Australians 'Are Fed Up With All The Charges': Consumer Group

HuffPost Australia  |  By Sam McKeith

Posted: 20/04/2016 20:25 AEST Updated: 20/04/2016 20:25 AEST 

s vulnerable Aussies are getting hurt by the move to e-statements. | Don Arnold via Getty Images

 

Some of Australia's most vulnerable groups such as disabled pensioners, Indigenous people and the unemployed are being unfairly hit by companies charging to send paper bills and statements, consumer advocates say.

At federal parliament on Wednesday, consumer advocate group Keep Me Posted launched its campaign calling on big corporates like banks and telcos to stop charging people for receiving paper statements."Consumers are fed up with all the charges -- we pay over half a billion dollars in ATM fees, high surcharge levies on credit cards and now we are being stung simply for having a bill in a format that is easier for us to pay,” the group's executive director Kellie Northwood said.

The campaign is aimed at highlighting that many Aussies do not have internet access, making receiving paper statements and bills a necessity, the group said.

It said Australians who were disabled, on low incomes, or receiving government benefits were much more likely not to have the internet at home than the average household.

Many older people also relied on paper statements and bills, with 46 percent of people over 65 having no access to the internet.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon and Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie have backed the campaign, Keep Me Posted said.

The consumer campaign comes after the Commonwealth Bank introduced a fee earlier this year charging customers $2.50 per statement per month to receive hard copies, News Corp Australia has reported.
Origin Energy, Telstra and Optus also reportedly slug consumers on some plans for paper statements.

The local campaign is similar to those run overseas, especially in the UK.

This story has been brought to you by the Emerald Chamber of Commerce Inc.

(Ph: 07 4982 3444)  

Bob Katter commits political suicide with the ludicrous banning of Uber

Authorities in Queensland are continuing with their crackdown on Uber’s services with fines being hiked for drivers violating recently-modified laws. As per the new law, drivers caught driving for the ride-sharing service would be fined heavily.

New rules were passed which would fine Uber drivers up to AUD 2,356 if caught driving for the ride-sharing service in Queensland. The effects of the modified law continued to affect people after harsher penalties were passed by the Queensland Parliament. Meanwhile, the government, which opposed the laws, warned that LNP-supported amendments to the bill could make even chartered buses and limousines illegal, provided they do not have a taxi license.

A private member’s bill was introduced by the Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) recently. While presenting the bill, KAP MP Rob Katter accused Uber of damaging the taxi industry. Political parties such as Labor and the LNP were in favour of higher and harsher fines while Katter Party suggested that ‘offenders’ be given demerit points. The former had their way as they voted with KAP to pass amendments that would increase fines for both Uber and the driver.

Katter said the changes were a clear message to ride-sharing firms. He added, “They don’t make the decisions, we do here. Someone has to be the grown-up and say ‘I’m sorry you might get a cheaper ride tonight but in the long run this does not serve the national interest’. That’s the question that needs to be addressed, not the tide is coming. That’s not a reason to do it”.

Further, the purview of the offence was modified so that it became easier for Transport Inspectors to fine those working for ride-sharing services. The changes were passed by a majority of votes in the hung parliament.

However Transport Minister Stirling Hinchliffe said changes, which were not supported by the government, would mean that all ‘pre-booked passenger services’ could be considered illegal. The minister explained his argument that the new changes would adversely affect anyone who provides a booking service for a service using a motor vehicle to transport passengers for a fee.

The minister said, “To be clear, this may now mean that charter bus services, tourist services, chartered school bus services, community transport services, limousine services, shuttle services and hotel accommodation transfer services are all deemed illegal if not operated by a licensed taxi. It also means CTP insurance required for some of these services, may be, depending on the insurer AUD6300.”

The minister also said that he was seeking urgent legal advice over the amendments with a view to make amends to the law that might not go down well with most people.

On the other hand, the move by the politicians was matched by Uber, which created a new “Katter” option when customers opened their app. Customers would then be greeted with a message which shows ‘no cars available’, and a hat icon. The firm said that it would continue business as usual.

Despite all the noise and developments, ride-sharing could still be legalised in Queensland because a review report is due in August. The passing of the new amendments, which is against the government’s interest, could also mean that the government would come up with a more powerful amendment later.

Some industry observers say that Bob Katter, arguably the most backward MP in Australia has just made Queensland the most backward state by pushing for the outlawing of Uber.

One critic said it’s an embarrassment. “Australia should be a 21st century nation adopting technology and innovation, but here we have backward politicians in a backward state making us a backward country.

“Bob Katter has committed political suicide, even though he doesn’t know it yet. He barely won his electorate in the last federal election and I am sure voters will send him to an over due retirement in July.

“We need innovative politicians that are not ruled by dodgy unions such as the taxi unions in Queensland that have clearly funded the Katter party for him to push such draconian laws against Uber”, he said.

