https://www.qoo10.sg/item/TIGER-TIGER-ELECTRIC-KETTLE-MADE-I…
My friend has a home business, he says if its used for the home office solely. He can claim it 100% tax deductions for the purchase price if he purchase the above item.
I honestly think its not possible but he says he is certain he can.
Can someone enlighten me if he is correct? I mean, how do you prove that its been used at the home office solely and not shared by the entire family???
Holy smokes - can't believe they have a whole page dedicated to Kettles!
Them tax dollars got to go somewhere…
You can't claim 100% if you use that Tiger brand. Only use kettles that sold at Harvey Norman.
Don't believe anything anyone else including the ATO would say about your friend's KETTLE.
You need to ask this guy for the right answer: http://www.howzit.co.za/a/accounting-bookkeeping/edenvale/17…
Either way it's not going to make much of a dent into his tax payable
47c saved from a dole bludger and put back in my pocket is worth almost a dollar.
I used to be nicer too, but I've seen too many bludgers using tax payers money (e.g. disability pensions, benefits, etc) to do things like go gambling.
Don't forget drugs and alcohol.
@buckster: Negative gearing savings is your money to begin with. Feel free to do whatever you want with it - it didn't come out of my pocket and unlike other people here, I don't think I'm entitled to tell you what to do with your stuff.
@HighAndDry: Even if my son-in law pays the rent and I give half back to them cash in hand to increase the amount I can deduct?
Even if my son-in law pays the rent and I give half back to them cash in hand to increase the amount I can deduct?
What? If your SIL is paying more than they're supposed to, that's increasing your reportable income. What are you deducting? I don't know if you're actually asking in good faith and just don't know how this works, or if you're trying to make some snarky point without knowing how this works.
Negative gearing is basically: I earn income in rent. But I have these expenses to earn that income. I add my rental income to my total taxable income, and then I deduct those expenses from my total income. If my property expenses > rental income, then I'm deducting more from my total taxable income than I'm adding in rental income, and so decreasing my total taxable income. Less income, less tax payable.
@HighAndDry: No idea, just writing pointless comments on lunch break and not proof reading them…
But in truth though, $100 a person gets from a tax deduction related to investment properties, and $100 a dole bludger is given, is subsidising a chosen lifestyle one way or another.
Man when one day you realise how much more goes into corporate welfare than helping our poorest and vulnerable you’re gonna have a stroke.
Even with disability or the dole it is not a livable amount of money. Gambling, drugs, grog, poor health habits etc. are all linked to poverty, so if you support someone but keep them still in poverty what do you expect?
Or do you live in a paradise where despite automation and loss of our manufacturing industry to poor governance we can somehow have 100% employment and these people not working are just scum who we should leave on the street to die? Because this mentality you end up as the US, no universal healthcare, a huge group of unsupported true homeless people.
Man when one day you realise how much more goes into corporate welfare than helping our poorest and vulnerable you’re gonna have a stroke.
I have a pretty good idea. The problem is that corporate welfare generally consists of taking less from companies, whereas actual welfare is paying out money. The first happens because those companies are productive and contributing already in some way that makes them money. The second is a black hole.
Gambling, drugs, grog, poor health habits etc. are all linked to poverty, so if you support someone but keep them still in poverty what do you expect?
Welfare is supposed to be the bare minimum required to survive, of course it's not going to help lift them out of poverty - that unfortunately will still have to depend on the person. Shocking, I know. And all those things? That's the fault of the individual, I'm not sure why you think that's supposed to garner any sympathy.
You didn't really answer anything I said.
The problem is that corporate welfare generally consists of taking less from companies
So what about the $444 million to a fake charity? $30 million to Foxtel for nothing with no explanation? And what's the difference between not taxing mining companies fully or giving money to welfare? It's all still money we don't have now right?
Welfare is supposed to be the bare minimum required to survive, of course it's not going to help lift them out of poverty
Maybe it was meant to be sure. But it can't be now when we are in a world where 100% employment is impossible. How does one "pull themselves out of poverty" if they cannot get a job? I mean for your everyday Joe guy would of worked some decent manufacturing job before - it doesn't exist.
