In 17/18 CBA paid $4.31 in dividends.
For 28,400 shares, that's $122,404, fully franked, meaning you also got $52,459 in franking credits.

Your income is now $174,863, and the tax owed on that, is $52,331. You've got $52,459 in credits, so you actually get a return of $128.

-------------------------

So the above is an example of someone with a portfolio of over $2,000,000 that currently gets "excess" franking credits and would receive cash back from the ATO.
Anyone with a smaller portfolio, would also receive cash back from "excess" credits.

Q. wrote:Average superannuation balances at the time of retirement (assumed to be age 60 to 64) in 2015-16 were $270,710 for men and $157,050 for women.

This policy doesn't affect low and middle income earners.


If average is $200k, and this policy impacts anyone with up to $2m in their portfolio, I'm fairly confident to say this WILL impact all low and middle income earners with a portfolio and no other income stream.


Your first example is someone is the highest wealth decile. 85% of retirees claiming the franking credit refund are in the highest wealth decile.

The 200K average would also be a on a pension and therefore exempt.
User avatar
Q.
Coach
 
 
Posts: 21046
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: El Dorado
Has liked: 929 times
Been liked: 2163 times
Grassroots Team: Houghton Districts

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Trader » Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:45 pm

Q. wrote:Your first example is someone is the highest wealth decile.


Correct.

Every non-pension-recipient with a portfolio under $2m will lose out of this legislation.

You need to either be super wealthy (portfolios over $2.5m), or stuck on the pension hating life.

If you are anywhere in the middle ground, you'll get smashed by this.

This policy attacks anyone that has done enough to not require the pension, but isn't lucky enough to be super-wealthy.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 2550
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 329 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Q. » Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:53 pm

Trader wrote:
Q. wrote:Your first example is someone is the highest wealth decile.


Correct.

Every non-pension-recipient with a portfolio under $2m will lose out of this legislation.

You need to either be super wealthy (portfolios over $2.5m), or stuck on the pension hating life.

If you are anywhere in the middle ground, you'll get smashed by this.

This policy attacks anyone that has done enough to not require the pension, but isn't lucky enough to be super-wealthy.


You're shifting the goalposts. The 'middle ground' is as I have posted above - Average superannuation balances at the time of retirement (assumed to be age 60 to 64) in 2015-16 were $270,710 for men and $157,050 for women.

The average personal superannuation balance for people 65+ with refunds and super is $558,000 (a balance which exceeds 96% of all individuals with superannuation and 86% of all individuals aged over 65 with superannuation). That is not the 'middle ground' as you purport it to be.
User avatar
Q.
Coach
 
 
Posts: 21046
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: El Dorado
Has liked: 929 times
Been liked: 2163 times
Grassroots Team: Houghton Districts

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Trader » Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:15 pm

Q. wrote:You're shifting the goalposts. The 'middle ground' is as I have posted above - Average superannuation balances at the time of retirement (assumed to be age 60 to 64) in 2015-16 were $270,710 for men and $157,050 for women.

The average personal superannuation balance for people 65+ with refunds and super is $558,000 (a balance which exceeds 96% of all individuals with superannuation and 86% of all individuals aged over 65 with superannuation). That is not the 'middle ground' as you purport it to be.


No goalposts here, I'm simply trying to understand who this policy impacts.

The average balance is heavily distorted by the select few with balances of $100m+.

The example I posted said anyone with a portfolio of less than $2m is impacted.
The caveat to that is those at the very bottom (who get a pension), are exempt.

I don't know how poor you need to be to get a pension, but I'm lead to believe the pension is SFA, so I wouldn't be saying those on the pension are middle ground.

Anyone between "pension eligible" and "2.5m+" is getting caught in this legislation.

That to me, includes a fair portion of people who would describe themselves as either low or middle income.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 2550
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 329 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Q. » Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:22 pm

Trader wrote:
Q. wrote:You're shifting the goalposts. The 'middle ground' is as I have posted above - Average superannuation balances at the time of retirement (assumed to be age 60 to 64) in 2015-16 were $270,710 for men and $157,050 for women.

The average personal superannuation balance for people 65+ with refunds and super is $558,000 (a balance which exceeds 96% of all individuals with superannuation and 86% of all individuals aged over 65 with superannuation). That is not the 'middle ground' as you purport it to be.