- See more at: http://www.australiannationalreview.com/bob-katter-commits-political-suicide-ludicrous-banning-uber/?inf_contact_key=9660ccc0062a0186d77736cd42e87694a67a1e525c3490e7cfbcc745dfb61223#sthash.V3bSKh9R.dpuf

This story has been brought to you by the Emerald Chamber of Commerce Inc.

(Ph: 07 4982 3444) 

Switzerland Follows Iceland in Declaring War Against the Banksters

Apr 25, 2016 0 Reads  By: Isaac Davis

“If you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.” –Josiah Stamp

Iceland has gained the admiration of populists in recent years by doing that which no other nation in the world seems to be willing or capable of doing: prosecuting criminal bankers for engineering financial collapse for profit.

Their effective revolt against the banking class, who drove the tiny nation into economic crisis in 2008, is the brightest example yet that the world does not have to be indebted in perpetuity to an austere and criminal wealthy elite. In 2015, 26 Icelandic bankers were sentenced to prison and the government ordered a bank sale to benefit the citizenry.

Inspired by Iceland’s progress, activists in Switzerland are now making an important stand against the banking cartels and have successfully petitioned to bring an initiative to public referendum that would attack the private banks where it matters most: their power to lend money they don’t actually have, and to create money out of thin air.

“Switzerland will hold a referendum to decide whether to ban commercial banks from creating money.

The Swiss federal government confirmed on Thursday that it would hold a plebiscite, after more than 110,000 people signed a petition calling for the central bank to be given sole power to create money in the financial system.

The campaign – led by the Swiss Sovereign Money movement and known as the Vollgeld initiative – is designed to limit financial speculation by requiring private banks to hold 100pc reserves against their deposits.”  [The Telegraph]

Switzerland is in a key position to play a revolutionary role in changing how global banking functions. In addition to being the world’s safest harbor for storing wealth, it is also home to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), a shadowy private company owned by many of the world’s central banks, and acting as a lender to the central banks. The BIS is the very heart of global reserve banking, the policy that enables banks to lend money that does not actually exist in their bank deposits, but is instead literally created electronically from nothing whenever a bank extends a line of credit.

Reserve banking is the policy that guarantees insurmountable debt as the outcome of all financial transactions.

The Sovereign Money initiative in Switzerland aims to curb financial speculation, which is the intended and inevitable result of reserve banking, the tool that makes financial adventurism possible by supplying the banks with endless quantities of fiat money.

Limiting a bank’s ability to produce money from nothing would be a direct blow to the roots of the banking cartel, and would cripple their ability to manipulate the world economy. Here’s how it works, in rather simplified terms:

“…if we had access to the same computer terminals the banks have, we could magic in or out of existence all the imaginary stuff we are trained to think of as important – money – in whatever quantities we liked.

This is how it works: when they print quite a lot of this stuff there is a boom. When they print too much of it, there is inflation (actually, the printing of money is inflation). When they stop printing it or simply hold on to it, there is a depression.” [Source]

In Switzerland, 90% of all money in circulation is electronic, and for this, The National Bank of Switzerland has become the direct target of the Sovereign Money Campaign. Swiss law has in the past required required banks to back all currency creation with collateral assets like physical silver or gold, however in recent decades the climate has changed, and, “due to the emergence of electronic payment transactions, banks have regained the opportunity to create their own money.”

The grass roots campaign said in a public statement regarding the intentions of the referendum, “banks won’t be able to create money for themselves any more, they’ll only be able to lend money that they have from savers or other banks.”

This is an interesting twist in the human saga of man vs. banks, and while it remains to be seen if the referendum passes or not, it must be pointed out that it does have its own problems, articulated by Sam Gerrans:

“… it does say that the central bank should be given sole right to create money. This would essentially leave the creation of money in the same hands as those who control the Federal Reserve or the Bank of England rather than allow them to farm out the process. But at least it shows that people are beginning to wake up to where the true power lies.

In the unlikely event that this grass-roots movement in Switzerland should get its way and its proposed legislation be enacted, and then begin to morph into something which really does threaten the banking elite, we must not be surprised if Switzerland is shortly discovered to be harboring weapons of mass destruction, or to have masterminded 9/11, or to be financing Islamic State.”

Part of the cultural conditioning of our time is an ingrained, pre-assumed dependency on sacred cow institutions like banking. Just like it is impossible for most Americans to envision a world withoutDemocrats and Republicans, it is difficult for most people to imagine a world without predatory global banking.

Yet, there are a number of other possibilities for trading, storing wealth, and facilitating development in the world. This is not the only economic system we can imagine, and as Iceland has proven, people can regain control of their collective wealth, so perhaps this revolution will foment further in Switzerland, presenting a chance to at least bring greater awareness to the truth about central banking.