And all those things? That's the fault of the individual
If you look at individuals sure, but when looking at groups those who are poorer are predisposed to gamble, drink, do drugs etc. I could post studies or videos showing this (plenty of it) but its just common sense that when your life is shit having a drink or shooting up are a relief. When you can't even afford rent or the bills eating properly is not high on the agenda.
Like I know to you might seem a bit out of no where but this "welfare bashing" mindset while we give away so much more in way of tax cuts or just plain corporate handouts that gives nothing back but record profits for companies like the banks which in return fire thousands of eomployees is disgusing. To me you are one of Murdoch's sheep I cannot fathom that someone really thinks like this.
@deelaroo: I just realized you necro'd a 2 month old thread. Thanks for the chat but no thanks. But I'll address this because it's a mind-numbingly stupid point of confusion:
while we give away so much more in way of tax cuts
Tax cuts are not "given away". Say you get a 5% discount on your taxes from 35% to 30%. For that to translate to real dollars, every dollar you actually save means you had to create $6 (roughly) of actual productivity for society. And that's just on profit - unless you're a unicorn, every $6 of profit you're making is likely many multiples in terms of wages paid to real people, business and economic activity for suppliers, and genuine services or goods provided to consumers.
Compare that to welfare handouts - you actually hand that out, and they… spend it. On gambling, booze, and drugs if you're to be believed.
You didn't really answer anything I said.
Honestly because I can't tease out a kind of unifying thesis statement from your comment. Is it just "Poor poor people, we should give them money because they're poor"? Because I'm not sure how giving someone handouts is supposed to get them a job or pull them out of poverty either - barring a ridiculously (and I mean stupidly) unsustainable level of welfare payments.
I just realized you necro'd a 2 month old thread
Congrats have your internet smart guy points. I broke the most sacred rules of the internet!
Tax cuts are not "given away"
Yes they are.
Imagine the standard business tax rate is 30%, but we only tax the mining companies 12%. They make say $500 billion dollars. Instead of the government getting $150b we only get $60b. We lose out on $90b dollars, that's $90b we should have but now don't.
Your idea of trickling down is called "trickle down" economics. Its a falisy, it does't work like that. For decades of the deluded idea being pushed it has been shown over and over to be not true. Today we have banks that make 100s of billions of dollars profit, then fire thousands of staff or up interest rates outside the RBAs levels or don't pass on the rate cuts. If your theory was true they'd be passing on the profits, they don't.
They make say $500 billion dollars.
I feel like you glossed over this really fast. Again - this is real economic productivity, for us losing out on $90b, we're getting $500b of economic activity for the country in terms of pay to real people, income from exports (money coming in is good), payments to suppliers and contractors, etc. Compare that with $50 of welfare payments, you get… $50 of economic activity, at most, and all of it is consumption based and not investment that increases future productivity.
Instead of the government getting $150b we only get $60b. We lose out on $90b dollars, that's $90b we should have but now don't.
When a mugger takes only $90 instead of all $150 out of your wallet, I bet you don't call that being given money either, even if you ended up with more money than you might have otherwise.
Your idea of trickling down is called "trickle down" economics. Its a falisy
Nothing is black and white. Trickle down economics doesn't work as well as its supporters say it does. But it also doesn't 100% not work. You can't rely purely on demand-driven economics either, because then you end up with a glut of consumption spending without capital investment.
Also, for f's sake, ***FALLACY. I'm done arguing with apparently a grade school kid.
does this kettle fill itself up with water? $300….
Thanks everyone, looks like the answer is no to that particular brand, I will let him know before he claims it. Its odd that I can open any of the links some of you sent me
The answer is yes.
What does brand have to do with it. You're just being trolled
Surely op can't be that thick, maybe he's trolling us.
If op is serious, he'll need a lot of luck in his business adventure
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/330114#comment
Very serious!!!!
I am going to start an eBay business. My friend is going to start a home massage business.
Wish us luck:)
Yes
www.ato.gov.au/kettles