No goalposts here, I'm simply trying to understand who this policy impacts.

The average balance is heavily distorted by the select few with balances of $100m+.

The example I posted said anyone with a portfolio of less than $2m is impacted.
The caveat to that is those at the very bottom (who get a pension), are exempt.

I don't know how poor you need to be to get a pension, but I'm lead to believe the pension is SFA, so I wouldn't be saying those on the pension are middle ground.

Anyone between "pension eligible" and "2.5m+" is getting caught in this legislation.

That to me, includes a fair portion of people who would describe themselves as either low or middle income.


I'll state it for the millionth time:

For retired non-pensioner/allowees 65+ with no tax liability (as imputed by ABS) who receive cash credits:
- 85% are in the top wealth quintile of households;
- Two thirds (66%) have non-home assets worth $1 million or more;


So contrary to your suggestion, the fair portion who are impacted by the policy are not low or middle income.
User avatar
Q.
Coach
 
 
Posts: 21046
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: El Dorado
Has liked: 929 times
Been liked: 2163 times
Grassroots Team: Houghton Districts

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:08 pm

Statistics statistics statistics - use whatever you can find to suit your argument even though it isn't the whole story.

I'm just going to leave this here for the millionth time because I tend to trust those who do this for a living:

Wealthier shareholders will be less affected because they tend to have tax liabilities and can therefore fully use imputation credits. People with more than $1.6 million in superannuation will have moved any excess into their accumulation account, where it is taxed at 15 per cent. They will be able to use their tax credits to offset this liability. But for those who pay no tax, the credits will go to waste.

While investors with larger balances (paying tax) won't be hit, Hamilton Wealth Management managing partner Will Hamilton says the changes will leave investors with smaller balances (paying no tax) in the lurch. As the table shows, those paying higher levels of tax won't be worse off under the proposed change but those on zero or 15 per cent tax will be worse off because they will no longer receive a tax refund.

"We've had new clients that have come to see us and it's a big discussion," Hamilton says. "The sophisticated investor can prepare for this. Some people have a lot of money and have still struggled with this conversation. It's the impact on smaller balances where I do feel the shadow treasurer doesn't quite realise what he's done."

Mason Stevens portfolio manager Alwyn Hung says those with taxable income are better protected from the proposed changes while lower-rate taxpayers would be hit hardest.

"The community of net losers if the Labor party were to win office and implement this change would be, for the most part, those that have tax liabilities less than the value of the franking credits. Broadly speaking, these are not-for-profit organisations, self-funded retirees, self-managed super funds (SMSFs) and income earners earning less than $18,200 and exempt from tax."


Hey :shock: lower to middle classes do get franking credits

I've wasted enough time on this $hit
Attachments
Mason Stevens.PNG
Mason Stevens.PNG (85.91 KiB) Viewed 490 times
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 276 times
Been liked: 474 times
Grassroots Team: McLaren

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Trader » Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:11 pm

Q. wrote:For retired non-pensioner/allowees 65+ with no tax liability (as imputed by ABS) who receive cash credits:
- 85% are in the top wealth quintile of households;
- Two thirds (66%) have non-home assets worth $1 million or more;


So contrary to your suggestion, the fair portion who are impacted by the policy are not low or middle income.


Oh, so cause a lot of low and middle income people don't currently claim credits, its ok to take away their right to claim?

Just cause 85% of those that do claim are in the top quintile, doesn't mean blocking everyone in the bottom 4 quintiles (except those on a pension) is fair.
Danny Southern telling Plugga he's fat, I'd like to see that!
User avatar
Trader
League - Top 5
 
Posts: 2550
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 1:19 pm
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 329 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:35 pm

Trader wrote:
Q. wrote:For retired non-pensioner/allowees 65+ with no tax liability (as imputed by ABS) who receive cash credits:
- 85% are in the top wealth quintile of households;
- Two thirds (66%) have non-home assets worth $1 million or more;


So contrary to your suggestion, the fair portion who are impacted by the policy are not low or middle income.


Oh, so cause a lot of low and middle income people don't currently claim credits, its ok to take away their right to claim?

Just cause 85% of those that do claim are in the top quintile, doesn't mean blocking everyone in the bottom 4 quintiles (except those on a pension) is fair.