About the Author

Isaac Davis is an outspoken advocate of liberty and an honest society from the top down. He is a contributing writer for WakingTimes.com. Follow him on Facebook, here. This article was originally published by Waking Times and has been republished under a Creative Commons License. 

- See more at: http://www.australiannationalreview.com/switzerland-iceland-declaring-war-banksters/?inf_contact_key=05669651678b975e6d660e56933b5f82d9fb9bebe86442c1724ba9968f472bb3#sthash.DtRSlEcZ.dpuf

This story has been brought to you by the Emerald Chamber of Commerce Inc.

(Ph: 07 4982 3444) 

Jonathan Chancellor | 26 April 2016

Malcolm Turnbull blog disputing Grattan Institute negative gearing report

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has written a blog disputing the Grattan Institute's report recommending significant changes to negative gearing that could save more than $5 billion a year.

"I have a great deal of respect for John Daley and the Grattan Institute, but on this occasion they have it wrong," Mr Turnbull wrote in a blog post on his website.

"Unfortunately, the paper is littered with factually incorrect statements, claims that are unsupported by evidence and direct contradictions.

"And its economic analysis in many places leaves a lot to be desired."

"And its economic analysis in many places leaves a lot to be desired.

Malcolm Turnbull's then lists the following examples:

• The paper claims that negative gearing “goes beyond generally accepted principles for offsetting losses against gains”.  But this is factually incorrect.  The ability to deduct interest and other costs from personal exertion income has been a generally accepted principle in Australia’s tax system for more than a hundred years. While there are some exceptions to this principle, they have been strictly limited to instances of flagrant abuse (as was claimed to occur with ‘hobby farms’) or to situations where taxpayers might use losses to gain welfare benefits.
• The paper argues that negative gearing and the CGT discount create significant distortions in the housing market, but then directly contradicts this when it says that changing them will have little impact.  Really?  How can changing the policies that Mr Daley says are supposed to create such huge distortions have no impact?
• The paper argues that negative gearing benefits wealthier taxpayers. However, in countries which have adopted the ‘quarantining’ approach, the result has been to drive middle and low income earners out of the investment market, as they cannot afford to carry the loss-making periods when costs are high relative to rentals. In contrast, under both Daley’s proposal and Labor’s, wealthy Australians would continue to be able to deduct net rental losses from their other investment and property income. How can a change which would actually make the tax system more advantageous to those on higher incomes be fair? How will it improve wealth inequality when it will make it more difficult for those on lower incomes to build up wealth?
• The paper ignores the fact that reducing the CGT discount to 25 per cent would give Australia the second highest CGT rate among comparable countries. While the paper claims this too would have no harmful impacts, that assertion is directly contrary to the evidence, which it systematically ignores.  
• The paper also ignores the fact that under reasonable assumptions, if the CGT discount was reduced to 25 per cent, the effective tax rate on real capital gains would under reasonable assumptions be close to 70 per cent.  As a result, the paper dismisses, with little analysis, the important point that high rates of capital gains discourage entrepreneurial investment, whose returns generally come in the form of capital gains.    
• Removing negative gearing would mean a tax increase for wage and salary earners and would affect incentives to work. The paper ignores these efficiency costs.

This story has been brought to you by the Emerald Chamber of Commerce Inc.

(Ph: 07 4982 3444) 

Federal budget 2016: Top earners benefit most from negative gearing, Grattan Institute finds

• Peter Martin - April 25 2016 - 9:10PM

• Negative gearing fight begins
• Peter Martin: Turnbull out on a limb
• Michael Pascoe: Reduced to schoolboy debating
• Analysis: Goodbye big picture, hello Abbott-lite

Surgeons, anaesthetists, finance managers and lawyers will be the overwhelming beneficiaries of the Turnbull government's decision not to touch negative gearing in the budget, research shows.

Negative gearing to remain untouched

Who are the real winners with the government deciding not to touch negative gearing in the budget? Peter Martin explains.

Prepared by the Grattan Institute using Tax Office data, it finds that teachers, nurses, hairdressers and sales assistants are among those least likely to negatively gear. The top 10 per cent of earners collect almost half the negative gearing tax deductions and three-quarters of the concessionally taxed capital gains.

Shown to the government early, before its announcement on Sunday that it would leave negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions untouched, the Grattan Institute research finds the two concessions combined cost the budget $11 billion a year.

The top 10 per cent of earners collect almost half the negative gearing tax deductions, the research finds.  Photo: Louie Douvis

It endorses Labor's plan to cut the tax discount for capital gains from 50 per cent to 25 per cent and to restrict negative gearing deductions to non-wage income. Its plan differs from Labor's in that after a phase-in period existing investors would not be exempt and nor would those who invest in new properties.

The Grattan report, Hot property: negative gearing and capital gains tax reform, finds negative gearing reduces home ownership rates and, by encouraging turnover, reduces renters' security of tenure.