But they don't claim them anyway

Lower and middle class don't claim franking credit refunds therefore are unaffacted.
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 276 times
Been liked: 474 times
Grassroots Team: McLaren

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:37 pm

Q. wrote:
Trader wrote:
Q. wrote:Low and middle class don't claim excess franking credits!


Ok, lets look at an example.

For simplicity, lets put the full portfolio into CBA, and assume no other income (ie, they are living the retired life).

28,400 shares at an average price of $73.30 = $2,081,720 portfolio.
In 17/18 CBA paid $4.31 in dividends.
For 28,400 shares, that's $122,404, fully franked, meaning you also got $52,459 in franking credits.

Your income is now $174,863, and the tax owed on that, is $52,331. You've got $52,459 in credits, so you actually get a return of $128.

-------------------------

So the above is an example of someone with a portfolio of over $2,000,000 that currently gets "excess" franking credits and would receive cash back from the ATO.
Anyone with a smaller portfolio, would also receive cash back from "excess" credits.

Q. wrote:Average superannuation balances at the time of retirement (assumed to be age 60 to 64) in 2015-16 were $270,710 for men and $157,050 for women.

This policy doesn't affect low and middle income earners.


If average is $200k, and this policy impacts anyone with up to $2m in their portfolio, I'm fairly confident to say this WILL impact all low and middle income earners with a portfolio and no other income stream.


Your first example is someone is the highest wealth decile. 85% of retirees claiming the franking credit refund are in the highest wealth decile.

The 200K average would also be a on a pension and therefore exempt.


So use $300k or $500k who are not exempt or those earning $20,000 with dividend paying share
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 276 times
Been liked: 474 times
Grassroots Team: McLaren

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Q. » Mon Mar 04, 2019 3:54 pm

Jimmy_041 wrote:Statistics statistics statistics - use whatever you can find to suit your argument even though it isn't the whole story.

I'm just going to leave this here for the millionth time because I tend to trust those who do this for a living:

Wealthier shareholders will be less affected because they tend to have tax liabilities and can therefore fully use imputation credits. People with more than $1.6 million in superannuation will have moved any excess into their accumulation account, where it is taxed at 15 per cent. They will be able to use their tax credits to offset this liability. But for those who pay no tax, the credits will go to waste.

While investors with larger balances (paying tax) won't be hit, Hamilton Wealth Management managing partner Will Hamilton says the changes will leave investors with smaller balances (paying no tax) in the lurch. As the table shows, those paying higher levels of tax won't be worse off under the proposed change but those on zero or 15 per cent tax will be worse off because they will no longer receive a tax refund.

"We've had new clients that have come to see us and it's a big discussion," Hamilton says. "The sophisticated investor can prepare for this. Some people have a lot of money and have still struggled with this conversation. It's the impact on smaller balances where I do feel the shadow treasurer doesn't quite realise what he's done."

Mason Stevens portfolio manager Alwyn Hung says those with taxable income are better protected from the proposed changes while lower-rate taxpayers would be hit hardest.

"The community of net losers if the Labor party were to win office and implement this change would be, for the most part, those that have tax liabilities less than the value of the franking credits. Broadly speaking, these are not-for-profit organisations, self-funded retirees, self-managed super funds (SMSFs) and income earners earning less than $18,200 and exempt from tax."


Hey :shock: lower to middle classes do get franking credits

I've wasted enough time on this $hit


You still don't get it - you're confusing taxable income with actual wages. Taxable income does not equal actual wage. Taxable income of zero does not equal lower class.

Taxable income is useless as a guide to the economic circumstances of retirees and people approaching retirement. Drawdowns from assets are basically not taxable income.

All the articles you quote deliberately use taxable income to discuss the economic circumstances of people who are not wage earners to deliberately paint a misleading picture.
User avatar
Q.
Coach
 
 
Posts: 21046
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: El Dorado
Has liked: 929 times
Been liked: 2163 times
Grassroots Team: Houghton Districts

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:38 pm

But I do get it Morell....

It's a bit like comparing a chartered accountant to a lazy, overqualified bookkeeper
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 276 times
Been liked: 474 times
Grassroots Team: McLaren

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby tigerpie » Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:09 pm

You can put any amount of numbers/stats you like but it doesn't change the fact that most of us don't like people paying no tax, getting a tax refund of up to $20k.
Anyone with any community sense can see that its not right!
tigerpie
League - Best 21
 
 
Posts: 2062
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:00 pm
Has liked: 174 times
Been liked: 172 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:59 pm

OK, consider this:
Scrap company tax
Imputation ceases to exist
Dividends are given to all shareholders
Shareholder declares their revenue as per normal tax return
The dividends are taxed at the applied rate
Problem solved

Can you now see the problem & why they get a tax refund?
The company pays 30% regardless of every shareholders situation
People earning less than $18,200 have had a tax of 30% deducted when it shouldn’t have been done
That’s why they get a full refund
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 276 times
Been liked: 474 times
Grassroots Team: McLaren

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby mighty_tiger_79 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:44 am

Turnbull :lol: wafdh
Booooooooooo
User avatar
mighty_tiger_79
Coach
 
Posts: 44952
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: at the TAB
Has liked: 7259 times
Been liked: 1884 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Jimmy_041 » Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:56 am

Revealed: Labor's plan to divide self-managed super funds http://www.afr.com/personal-finance/sup ... 1c0ul?btis

Depending on which side of the debate you listen to, franking credit refunds are either welfare for the wealthy or an antidote to double taxation. But the most compelling argument against Labor's proposal is that it produces different outcomes for retirees in the same financial position, depending on how they choose to invest.

Suppose Daryl and Sandy are a retired, home-owning couple. And let's assume, for simplicity's sake, they have $500,000 in a self-managed superannuation fund, all of which is invested in Australian shares yielding 4.5 per cent.

If either Daryl or Sandy was in receipt of a Centrelink age pension on March 28, 2018, they will have qualified for Labor's "pensioner guarantee". Their SMSF will therefore continue receiving refunds for excess franking credits.

In this scenario they will be $9643 a year better off than a second couple, Geoff and Jane, who did not qualify for the exemption because they began receiving Centrelink pensions a day later on March 29, 2018. There is nothing Geoff and Jane could have done to escape this quirk of chronological fate.

Yet the result will be painful – the forfeiture of $9643 a year over 20 years adds up to $192,860. This scenario is fictional, devised for illustrative purposes by HLB Mann Judd wealth advisor Lindzi Caputo.

Hundreds of people have written to a parliamentary inquiry into the removal of refundable franking credits to describe their personal situations. The inquiry may be under a cloud after Liberal MP Tim Wilson was criticised for partisanship, but there is genuine anger among retirees.

Pensioner guarantee

If it wins the next federal election, Labor will make franking credits non-refundable for everybody except those covered by a "pensioner guarantee". The guarantee means recipients of government allowances (of the type paid by Centrelink) including the age pension and disability support pension, will continue to receive refunds. SMSFs with at least one member in recipient of such an entitlement, as at March 28, 2018, are also exempt.

There will therefore be two types of SMSF – those with access to refunds and those without, as the example above demonstrates. At the same time, people with their super in large industry and retail funds will largely be sheltered.

This is because those funds have lots of members still paying tax and can therefore make full use of tax offsets (a franked dividend only delivers a refund in the hands of a shareholder when his or her taxable income is low or zero).

The Financial Services Council estimates 2.6 million regular super fund members will be affected. Unquestionably, though, SMSFs have been singled out for punishment.

They typically only have two members and if both are in pension phase they have no tax liability to offset. Their credits are effectively wasted. And unlike self-funded retirees who derive income from share portfolios outside super (are in receipt of a pension payment and therefore covered by the pensioner guarantee), SMSFs moving into pension phase after March 29, 2018, will be prohibited from receiving refunds.

"Australians will be treated differently depending on whether they save through an industry or retail super fund, a self-managed super fund, or save outside super," the Alliance for a Fairer Retirement System says in its submission to the inquiry. The alliance is comprised of a range of peak bodies for SMSFs, investors and seniors.

Rice Warner chief executive Michael Rice says another fundamental inequity will be between people who get good advice, and those who can't.

Two classes

"The policy will create two classes of taxpayer – those who alter their arrangements or receive appropriate financial advice to restructure their affairs and those who do not have the means or financial sophistication to do so," he says.

While it is true that more than half of franking credit refunds go to SMSFs with more than $2 million in assets, Caputo says it is people lower down the income scale who will be hurt most.