"Investors now account for more than half of new loans for housing, up from 29 per cent two decades ago," it says. "This is one reason (though by no means the only one) why rates of home ownership are falling among younger age groups."

Negative gearers need to keep switching properties to stop annual rent increases eating into their tax losses. About 80 per cent of all properties bought by negatively geared investors are sold within five years, compared with an industry average of 60 per cent.

The institute says that so generous is the combination of negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions that some negative gearers are able to pay less tax in total than if they hadn't geared at all, despite making profits on their investments. "In effect, they pay no tax on their profits, despite receiving a tax bonus," it says.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Sunday that Labor's plan would take a "sledgehammer" to property prices by taking one-third of the buyers out of the market. But the Grattan Institute says its plan would dent prices by less than 2 per cent and scarcely affect rents.

Government won't touch negative gearing

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says the government won't 'have a bar of' negative gearing. While Labor sticks with its plan. Vision ABC News 24.

"Every time an investor sells a property to a renter, there is one less rental property, and one less renter. There is no change to the balance between supply and demand," it says. "Others may sell to another investor, but one that doesn't rely on negative gearing. Again, this doesn't reduce the number of rental properties."

Although Labor's plan to restrict negative gearing to investors in new housing would make little difference to housing supply, it could be worth doing "if it appeals to intuitions that tax benefits will produce more new housing, even if theory and history suggest that the effects will be small".

Every time an investor sells a property to a renter, there is one less rental property, and one less renter. There is no change to the balance between supply and demand.

John Daley, Grattan Institute

The institute says Australia is almost alone, along with New Zealand, in allowing rental losses to be deducted from ordinary wage income. The United States only allows deductions against other investment income, while Britain only allows deductions against capital gains from other rental properties.

The report's principal author, John Daley, said he was disappointed that the government wouldn't be changing the rules given the strength of the case for change, and also "somewhat bemused" by an example cited by the Prime Minister of a family that was negatively gearing to buy a property for their one-year-old daughter.

He asked: "What sort of country is it in which the only way you can expect to get into the housing market is if your parents start saving for you when you are aged one?"

The top 10 per cent of earners collect almost half the negative gearing tax deductions, the research finds.

This story has been brought to you by the Emerald Chamber of Commerce Inc.

 

Budget 2016: Almost 40% of small businesses think this year’s budget won’t contain anything to benefit their business

 

Broede Carmody / Wednesday, April 20 2016

 

Close to 40% of small and medium-sized businesses believe next month’s federal budget will not include measures beneficial to their business, according to research published this week.

A study by accounting network Bentleys found 39% of Aussie SMEs believe Malcolm Turnbull’s first budget will not include small-business sweeteners applicable to their business.
In contrast, 23% of the 350 small and medium businesses surveyed across the country thought this year’s budget would be beneficial to them.
Medium businesses are more likely to be optimistic about the upcoming budget than their small and micro counterparts, according to the study, along with businesses based in cities.
The overwhelming majority of the SMEs surveyed said they want government to get out of the way of their day-to-day operations, with simplified compliance and reporting processes at the top of most budget wish lists (64%).
In addition, 58% of SMEs want a cut to the corporate tax rate, while the same number want to see an extension for the $20,000 instant asset write-off scheme, which was announced in last year’s budget.
Fifty-seven percent of businesses, meanwhile, want more incentives to innovate.
Interestingly, government subsidies for employing people who are aged 50 and older also ranked highly on people’s budget wish lists, with 53% of SMEs nominating this as an important policy.
Dean Steer, tax partner for Bentleys, said in a statement it’s understandable SMEs are uncertain about whether there will be beneficial policies in the 2016 budget given there has been a “lack of clarity” from the Turnbull government.
The Turnbull government has previously floated increasing the GST, cutting company tax, and allowing the states to levy income tax, but has since backed down on these measures.
“The fact that the majority of SMEs don’t believe the budget will contain beneficial measures for their business … is worrying,” Steer said.
“It raises questions about the SME community’s confidence in the support they will get from government.”

Small businesses want modest tax changes and for the instant asset write-off to stay

Matt Nash, founder of Melbourne construction business Prestige Surfaces, told SmartCompany this morning he is hoping for “sensible” tax changes in the May budget.
Nash, who founded his business in 2010 and employees seven people, also hopes any increases to superannuation for employees are modest, so as to strike the balance between workers being more prepared for retirement while not hitting his business’s bottom line too hard.
“Also, it’d be good if money is spent on infrastructure for better roads,” Nash says.
“Melbourne’s a really good state in terms of getting from one place to another, but there’s always room for improvement. As a services-based business, I want to make sure my guys are in traffic for as little time as possible.”
Nash recently used the government’s instant asset write-off scheme to claim the purchase of a new van and says he’d love for this policy to be extended beyond next financial year if possible.
“Hopefully it does stick around,” he says.

This story has been brought to you by the Emerald Chamber of Commerce Inc.

Concern at proposed electricity prices rises for small business

 

Thursday 21 April, 2016 | By: Darrell Giles |

 

The Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland (CCIQ) is alarmed at the electricity price increases proposed by the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) in its draft determination.
CCIQ Director of Advocacy Nick Behrens said small business owners, who had already faced huge power bill costs in recent years, would be shocked by the planned 2016-17 figures.
Mr Behrens said CCIQ provided a submission to the QCA yesterday on the draft determination, highlighting concerns around a change in methodology that had resulted in higher prices for small businesses in regional Queensland.
The QCA draft determination provides that in 2016-17, typical customers on the main small business tariff (tariff 20) can expect an increase of $197 or 9.3 per cent in their annual bill. Typical small business customers on the seasonal time of use tariff (tariff 22A) can expect an increase of $569 or 13.6 per cent in their annual bill.
The increase in electricity prices for small businesses is said to be driven primarily by higher energy costs and retail costs. Wholesale energy costs and the Renewable Energy Target (RET) are estimated to add 4.8 per cent to a typical bill for a small business customer on tariff 20. Increases in retail costs are estimated to add 3.8 per cent on the typical small business bill.
 
“CCIQ is extremely disappointed by the QCA report and believe the price increase will come as a shock to small business customers who last year saw prices starting to come down,” he said.
“CCIQ has grave concerns about the impact such increases will have on business profitability and competitiveness.
“We believe small businesses are becoming disillusioned by the energy sector particularly given the State Government’s perhaps hollow commitment to ease the cost of electricity for small business over the coming years.
“Given the difficult trading environment in regional Queensland, businesses will be very reluctant to pass these increases on to customers for fear of losing trade.
“Yet at the same time most businesses have already reduced their electricity usage as much as possible, forcing businesses to try and absorb these astonishing increases.
“This will result in reducing business costs in other areas including capital expenditure and employment levels that will further damage the economy.
“In some instances there is little doubt that the impact of these electricity price rises will push some businesses permanently into the red with forced closures.”
Mr Behrens said small businesses in regional Queensland were already disadvantaged by the lack of competition in the retail electricity market.
“It is important that the QCA carefully consider the real world impact on regional small businesses when making the final determination on 31 May 2016.”
These prices do not apply to South East Queensland customers as retail electricity prices will be deregulated in SEQ from 1 July 2016.

This story has been brought to you by the Emerald Chamber of Commerce Inc.

Craig Joy goes after ATO - Wednesday 11 February 2015

This story comes with the courtesy of Angus Peacock and the “Shiftminer”.

A WORKPLACE consultant in Mackay is challenging the Australian Tax Office (ATO) and the Fair Work Ombudsman over decisions he says are costing businesses hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Craig Joy told Shift Miner that one engineering firm in Mackay has already been hit with a $400,000 bill for back payments, tax, super and other entitlements and he believes other businesses are in the firing line.

At the heart of the dispute is how businesses employ staff - on a permanent or contract basis.

While the ATO’s problem with bosses forcing permanent employees to become contractors is well-documented, this issue is to do with a contractor relationship developing when neither party objects.

According to Craig Joy, the rules governing this are confusing and government agencies handling the area have different positions on it.

He says the Department of Employment, which oversees the Independent Contractors Act, has come around to his view that the Act is not about dictating staff should be contractors or employees if both parties have freely entered into the agreement.

However, Mr Joy said the ATO and Fair Work Ombudsman see it differently.

“The ATO and Ombudsman are both of the view that the intent of the Act is to tell people whether or not they are allowed to be contractors or whether they should be employees,” he told Shift Miner.

“The upshot of it is that you have people entering into contracts and years later the tax office can come along and say you shouldn’t be a contractor you should be an employee and they are then prosecuting the business.

“They are saying you should have been holding tax for this person and you haven't been, and you should have been paying super for this person and you haven't been, and this has been going on since 2006.

“One government department isn’t talking to the other, and the people in charge of the Act are saying this isn’t what it should be and the tax office is saying it definitely is and we are going to overturn it.

“One Mackay business just got slogged $400,000 for that and it happens all the time.”

So far Mr Joy says he has not heard back from either the Fair Work Ombudsman or the ATO, and he is now taking his complaint to the Federal Employment Minister Senator Eric Abetz.

Editors Comment: I often wonder if Craig Joy ever got a response Senator Eric Abetz. 

This story has been brought to you by the Emerald Chamber of Commerce Inc.

ATO rolls out myTax to sole traders and contractors for the first time

 

Broede Carmody / Friday, April 22 2016

 

Some small business owners are expected to have an easier time submitting their tax returns, with the Australian Tax Office opening up the federal government’s “myTax” portal to sole traders and contractor from July 1.
MyTax, which is part of the government’s centralised myGov portal, has been unavailable to sole traders and contractors since it first launched in 2014.
However, the ATO has now expanded the eligibility criteria for the service.
Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan flagged this change – along with a dedicated online portal for businesses – in July last year.
Small Business Minister Kelly O’Dwyer said in a statement sole traders and contractors can look forward to a more streamlined process when it comes to completing their tax returns from July.
The Minister said, with the expanded eligibility, more than 3 million individuals and sole traders are expected to use myTax to lodge their returns this year.
“Sole traders and contractors will be able to access new online tools to assist with more complex parts of their tax return, for example personal services income, depreciation, and the small business income tax offset,” O’Dwyer said.
Des Caulfield, director of taxation at MGI Adelaide, told SmartCompany this is good news for sole traders who want to do their tax return themselves and complete it online.
“For those small businesses that want to do that themselves, it’ll certainly be much easier,” Caulfield says.
“The intent of what the tax office wants to do is certainly understood and, for some people, it will be very good.”
However, Caulfield points out that many small businesses will still choose to have an accountant oversee their paperwork.
“If they’re a tradie, they’re busy being a tradie, they’re not necessarily wanting to get too tied up in paperwork,” he says.
“Some people wouldn’t be utilising it [myTax] anyhow.”

This story has been brought to you by the Emerald Chamber of Commerce Inc.

Here's what's wrong with Queensland's councils

 

Lachlan Thompson | 21st Apr 2016 8:35 PM

 

Reforms to the way complaints against people involved in local government are handled are urgently overdue.

 

Today we heard Minister for Local Government and about 12 other things, Jackie Trad, would help form a review team to ensure a modern, fair, transparent and accountable system is brought in.

Frankly I think it is indicative of a dim-witted lack of leadership that a review is required to state the blatantly obvious.

Here's what's wrong with the process.

Queensland's Local Government Act sets up a state of affairs whereby complaints about mayors and councillors are assessed by the council's CEO before they're referred on to the Crime and Corruption Commission.

The same Act also sets up a process whereby the CCC often refers complaints which it doesn't see as breaches of any law - back to the councils in question.

The problem with this is obvious to anyone with even the most cursory understanding of how local government works.

The top job at councils - the position of CEO - is decided by the mayor and councillors by popular vote.

Indeed in many if not most cases the CEO is actually a direct appointee of the mayor and the voting block running the council at that point in time.

Therefore it is not only against the public interest to have the CEO investigate a complaint against a mayor - or a councillor in his voting block - often it is an outright conflict of interest.

The other problem is this system makes it all too easy for mayors and CEOs to work in cahoots and make false and vexatious complaints against opponent councillors and then refer them onto the CCC to grab a headline.

There are several examples where this has occurred and the damage it has done to decent people in local government and their political reputation is reprehensible.

Another massive issue with the present legal framework surrounding Queensland's local politics is the complete lack of meaningful scrutiny around political donations.

In New South Wales property developer donations are outlawed and have been for the past five years.

The reasoning behind the ban was allowing such donations made it almost impossible for a person to become a mayor without them kowtowing to vested interests.

For some unfathomable reason Queensland has never seen fit to follow suit and the result is that developers who are waiting to see if they will make millions off the back of a council decision are effectively able to purchase their own lobbyist.

I say lobbyist because the councillor who has accepted the cash is not able to vote directly on matters involving the donor.

However, here's the clincher.

No one actively investigates this, not the council themselves, not the CCC and not even the Queensland Electoral Commission which actually handles the disclosure of political donations.

And if someone spots a councillor who is operating without properly declaring a conflict of interest then guess who people are expected to go to? - You guessed it the CEO, who in most cases was appointed by the very person about whom the complaint is being made.

Queensland has a real need for an appropriately empowered body which is solely focussed on being the watchdog of the political class as the CCC is not, in my view, properly performing this function.

In a way I am very pleased to see Ms Trad attempt to tackle legislative reform in this area, however, the proof will be in the reforms put forward and the laws passed not the grand statements made ahead of an inquiry.

This story has been brought to you by the Emerald Chamber of Commerce Inc.

editors picks

Read More

inquiry

Read More

jackie trad

Read More

local government

Read More

queensland

Read More

Myths and Tips to Keep Good Tenants Longer

 

Author: Belinda Smith -  Source: Oohm.com.au

 

Tenants can unfortunately get a bad rap. Yes, there are going to be some nightmare tenants out there – who give the good ones a bad reputation. Maybe I have been lucky enough to not encounter a bad tenant in my long history of being a landlord, but I really feel there are some pretty common myths out there concerning tenants that aren’t entirely (or at all) accurate.
Myth 1: Tenants are Trouble

I recently found myself defending my reason for owning investment properties to someone who had a preconceived idea that all tenants move in and destroy the property. And, for this reason alone, this person was fearful of investing in residential property.

One of the best long term tenants I have had was a single mum. Her credentials weren’t great, but trusting the judgement of my Real Estate Agent – I approved her application. She remained in my property for just under 10 years and kept an immaculate house – treating it as if it were her own, and her rent was always paid on time.

For me, this myth is very far from the truth – the vast majority of tenants are great.

Myth 2. Tenants Expect Luxury

This is just flat out wrong. Tenants expect liveability.

It is natural for all of us to want to provide a safe living environment to our loved ones. Tenants want a house to be a pleasant place for them and their family to live, and they are usually realistic about what accommodation to expect within their budget. Comfortable living temperatures help.

Myth 3. They Will Move Out Anyway

Again, wrong!

Other than personal circumstances, most tenants vacate a property because they are unhappy with the managing Real Estate Agent or the owner’s inaction to their requests – they simply become dissatisfied with the property.

Moving is not fun, and it requires energy, time and money. Tenants dislike moving and they would be doing it for a particular reason. Tenants are usually open to negotiation if you want to ask them to stay, with improved terms and conditions.

This brings me to my next point: Good tenants are like gold!
Good tenants who stay in rental properties for long periods of time take away some of the stress of holding your investment. They treat your property well, keep it clean and pay their rent on time.
Once good tenants are established and they sign a long lease, that investment becomes a ‘set and forget’, which is the ideal arrangement for any investor as the property requires very little time and attention. Understanding your tenants and considering their needs is key to keeping the good ones long term.

Tips for Keeping Good Tenants

1. Good Management

Paying a competent Property Manager is essential. Good managers will look for tenants with good rental histories, and who are of stable character.

2. Tolerance

People have different personalities – some will be fussy, others more laid back and some are really messy. Experience helps with gaining tolerance of people, getting an understanding that they live differently and to varying standards of hygiene. So long as they are not damaging fixtures and fittings, a quick clean up after they vacate your property will be all that is required.

3. Listening

Ask your Property Manager to inform you of anything that is of concern to your tenants, particularly when they first move in and identify items they would like fixed for their comfort. Attending to small repairs quickly lets your tenants know that you care about their needs and the standard of your property. Understandably, a tenant will become frustrated if they are paying full rent and their concerns are ignored. Establishing a good relationship right from the get go helps keep good tenants longer.

4. Comfort

Provide good heaters for winter and ceiling fans for summer. Install insulation if needed to help regulate the temperature and to lower your tenants’ power bills.

Hint: Installing an air-conditioner provides an opportunity to ask for a rent increase and/or encourage a tenant to sign a longer lease. It also makes the property more appealing for future tenants.

5. Gifts and Thankyous

A ‘thank you’ and regular compliments will be appreciated by your Property Manager, as they have a busy and important role in looking after your investment.

Reward good tenants with small gifts e.g. movie tickets or shopping vouchers, especially at Christmas time, with a card saying ‘thank you for looking after my property’. This comes at a very little cost but can have a big impact on the way your tenants feel, often resulting in better care of your property and longer lease terms.

6. Respect

Rather than viewing tenants’ demands as problems, respect that their rent payment pays for YOUR investment, so addressing a few minor concerns is no problem. Consciously making this simple mindset shift can change attitudes and improve relationships.

Respect your tenants and look after them. After all, happy tenants will stay longer and good long term tenants are ‘set and forget’.

Five Reasons Why the Government Shouldn't Change Negative Gearing        

Author: David Naylor - Source: Chan & Naylor

 

Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has announced plans to change negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount if Labor wins the next federal election.
Under costings released from the Parliamentary Budget Office, Labor’s proposed changes could save the budget $32.1 billion over 10 years once they come into force.
Key measures include:

• Negative gearing to be restricted to "newly constructed homes"
• Capital gains tax discount reduced from 50% to 25%
• Both measures would come into force from July 2017
• All existing investments under the scheme would be fully "grandfathered" and protected against the changes

With pressure on the current government to reduce the growing Budget deficit, and Treasurer Scott Morrison's refusal to rule out any changes in policy across the board, negative gearing would seem to be the one area squarely in the sights of both the government and the opposition, especially when you look at the statistics…

• There are currently 1.2 million people who have negatively geared property, and most of these people are middle class Australians.
• Australian Tax Office statistics show negatively geared property investors claim over $13 billion in losses each year, and the average loss per negatively geared investor is over $11,000
• The average loss per negatively geared property doubles for people earning more than $180,000, to over $24,000.

Should our governments look beyond the numbers? Is it a false economy just to think that by tinkering with negative gearing it will solve the budgetary problem?

5 Reasons Why the Government Shouldn't Change Negative Gearing

1. Growing Population

With Australia's population set to grow significantly over the coming decades, our governments should be asking "How will we house these people?"

The government does not have the capacity, nor the finance, to provide public housing for the growing population so this is left to the private sector.

Negative gearing allows more Australians to invest in property, as the tax benefits assist with the cash flow to invest and hold onto that property. If negative gearing is changed and CGT concessions are reduced, it will mean less investors, less demand and less houses, and it will place further pressure on the government to fund and provide housing.

2. Financial Pressures of the Ageing Population

There are currently 1.2 million middle class Australians investing in property to generate a capital gain and increase their asset base for retirement, to subsequently ensure that they can maintain a standard of living in their retirement without having to solely rely on the aged pension.

If the government creates a blockage into entry for property investment by chipping away at the tax benefits or reduce capital gain concessions, property investment becomes less attractive. In the long term, this will see more Australians relying on government pensions, meaning less self-funded retirees and therefore further pressure will be placed on future budgets.

The government needs to take a long term view and look beyond today. A change to negative gearing and capital gain concessions will only make matters worse in the future.

3. A Drop in Property Prices

Will a change in negative gearing and capital gain concessions disincentivise investors and, if so, what impact will this have on property prices?

In the short term, we may see a dip in property prices due to lower demand and increased supply – which will impact on the economy across the board. State governments will miss out on a large chunk of revenue (via loss of stamp duties), which could mean less funding to spend on things such as education, hospitals and infrastructure at a state level. The federal government will then have to fork out more to state governments to compensate.

4. Knock On Effect to the Economy

Will the changes deter people from investing in property?

Due to the loss of the tax benefits, people will not be able to fund the cash flow of an investment property, meaning they simply won’t buy investment properties. This will cause a knock on effect similar to what we have seen in the mining industry after the boom.

It could also mean a rise in unemployment in the building sector and associated industries such as white goods, electrical and service related industries like real estate and everything that goes with it. As previously mentioned, state governments will be impacted with less revenue from stamp duties to spend on state infrastructures – which would also mean less jobs.

5. Short Term Thinking

For all of the reasons above, I can understand why the government might look at the numbers in front of them and think changing the rules around negative gearing and capital gain concessions is a win for budgetary reasons, but it is simply a case of short term thinking. The government really needs to take a deep breath, sit back and carefully consider what impact this will have on the economy long term.

Any changes made may increase revenue today, but they – or should I say we – could end up paying for this 10, 20 or 30 years down the track. To put it bluntly, a short term gain for long term pain is not good business.

With 1.2 million middle class Australian property investors impacted, changing the rules are negative gearing and capital gains concessions would be highly unpopular – and it could be a game changer for either political party.

McDonald’s to close 700 outlets

 

Apr 18, 2016 - By: Atreyee Chowdhury              

McDonald’s has announced a plan to close 700 restaurants worldwide this year. This is the first time the company would be closing so many of its outlets in four decades. Declining sales and increased market competition has forced the food business to streamline itself and make it more profitable.
The firm said that in the US, many franchises as well as company-owned restaurants would be shuttered. McDonald’s spokesperson Becca Hary told the Associated Press that closings are part of a strategic review. The company said that the closures were aimed at future growth. The firm has a total 14,300 locations in the US.
The firm has not divulged which locations would be shuttered. It however did say that it would trim hundreds of restaurants worldwide. The closures include 350 restaurants in China, Japan and the US. Already, the firm has closed 350.
According to the firm, as of May, sales had increased 2.3 per cent in Europe but declined by 0.2 per cent in the US. Operations in the Asia/Pacific/Middle East/Africa markets took a hit of 3.2 per cent.
Speaking of their plans to cut the number of branches, the company’s president and CEO, Steve Easterbrook, said, the firm has “embarked on a turnaround plan to reignite our business performance through great-tasting, high-quality food, compelling value and outstanding service.”
Even though the firm has been known to close branches if they were underperforming, restaurant openings far outweighed the closures. The firm, while planning to open 300 branches, is definitely feeling the heat of the economic slowdown. Further, it is also cutting flab in its management by trying to remove layers of bureaucracy, an exercise that could make it more profitable.
The firm, which has been providing food at affordable prices, was able to even withstand the recession when its Dollar Menu attracted people. It has been able to hold on to competition from Burger King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell and KFC all these years. However, competition is increasing with new players such as Shake Shack and Five Guys making their appearance as worthy competitors. Customers also feel that food is fresher at Chipotle Mexican Grill and Panera Bread.
Worldwide, McDonald’s has 36,000 restaurants serving 69 million customers in 100 countries. About 80 per cent are franchise-owned. Last year’s global sales were worth USD27bn. It shuttered 350 poorly performing stores in Japan, the United States, and China the first three months of 2015. Earlier the firm had reported an 11% decrease in revenue and a 30% drop in profit for the first three months of year, a trend that has been seen since the last two years.
The firm is bullish on its turnaround strategy. CEO Steve Easterbrook said,
“I often describe McDonald’s as possibly the most democratic — with a small‘d’ — brand in the world. And what customers love the world over and none more so than here in the US is how they can buy into aspirational quality products, but at a McDonald’s price.”