"The impact of this policy change would be most felt by the self-funded retirees who have saved to build their superannuation to, say, $1 million," she says.

"These retirees wouldn't qualify for the age pension and are likely drawing between $40,000 and $50,000 from their super, which would be providing a basic level of living, nothing luxurious. For them, the loss of refundable franking credits would have a big impact on the annual return of their SMSF."

Many observers say people with more than $1.6 million in super will be less affected by the change because new caps will have forced them to move some of their money back to an accumulation account, where it is taxed at 15 per cent. Franking credits can be applied to reduce this tax liability.

"The different tax outcomes arising for taxpayers in a similar situation, depending on the circumstances of the superannuation structure they are using, highlights the significant underlying problems with the franking credit changes being considered," accounting firm Pitcher Partners says in its submission to inquiry.

"Our expectation is that more wealthy investors will largely be able to mitigate and eliminate the tax cost to them of the franking credit changes by investing in alternative assets targeting unfranked income.

"Smaller investors will be unable, or will not be in a position, to understand the benefits that a restructure out of Australian company investments may provide."

Asset ownership

There are other inequities too. Caputo compares single homeowner Bill, who is on an age pension and invests in his own name, with Anita, who has the same volume of assets but holds them in an SMSF. Given she retired after March 28, 2018, she is eligible for the pensioner guarantee. In this example, Anita is worse off simply because she has chosen an SMSF.

"Strangely, people who become pensioners after March 28, 2018, may be better off owning assets personally, which seems to go against the grain of building up a super balance for your retirement," Caputo says.

It must be said that there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge before the changes take effect. Labor must first win the next federal election, which will probably take place in May, and then get its policy through the Senate.

While retirees have been busy telling the inquiry that they plan to sell down their assets to qualify for the age pension to supplement their lost income or shift into other assets, financial advisers urge extreme caution.

Caputo says Australian equities will continue to be an attractive investment option because their yield is still higher than that available with other asset classes, including international shares, direct property and term deposits.

"We are currently in a low-income environment in all asset classes except Australian shares, which remain attractive with a yield of around 4.5 per cent before franking credits," she says.

"With 10-year Australian government bonds currently yielding 2.1 per cent, this is a good indication that term deposit rates are likely to remain low.

"Similarly, other asset classes like direct property and international shares are also yielding less than three per cent a year."

One possibility is that investors are more attracted to high-yielding property assets or listed infrastructure, Caputo says.

Investors might also consider adding their children as members of their SMSF. "Increasing the amount of taxable contributions earned by the fund would be a way to utilise more franking credits," she says.

But the drawback to this strategy is that it would be difficult for the fund to tailor its investment strategy to cater to members of varying ages.

"For example, the income and growth needs of parents in pension mode would be vastly different to a 30-year-old looking to build up their super."I’ll
User avatar
Jimmy_041
Coach
 
 
Posts: 10455
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:30 pm
Has liked: 276 times
Been liked: 474 times
Grassroots Team: McLaren

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Booney » Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:58 pm

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Turnbull :lol: wafdh


Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison/Joyce take your pick.
PAFC. Forever.
User avatar
Booney
Coach
 
 
Posts: 42326
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:47 pm
Location: Alberton proud
Has liked: 3850 times
Been liked: 6581 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby mighty_tiger_79 » Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:01 pm

Booney wrote:
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Turnbull [emoji38] wafdh


Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison/Joyce take your pick.
Just when Turnbull made a complete twat of himself, along comes Barnaby...

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Booooooooooo
User avatar
mighty_tiger_79
Coach
 
Posts: 44952
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: at the TAB
Has liked: 7259 times
Been liked: 1884 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby shoe boy » Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:01 pm

Booney wrote:
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Turnbull :lol: wafdh


Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison/Joyce take your pick.


I find it hard to believe this national liberal coalition are that close in the polls ?
User avatar
shoe boy
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4047
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 12:58 pm
Has liked: 281 times
Been liked: 165 times

Re: Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

Postby Psyber » Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:51 am

shoe boy wrote: I find it hard to believe this national liberal coalition are that close in the polls ?

Well you have to take into account the horrible main alternative...

(I'm thinking of going to a Centre Alliance meeting to see how they stack up.)
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11627
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 60 times
Been liked: 234 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

PreviousNext

Board index   General Talk  Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest