# Labor's proposed franking credit changes



## shortentaxlosers.com.au (20 March 2019)

shortentaxlosers.com.au  All explained. It's not just a retiree tax. 8.1 million people will lose franking credit cash refunds.

People under $37k                          10.500,000
Less exempt pensioners                   -3,500,000
583,000 SMSF Accumulation mode        583,000
517,000 SMSF Pension mode                517,000
*Total losers                                       8,100,000* 

*Industry and retail super funds *- most only made *1% return* after All Ords increase year ending 30/6/18. These funds are taking 20% in admin fees. Six of Shorten's mates taking $229k-$437k wages in the MTAA Super Fund.

*Capital Gains tax to be 75% on all shares* *and 75% of property*. Did you know that 75% of all your share gains are to be taxed in your next tax return at your marginal rate ? Why buy shares or property ?

Shorten to bring in Discretionary Trusts *30 % tax *before distribution to beneficiaries.


----------



## PZ99 (20 March 2019)

Are you saying Capital Gains tax to be 75% on all shares ?

OR 

75% of all your share gains are to be taxed ?

There is a *huge* conflict between those two narratives


----------



## galumay (20 March 2019)

Do we really need this sort of propoganda on the site?

(its certainly in the wrong sub-forum)


----------



## Bill M (20 March 2019)

With all the evidence clearly showing that this is disastrous policy and that self funded retirees on low incomes are affected the most the Labor Party still keeps on repeating the same old BS that it only affects the rich. So very arrogant and so very stupid.

---
"Politics is about choices – and Labor makes no apologies for choosing schools and hospitals over tax concessions that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy," Mr Bowen said.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/ban...o-beat-labor-on-franking-20190318-p5156d.html
---

It is a deal clincher for me, I will not even consider voting Labor as long as this is on the table.


----------



## Junior (20 March 2019)

shortentaxlosers.com.au said:


> shortentaxlosers.com.au  All explained. It's not just a retiree tax. 8.1 million people will lose franking credit cash refunds.
> 
> People under $37k                          10.500,000
> Less exempt pensioners                   -3,500,000
> ...




This is sensationalist trash.

8,100,000 is the total number of individuals on a low tax rate, who could theoretically buy shares and claim a small tax refund, if they chose to.  The number who actually employ that strategy is a small minority of that number.

And don't get me started on 20% admin fees......you've looked at the return on the Australian share market for ONE YEAR, which happened to be a poor year.  The vast majority of super funds are invested across global shares and property, not just Aus Shares, and have experienced returns averaging around 7% per annum over the past 10 years.  Administration fees are around 0.10% for an Industry fund and 0.40% for a retail fund.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 March 2019)

Junior said:


> *This is sensationalist trash.*



True.

Geoff Wilson. Need I say more?

We are the only country in the world which provides refundable imputation and gives it mostly to the super wealthy who have rigged their super to contain 100s of millions of dollars of shares. I am sure Howard didn't see this happening. Companies should pay their tax and it should go to the Government . Why should tax only come from PAYE taxpayers so Geoff can collect a huge cheque each year..

The amount of franking credits mostly going to *a very few* people like him  will save $55.7 billion over a decade and which could be better used to fund *tax cuts* and services and increasing the pension. To give an idea how much this is the Federal Health Budget for running public hospitals is 19.6 billion per year.


----------



## Bill M (20 March 2019)

Junior said:


> And don't get me started on 20% admin fees




Yes, you are right. I don't know of any super fund that charges 20% for admin. I wonder if the OP will come back and let us know which funds do this?


----------



## shortentaxlosers.com.au (20 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Are you saying Capital Gains tax to be 75% on all shares ?
> 
> OR
> 
> ...




As advised by Shorten, 75% of your gain on shares and property is to be put in your tax return. Tax is to be paid at your marginal rate. *Currently it is 50%*. Yes it is *halving the current discount.* Yes, it is i*ncreasing the current tax by 50%*. Actually, being an accountant, 100% of the gain is put in your tax return, then reduced by 25% in your tax return, if you have held for 12 months, to be totally specific. T*he point is that most ordinary people don't even know is that 75% of any gains will have to go in your tax return*. I have a son who just started at a financial planning firm. I suggested he explain this to all clients. 

I have asked thousands of ordinary people and *they don't know 75% of gains will be taxed*. Your salary is taxed each week at your marginal rates. So any capital gains will be taxed at your marginal rates, just like your salary. However, share and property gains will be added to your salary so will be taxed at your highest individual rate. This is quite a scary tax and the incentive to invest in shares and property will go down dramatically.

Also *negative gearing* on shares and property will be  *quarantined until you make the final gain on sale*. In shares case, this is when your margin loan interest is greater than your dividend income. According to Shorten, you will _definately _make a _final gain on sale._ The hide of the man to assume this. Read the mantra   https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing. Shorten says "*any losses can be* *offset against the final gain on sale"* Shorten says that only Anaesthetists and Finance managers are the only people negative gearing. Definately not nurses or hairdressers. Please everyone read the policy.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> The amount of franking credits mostly going to *a very few* people like him  will save $55.7 billion over a decade and which could be better used to fund *tax cuts* and services and increasing the pension. To give an idea how much this is the Federal Health Budget for running public hospitals is 19.6 billion per year.




Knobby have you done the sums on the pension, and the effect the franking credit changes will have?

Take a married couple on a full pension, with $350k in shares getting their franking credits, then compare that with a couple who have $1m in shares and lose their franking credit. Do the sums, rather than regurgitating Shortens crap.

I'm all for a *fair* system, but what Shorten is suggesting is plain robbery and a disgrace, that affects middle Australia the most.


----------



## HelloU (20 March 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> True.
> 
> Geoff Wilson. Need I say more?
> 
> ...



peeps who quote that oz is the only country in the world to treat franking this way rarely then say how other countries deal with company tax ..........

Some countries do NOT even include dividends paid as taxable income for individuals, ........ other countries do a mix of stuff.

It is misleading to present the "we are the only ones" argument without balance.

for balance ......
proposal will "save" $5B per year
annual welfare spend is $175B

some of the peeps that are refused credits will then have to get welfare to survive ...........


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

HelloU said:


> peeps who quote that oz is the only country in the world to treat franking this way rarely then say how other countries deal with company tax ..........
> 
> Some countries do NOT even include dividends paid as taxable income for individuals, ........ other countries do a mix of stuff.
> 
> ...



Not only that, but not only will the middle class have to pay for the welfare through their working lives, they will have to pay it with their savings in retirement.
Why the hell, would a working blue collar worker, save at all?
Typical Labor, rope a dope, policies.


----------



## Value Collector (20 March 2019)

It’s not just people earning less than $37k that are affected.

It can affect anyone who’s earnings are subject to an effect tax rate of less than 30%.

You don’t actually pay more than 30% under our margin rate system until to earn about $150k.

Some one that earns say $100k in dividends, would be paying less than 30% effective tax rate, and would normally get a refund to bring the tax down to the marginal rate, however under the proposed system they would not get a refund, and be stuck paying 30% tax on their earnings, where as other people earning bank interest or delivering pizzas will only pay the marginal rate.


----------



## Value Collector (20 March 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> True.
> 
> Geoff Wilson. Need I say more?
> 
> ...




Companies exist as a conduit through which individuals can pool and invest funds. 

There is no good reason as to why double taxation should exist, eg taxing company profits and then taxing the profits again when they are eventually passed along to the company owners (shareholders).

The government currently gets to keep the full 30% company tax on retained earnings, and gets the marginal tax rate on that smaller part of earnings that is paid out, seems fair to me.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Companies exist as a conduit through which individuals can pool and invest funds.
> 
> There is no good reason as to why double taxation should exist, eg taxing company profits and then taxing the profits again when they are eventually passed along to the company owners (shareholders).
> 
> The government currently gets to keep the full 30% company tax on retained earnings, and gets the marginal tax rate on that smaller part of earnings that is paid out, seems fair to me.




I agree, double taxation is wrong.
In this case its no taxation. the company pays 30% and the shareholders get it back in full, if they have no earnings or within super.


----------



## IFocus (20 March 2019)

OP, Liberal party staffer anyone............


----------



## Darc Knight (20 March 2019)

IFocus said:


> OP, Liberal party staffer anyone............




Geoff Wilson certainly has links to Libs, remember he was caught pulling strings within the Libs lately.


----------



## PZ99 (20 March 2019)

If it is a Liberal stooge then my message is very simple.

The only way to save your franking credits is to win the election.

The only way to win the election is save penalty rates for the lowest paid workers in the country.

... all 8,100,000 of them 

No penalty rates ? No Government. Work it out.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

The only way to win the election is, promise more money, it works every time.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I agree, double taxation is wrong.
> In this case its no taxation. the company pays 30% and the shareholders get it back in full, if they have no earnings or within super.



So if they remove the franking credits, from the "normal" self funded retiree and they are forced to spend down their balance much quicker.  There will be a lot less intergenerational money transfer, from parents to children.
Then if they increase the CGT on profits by 25% and reduce the negative gearing on investment loans.
How do you plan to create your nest egg?
That is of course, unless a person is on a public service indexed pension, which is another taxpayer rort.
a bit like silly Billy, who wont need franking credits, because he will be on a $200k+ tax free indexed tax funded pension as soon as he leaves parliament. But that's fair, of course it is, he can poke his finger at the little guy.


----------



## Junior (20 March 2019)

Bill M said:


> Yes, you are right. I don't know of any super fund that charges 20% for admin. I wonder if the OP will come back and let us know which funds do this?




They are trying to say that the Aus Share Market achieved a 1% return last year, and so the administration fees consume 20% of that 1%.....a bit ridiculous.  How do you do the maths when there's a negative return?


----------



## Junior (20 March 2019)

shortentaxlosers.com.au said:


> As advised by Shorten, 75% of your gain on shares and property is to be put in your tax return. Tax is to be paid at your marginal rate. *Currently it is 50%*. Yes it is *halving the current discount.* Yes, it is i*ncreasing the current tax by 50%*. Actually, being an accountant, 100% of the gain is put in your tax return, then reduced by 25% in your tax return, if you have held for 12 months, to be totally specific. T*he point is that most ordinary people don't even know is that 75% of any gains will have to go in your tax return*. I have a son who just started at a financial planning firm. I suggested he explain this to all clients.
> 
> I have asked thousands of ordinary people and *they don't know 75% of gains will be taxed*. Your salary is taxed each week at your marginal rates. So any capital gains will be taxed at your marginal rates, just like your salary. However, share and property gains will be added to your salary so will be taxed at your highest individual rate. This is quite a scary tax and the incentive to invest in shares and property will go down dramatically.
> 
> Also *negative gearing* on shares and property will be  *quarantined until you make the final gain on sale*. In shares case, this is when your margin loan interest is greater than your dividend income. According to Shorten, you will _definately _make a _final gain on sale._ The hide of the man to assume this. Read the mantra   https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing. Shorten says "*any losses can be* *offset against the final gain on sale"* Shorten says that only Anaesthetists and Finance managers are the only people negative gearing. Definately not nurses or hairdressers. Please everyone read the policy.




Most people have no understanding of the current CGT rules, let alone the proposed changes!

I'm firmly opposed to the CGT changes....it pays no respect to the impact of inflation.  For example, if you purchase a property and hold it for 10 years, and were then to pay tax on the profits, what if the value only grew in line with CPI?  So you are being taxed on the fact that you have held an asset which has NOT grown in value in REAL terms at all?  

There should be a substantial discount to account for this fact, and to encourage individuals to invest in Growth assets, such as shares and property, and only pay substantial tax IF the asset grew above the rate of inflation.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> So if they remove the franking credits, from the "normal" self funded retiree and they are forced to spend down their balance much quicker.  There will be a lot less intergenerational money transfer, from parents to children.
> Then if they increase the CGT on profits by 25% and reduce the negative gearing on investment loans.
> How do you plan to create your nest egg?
> That is of course, unless a person is on a public service indexed pension, which is another taxpayer rort.
> a bit like silly Billy, who wont need franking credits, because he will be on a $200k+ tax free indexed tax funded pension as soon as he leaves parliament. But that's fair, of course it is, he can poke his finger at the little guy.




Those defined benefit public servant schemes ended in 2005.  It was a good lurk though. I'm not a public servant. (I think judges and politicians still get it though.)
https://www.smh.com.au/public-service/public-servants-are-super-losers-expert-20170626-gwym7m.html

The CGT increase does make it harder. You need to put it in your spouses name or look at how it's held.
I'm not for increasing taxes and Labor better give us lower personal tax rates also, this will mean the capital gains tax increase will be in effect a bit less. the Libs have been effectively increasing taxes due to bracket creep.
Labor do have a problem with collecting taxes and spending it on toy projects. If they do this they will lose the following election.
I suppose I am saying everyone should pay their fair share of taxes but money should not be wasted.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> The CGT increase does make it harder. You need to put it in your spouses name or look at how it's held.



That wont work, if your spouse is a stay at home mum.



Knobby22 said:


> I'm not for increasing taxes and Labor better give us lower personal tax rates also, this will mean the capital gains tax increase will be in effect a bit less. the Libs have been effectively increasing taxes due to bracket creep.



The bracket creep has been there with all Governments, it only changes when tax brackets are moved, so it isn't party specific.



Knobby22 said:


> Labor do have a problem with collecting taxes and spending it on toy projects. If they do this they will lose the following election.
> I suppose I am saying everyone should pay their fair share of taxes but money should not be wasted.



If they bring in the changes they are recommending, it will bring about a whole new paradigm, that will change working peoples life's more than they realise.IMO
Australia has a problem, with no one wanting to collect the rubbish, labor will fix it.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

Junior said:


> There should be a substantial discount to account for this fact, and to encourage individuals to invest in Growth assets, such as shares and property, and only pay substantial tax IF the asset grew above the rate of inflation.




Why would 'Joe average' invest at all, if the new CGT, NGT and franking changes come in?

For one they are foregoing lifestyle now, to invest for a 'possible' future gain, if they are fortunate enough to get a gain.
If they are looking at wage replacement income, shares return about 4.2% average, that is hardly better than inflation and inflation is at all time lows.
Under the current rules, there is an incentive to invest, the changes take away all the incentives making it not worth the risk involved. IMO

Is there any wonder Royal Carribean, are putting on extra cruises, next year everyone is on a spend up.


----------



## willy1111 (20 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Why would 'Joe average' invest at all, if the new CGT, NGT and franking changes come in?
> 
> For one they are foregoing lifestyle now, to invest for a 'possible' future gain, if they are fortunate enough to get a gain.
> If they are looking at wage replacement income, shares return about 4.2% average, that is hardly better than inflation and inflation is at all time lows.
> ...







This is why Homer. 

The income and capital grow over time better than most alternatives. The impact of compounding over many years can be truly remarkable. From what I understand the above ignores franking credits anyway.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

willy1111 said:


> View attachment 93126
> 
> 
> This is why Homer.
> ...



But does it include holding costs?
If you bought an investment property in Perth 10 years ago, you in reality have no growth, yet you will have incurred holding costs.
Currently that holding cost has had a tax offset, that could change.
Even by your graph the last 10 years has shown a return to cost, and that doesn't include the current downturn.
It might not include franking credits, but it probably doesn't include CGT either, so if the gain from 2008 upto 2016 is realised, 75% of the gain over the cost base will be taxable.


----------



## PZ99 (20 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> But does it include holding costs?
> If you bought an investment property in Perth 10 years ago, you in reality have no growth, yet you will have incurred holding costs.
> Currently that holding cost has had a tax offset, that could change.
> Even by your graph the last 10 years has shown a return to cost, and that doesn't include the current downturn.
> It might not include franking credits, but it probably doesn't include CGT either, so if the gain from 2008 upto 2016 is realised, 75% of the gain over the cost base will be taxable.



I think the graph is referring to shares rather than property


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I think the graph is referring to shares rather than property



From my understanding, the CGT on shares will increase, the same as with property.


----------



## PZ99 (20 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> From my understanding, the CGT on shares will increase, the same as with property.



There's no CGT if you don't sell shares. And outside of ETF's I'm not aware of holding costs?


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> There's no CGT if you don't sell shares. And outside of ETF's I'm not aware of holding costs?



If you don't sell the shares, then in reality you haven't made the compounding effect, so the chart becomes pointless. It is just a mathematical wank, the compounding effect of Telstra 2, is nothing like the chart. As the chart for AMP would not be, the chart is actually a reflection of best case scenario, which most think is achievable.
Unfortunately it isn't untill the end, that one can look back and see reality.


----------



## PZ99 (20 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> If you don't sell the shares, then in reality you haven't made the compounding effect, so the chart becomes pointless. It is just a mathematical wank, the compounding effect of Telstra 2, is nothing like the chart. As the chart for AMP would not be, the chart is actually a reflection of best case scenario, which most think is achievable.
> Unfortunately it isn't untill the end, that you one look back and see reality.



I've been holding ANZ bank shares since 2001. They are nothing like that chart either - but they pay all my bills and more. And they sure as hell return a lot more than 4.2% p/a.

And the GFC was a much harder axe to bear than the CGT / NGT / Franking policies will be.
If you look at the long term as that chart does it's not a reason to give up investing IMO. 

Within ten years and another ten prime ministers the policies will all be rolled back anyway


----------



## Value Collector (20 March 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> I agree, double taxation is wrong.
> In this case its no taxation. the company pays 30% and the shareholders get it back in full, if they have no earnings or within super.




They only get a refund if they are in a low marginal tax bracket, and shouldn’t be paying tax.

In that situation it doesn’t matter if they were earning dividends, bank interest or driving Uber, it would be tax free anyway.

But what his new proposed legislation is saying is that bank interest, rental property income, Uber driving etc etc all qualify for the marginal tax rates rates of less than 30%, however if the money is earned under a company structure the lowest rate of tax is now 30% is going to be applied even on he first $19,000 which is tax free everywhere else.


----------



## Joe Blow (20 March 2019)

I have been contacted by a concerned ASF member about the content contained in the website linked to in the first post in this thread, specifically that the website is highly politicised and largely inaccurate.

I have now edited the thread title to more accurately reflect its content and have moved it to a more appropriate forum.

Regarding the content of the website, my first suggestion is that any incorrect or misleading information should be pointed out and corrected in this thread. It is not against the rules to post political propaganda here at ASF. If it was, I'd be banning a lot of people. 

However, incorrect or misleading information should never go unchallenged. So I urge those who take issue with information contained on that website to list any false or misleading information here and correct it for the benefit of those reading, now and in the future.

This particular policy of Labor's will clearly be a hot button issue at the upcoming Federal election, so it is one that should be discussed openly and vigorously.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I've been holding ANZ bank shares since 2001. They are nothing like that chart either - but they pay all my bills and more. And they sure as hell return a lot more than 4.2% p/a.




That statements is somewhat like the chart, if you had purchased T2 in 1999 for $7.40 and were now getting a dividend of 16c what's that about 2% and a share price of -50%, I doubt you would be paying your bills if you were relying on them. 
It just shows how outcomes can be very much different, for similar investments, many mum and dad investors bought into T2 and probably still hold.


----------



## Value Collector (20 March 2019)

Junior said:


> Most people have no understanding of the current CGT rules, let alone the proposed changes!
> 
> I'm firmly opposed to the CGT changes....it pays no respect to the impact of inflation.  For example, if you purchase a property and hold it for 10 years, and were then to pay tax on the profits, what if the value only grew in line with CPI?  So you are being taxed on the fact that you have held an asset which has NOT grown in value in REAL terms at all?
> 
> There should be a substantial discount to account for this fact, and to encourage individuals to invest in Growth assets, such as shares and property, and only pay substantial tax IF the asset grew above the rate of inflation.




CGT is often double taxation

The capital gains we see on shares is often the result of the company retaining after tax earnings, so the capital gains tax  can be double taxation, hence the discount of 50%.

Eg.

You buy XYZ company for $10 per share.

Over the next 12 months they earn $1.00 and and are charged $0.30 in company tax, leaving $0.70 in the company.

This extra equity built up in the company causes their share price to rise to $10.70.

If you sell you are charged capital gains tax on this additional $0.70, but that is actually double taxation, because you have already paid tax on that $0.70 (that used to be $1)


----------



## PZ99 (20 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> That statements is somewhat like the chart, if you had purchased T2 in 1999 for $7.40 and were now getting a dividend of 16c what's that about 2% and a share price of -50%, I doubt you would be paying your bills if you were relying on them.
> It just shows how outcomes can be very much different, for similar investments, many mum and dad investors bought into T2 and probably still hold.



Fair enough and that's unfortunate. I did consider T2 and was advised against it


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 March 2019)

Junior said:


> 8,100,000 is the total number of individuals on a low tax rate, who could theoretically buy shares and claim a small tax refund, if they chose to.  The number who actually employ that strategy is a small minority of that number.



The number affected does not in any way change whether something is wrong or right.

Most people do not get murdered, die in a plane crash or be sexually abused as children but that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to such things on the basis that only small numbers of people are affected.

Likewise saying that only x number of genuinely low income people find themselves disadvantaged by this policy doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.

Add those few to all the other things in recent years, under both main political parties, which only affect some small group and collectively it’s actually a substantial chunk of the population being targeted over one thing or another. That alone is reason to be concerned.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Fair enough and that's unfortunate. I did consider T2 and was advised against it



I don't have any TlS, but I know many who did buy back then, and are still holding today.
Like I've said on numerous occasions, all these changes should be staged, many people are going to have a lifetimes worth of saving shot to crap. 
It really is callous, yet many don't see it and are the same people that profess empathy for others. Weird IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 March 2019)

Arguments for and against this policy as such aside, a major concern is that static accounting seems to have been applied in calculating its revenue effects.

That will almost certainly be wrong, likely very much so, in practice since the nature of taxes is that people seek to avoid them and in the case of this one there are certainly options for many people to do so.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Arguments for and against this policy as such aside, a major concern is that static accounting seems to have been applied in calculating its revenue effects.
> 
> That will almost certainly be wrong, likely very much so, in practice since the nature of taxes is that people seek to avoid them and in the case of this one there are certainly options for many people to do so.



Most I know who are self funded retirees, are quickly trying to lower their assetts to access a part pension. I find it a bit sad, because they are people who have saved and been frugal, to stay self funded.
It really is dumb policy.
It wouldn't be difficult to design the tax, so that it only affected the 'rich', but that obviously isn't the target group.


----------



## PZ99 (20 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Most I know who are self funded retirees, are quickly trying to lower their assetts to access a part pension. I find it a bit sad, because they are people who have saved and been frugal, to stay self funded.



I would seriously advise against that strategy. The only party that wants it is Labor. No one else.

It'll get blocked in the senate in my view.


----------



## willy1111 (20 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> If you don't sell the shares, then in reality you haven't made the compounding effect, so the chart becomes pointless. It is just a mathematical wank, the compounding effect of Telstra 2, is nothing like the chart. As the chart for AMP would not be, the chart is actually a reflection of best case scenario, which most think is achievable.
> Unfortunately it isn't untill the end, that one can look back and see reality.




Who's cherry picking now? Lol

I believe it is a basket of industrial shares. What it shows is that yes when you buy the yield may be less than 10% but over time the income has a tendency to increase.

The $100k invested in 1980 now produces an annual income of around $80k. Investing in a basket of industrial shares is very easily done by buying an LIC or index fund.

But who knows the next 30 yrs may look entirely different.


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I would seriously advise against that strategy. The only party that wants it is Labor. No one else.
> 
> It'll get blocked in the senate in my view.



When something like this is announced, it makes people look at their situation, most within $200k of access to the pension would be really taking a chance not to think about it.

For example:
A couple with $1,000,000 invested in Australian shares outside super and no other income. Assume they earn 4.2% dividends. Their dividends are $42,000 and their franking credits are $18,000. Their taxable income together is $60,000, and the franking credit represents 30% of the total which is the company tax portion of the profit attributed to the shareholder. So their taxable income is $30,000 each and they are each entitled to a franking (tax) credit of $9,000. The tax on $30,000 is $1,797 after the Low Income Tax Offset but their tax credit is $9,000 so they are each entitled to a tax refund of $7,203 or $14,406 together. *Their after-tax income as a couple is $56,406*.
 Under the proposed policy, this couple’s after-tax income is $42,000 from the dividends alone or a *reduction of about 25%*.

If this couple were of pension age, they would not be eligible for the age pension because of the assets test. If instead, this couple had less assets, say, $800,000, they would be eligible for a small part age pension of about $100 per fortnight but, because they now qualify for the exemption, they also keep their franking credits. For this couple, their dividends are $33,600 (4.2%) and their franking credits are $14,400. Their taxable income together is $48,000. Their taxable income is $24,000 each and they are each entitled to a franking (tax) credit of $7,200. The tax on $24,000 is $657 after the Low Income Tax Offset but their tax credit is $7,200 so they are each entitled to a tax refund of $6,543 or $13,086 together. *Their after-tax income is $46,686 plus the age pension of $2,852.*


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

willy1111 said:


> Who's cherry picking now? Lol
> 
> I believe it is a basket of industrial shares. What it shows is that yes when you buy the yield may be less than 10% but over time the income has a tendency to increase.
> 
> ...



Who's cherry picking now?lol

$100k in 1980? 
In 1980 electricians working in BHP steel works were on about $15k P/A, a house and land package was $30k in Perth's outer suburbs.


----------



## basilio (20 March 2019)

willy1111 said:


> View attachment 93126
> 
> 
> This is why Homer.
> ...




Really Willy ?  I have seen this sort of graph many times promoting someones wealth management program.

Frankly I think it is duplicitous. It attempts to use the ASX indexes as an indicator of the rise in share prices.
The trouble is this is pure BS.
The ASX index is always changing. As companies fall away they drop out of the index and are replaced by new ones that are rising
*The index is  always of the  current winners not the whole market where companies rise and fall.*
The real way of looking at the questions is asking.

*If I invested in 10 companies in 1979 what would my portfolio of 10 companies look like now ? *
This graph is always intended to convince people to give their money to salesmen to invest for the future ( the salesmans actually..)


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I would seriously advise against that strategy. The only party that wants it is Labor. No one else.
> 
> It'll get blocked in the senate in my view.




That got me thinking, what about if a person is on a full pension and has close to the maximum allowable in share assett.
Back of the napkin:
From 20 September 2018 a pensioner couple could earn $304 a fortnight combined and still be eligible for the full pension of $1396.20 a fortnight, including all supplement = $36,301.20
Once income exceeds $304 a fortnight / $7900p.a the pension reduces by $0.50 for every additional dollar earned

From 20 September 2018 the full pension is available, under the assets test, for home owner couples who have less than $387,500.

So if a couple had $300k of shares, giving 4.2% dividend, that would be $12,600 + $3780 franking = $16,380
By the income test 16,380- 7900 = $8480/2 = $4240 off the pension.
So $36,301.20 - $4,240 + $16380 = *$48,441.20 + cheap drugs on the pension*. 

The person who has accumulated $1m in shares, that are paying 4.2%, under Labors plan will earn *$42,000 and pay top whack for everything*.

That is really clever.
I hope my math's are wrong.


----------



## PZ99 (20 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> That got me thinking, what about if a person is on a full pension and has close to the maximum allowable in share assett.
> Back of the napkin:
> From 20 September 2018 a pensioner couple could earn $304 a fortnight combined and still be eligible for the full pension of $1396.20 a fortnight, including all supplement = $36,301.20
> Once income exceeds $304 a fortnight / $7900p.a the pension reduces by $0.50 for every additional dollar earned
> ...



Try this one 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/978552/


----------



## sptrawler (20 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Try this one
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/posts/978552/



I hope you are right and it doesn't get through, otherwise it would be pointless investing.


----------



## shortentaxlosers.com.au (20 March 2019)

Junior said:


> This is sensationalist trash.
> 
> 8,100,000 is the total number of individuals on a low tax rate, who could theoretically buy shares and claim a small tax refund, if they chose to.  The number who actually employ that strategy is a small minority of that number.
> 
> And don't get me started on 20% admin fees......you've looked at the return on the Australian share market for ONE YEAR, which happened to be a poor year.  The vast majority of super funds are invested across global shares and property, not just Aus Shares, and have experienced returns averaging around 7% per annum over the past 10 years.  Administration fees are around 0.10% for an Industry fund and 0.40% for a retail fund.




May I suggest you go to https://shortentaxlosers.com.au/shortens-super-funds. This is a summary of six Industry Super Fund Financial Statement for the year ending 30/6/18. All the Financial Reports are online . They average around 20% of income for expenses. For example, in millions:

                                    AUSTRALIAN    MTAA     
                                     SUPER          SUPER
Income                          4660              253
Expenses                         967             73.7
% Expenses                   20.8%         29.1%

The point is you could have bought your own shares and not get charged 20% administration and expenses on income, from Super Funds. If you have figures for .1% and .4% I would like to see that.


----------



## Skate (21 March 2019)

*Never stand between a politician and a big pot of money: *

*How greed is destroying super*
March 18, 2019 by Sean Corbett 

An article from SuperGuide

*An Act of Betrayal*
Many of today’s retirees are feeling betrayed.

In 1992, Australians entered into an agreement. They agreed with a plan made by the politicians of the day that, in order to reduce the burden of the Age Pension on future generations of working taxpayers, everyone would save super for their own retirement.

In return for having their take-home pay reduced by super, which they would generally not be able to touch until they retired, reduced tax would be applied to their savings during their working life and no tax would be applied to most of their savings in retirement.

Reduced tax before retirement was necessary to ensure they were able to save enough by the time they retired. No tax after retirement (at least for most of their savings) was necessary to ensure that their savings, which they would now need to rely on for an income, would last for as long as possible.

This bargain has now been broken due to the inability of today’s politicians to stand by it. Politicians from both major parties have been unable to resist the temptation to increase taxes on super to the detriment of retirees.

Today’s retirees are now being told that they are no longer entitled to ask that the bargain be honoured by our politicians when they have honoured their side of the bargain.

I think that most people, if they are honest, would say that a person who breaks a bargain, not the one who keeps it, should be the one who is demonised.

Let us look at how we got to this position.

*In the Beginning*
Retirement was largely paid for through the Age Pension up until the time that compulsory super was introduced. In turn, the Age Pension was largely paid for by income tax on working taxpayers and corporate tax on companies.

Paul Keating as Treasurer (and others) recognised that the burden of the Age Pension would increase in future as people were living longer after they retired.

The cost of funding this increased burden would have to come through increased personal income tax and/or increased corporate tax on companies unless another way could be found.

It was important that another way was found because making working taxpayers and companies bear this increased cost would depress the income of all people through reduced economic activity, which would lead to fewer jobs.

Another way was found in super. Super was designed to shift some of the burden from working taxpayers and companies to retirees. Retirees needed to fund at least part of their own retirement income by saving during their working lives.

From the introduction of the compulsory super regime in 1992 (note that the treatment of retirement savings prior to 1992 is not considered in this paper), the system provided concessional tax treatment for super savings both before and after retirement.

Reduced tax of 15% on earnings was imposed before retirement so that people could build up a meaningful amount of savings by the time they retired without having a sizeable portion of their wages deducted.

After retirement, those savings would largely have no tax imposed on earnings for people over a minimum age who used their super to provide themselves with an income in retirement through an allocated pension. The allocated pension imposed minimum withdrawal requirements to encourage people to use super for income rather than bequests.

Protection against the concessional tax treatment within the system being exploited by the rich was also provided by reasonable benefit limit (RBL) rules, which capped tax-free benefits that could be taken in retirement. Additional tax was imposed on benefits above the limit.

*Ghost in the Machine*
There were two major flaws with super as it was first set up.

The first flaw was in the way that the system attempted to ensure that richer people could not unduly exploit the tax concessions that it provided.

This came about because of the way tax-free benefit limits were indexed. The RBLs were indexed by inflation. Because super savings are tied to wages, which generally grow at a faster rate than inflation, over time more and more super in retirement would be subject to increased tax. Increased tax would mean that those savings would last for less time and people would be forced back onto the Age Pension sooner. This was opposite to the intent of the super system.

The second flaw was in the rate at which the Age Pension was removed the more that people saved in super. This meant that people who qualified for some Age Pension would have their Age Pension income reduced by more than the increased income they could generate if they saved more in super.

These flaws discouraged many people from saving extra super beyond the amount required by law.

Less savings in super would force people back onto the Age Pension sooner. This was opposite to the intent of the super system.

The flaws also punished people who invested wisely to generate a larger amount of super by retirement.

*A Step Forward*
By 2007 these flaws were identified and it was decided to improve super by removing them. Removing the flaws would mean that those who sought to put more into super than the bare minimum and those who had invested wisely and accumulated more super for their retirement would no longer be unduly punished.

Changes were made that lowered the rate at which the Age Pension was withdrawn because more super was held and all super investments in retirement were made tax free.

To replace the protection against exploitation of the tax concessions provided by the RBLs, restrictions on the amount that could be put into super were applied.

Limiting contributions achieves the same goal of limiting tax concessions as taxing savings in retirement. But limiting contributions doesn’t unduly punish those who make good investment decisions or put more into super. Also, it doesn’t make your savings run out sooner in retirement.

Taken together, these changes resulted in super being better able to achieve its aim of reducing the cost of the Age Pension.

The other advantage delivered by the 2007 changes was that it made a complex system at least partially simpler.

*Two Steps Back*
The changes made in 2007 have been partly and selectively unwound by the Liberal government, resulting in increased taxation on super in retirement and the removal of people’s incentives to save more.

First, in 2016 the Liberals reversed the reduction in the rate at which the Age Pension was withdrawn as a result of more super being held.

At the same time the amount of super that could be held before the Age Pension was reduced was also increased.

However, the re-establishment of the much higher rate at which the Age Pension was removed meant that many people, including middle income earners, once more faced losing more in Age Pension income than the increased income they could generate if they saved more in super, reinstating the disincentive to save more super.

Secondly, at the start of 2017 the Liberals reintroduced a limit on the amount that could be taken as benefits in retirement tax free, with increased tax of 15% being imposed on amounts above the limit.

To add insult to injury, the Liberals did not reverse the other part of the 2007 changes to the super rules, which put in place more stringent restrictions on the amount that could be put into super. In fact, rather than reversing this change, the Liberals imposed even more stringent restrictions on the amount that could be put into super.

*Blaming The “Rich”*
The truly insidious part of the changes made by the Liberals was to tell the public that they were justified because the increased tax would only be imposed on a few people who were rich and rorting the super system.

The fact is, while the increase in tax imposed by the Liberals might only apply to a few better off people now, over time it will apply to everyone’s super.

The Liberals have repeated a flaw in the indexation of the original RBLs. I believe the inclusion of this flaw was very deliberate and intended to allow the Liberals to claim that only the better off would be affected now while also allowing them to hide the fact that everyone would eventually be affected.

The reason I believe it was deliberate is because all the limits on the amount that could be put into super that they tightened rather than relaxed were indexed in line with wages, whereas the limit they imposed before increased tax applied was deliberately only indexed by inflation.

As noted earlier, the amount that people save in super is likely to increase at a faster rate than inflation, meaning that more and more of the super savings of more and more people will face increased tax in retirement. Eventually there will be an increase in tax on everyone’s super in retirement, including the least well off.

Most people do not understand that the difference in indexation will eventually lead to this outcome. This allows the Liberals to make their claim that only the “rich” will be affected without people understanding that eventually they will all be affected.

The Liberals have managed to unwind the two key improvements made in 2007; improvements that were made after extensive analysis and modelling of the effects on the retirement income system, the Age Pension and Budget.

No meaningful analysis or modelling seems to have been undertaken before the Liberals made their 2016/2017 changes or, if it was undertaken, the Liberals have yet to release it. Maybe in fear of what it would reveal.

In doing so, the Liberals have made changes that once again punish people who save more in super and invest more wisely. They have made it even harder to save more super. They have also reimposed increased tax on super in retirement that will eventually apply to all people with super, which is pretty much most of us.

*Coup De Grace*
Not willing to be outdone by the Liberals, we now have Labor seeking to go even further by increasing tax on super in retirement to 30%.

The truly insidious thing about Labor’s proposal is not just that it seeks to impose a higher rate of tax, but it will only apply higher tax to certain investments and certain people.

The tax will be applied to investments in Australian shares that are made by people with little or no tax liability because they will no longer be able to claim refunds of tax that has already been paid.

Which people fit that description? Mainly people who are retired and invest through self-managed superannuation funds, which provide competition to retail funds as well as industry funds controlled by unions.

You could argue that super in retirement should be taxed more. However, regardless of the outcome of that argument, it makes no sense to argue that only some people should have their super in retirement taxed more.

The people who invest through self-managed superannuation funds must find another way to invest if they are to avoid the increased tax, or find another similar investment that will not face the increased tax.

The alternative ways to invest in Australian shares are to invest in retail funds (mostly run by banks savaged by the Royal Commission), or to invest in industry funds. Industry funds, of course, are run by and benefit many of the unions who support Labor.

When you realise this, you begin to see that the real purpose of the proposal is not just to increase tax on super at the expense of some retirees but to benefit the supporters of the party making the proposed change.

*A Sting in the Tail*
There is a further downside to this policy. If investors using self-managed superannuation funds want to avoid investing through retail funds or industry funds but still invest in shares to benefit from higher returns in the long term, they will need to invest in overseas shares instead of Australian shares.

Total assets held by self-managed superannuation funds as at March 2018 were $682 billion, of which the biggest category was invested in Australian shares at $208 billion (overseas shares only comprised $5 billion).

Labor’s policy, if it becomes law, has the potential to reduce the flow of investment to Australian companies. This will reduce investment in the Australian economy, which will ultimately reduce jobs.

Labor’s policy will hurt the companies and the working taxpayers that the super system was meant to protect.

*Summary*
It is argued by both parties that the tax concessions from super need to be capped so that the “rich” do not exploit the super system.

The fact is that the concessions have always been capped before these changes were made (Liberals) or proposed (Labor), initially through increased tax on super above limits and then by restricting what could be put into super.

This latter change was made in 2007, along with the removal of tax on earnings in retirement and a lessening of the punitive reductions in Age Pension entitlement. These changes aimed to strengthen the super system and encourage rather than punish people who put more into super and/or who invested wisely.

We’ve now regressed to a system that combines the worst aspects of previous super systems.

The main features of our current system are


a punitive reduction in Age Pension entitlement the more is saved in super;
punitive restrictions on what can be put into super;
increased tax in retirement if you end up with more than a limit set so that it will shift over time to eventually apply increased tax to everyone.
We also face the prospect of a significant part of our super system, which is used by people who wish to retake control of their own retirement investments from retail and industry funds, being punished by the imposition of a 30% tax on their major investment choice. This will force many of them to invest in retail and industry funds or invest in overseas shares rather than Australian shares.

These made or proposed changes are driven by nothing more than a desire to extract more and more tax from Australia’s retirees at a time when the amount invested in super has become too large for politicians of both parties to resist doing so.

There has been no consideration of what damage these changes will make to the viability of the superannuation system. The only consideration that seems to have been undertaken relates to what level of obfuscation, half-truths and outright lies is required so that the public pick up their pitch forks and run after the “rich”.

This has been done to disguise the real intent of the changes. This is to extract more tax from everyone, including ordinary and poorer people, to pay for the increasingly expensive bribes that our politicians feel are necessary for them to be allowed by us to continue in office.

If you listen to our politicians only “rich” retirees will pay for these changes. But in the end we will all pay.

Skate.


----------



## willy1111 (21 March 2019)

basilio said:


> Really Willy ?  I have seen this sort of graph many times promoting someones wealth management program.
> 
> Frankly I think it is duplicitous. It attempts to use the ASX indexes as an indicator of the rise in share prices.
> The trouble is this is pure BS.
> ...




Really @basilio ...you think no one invests in LIC's that have been around for decades and index funds that have been around for quite some time now.


----------



## Junior (21 March 2019)

basilio said:


> Really Willy ?  I have seen this sort of graph many times promoting someones wealth management program.
> 
> Frankly I think it is duplicitous. It attempts to use the ASX indexes as an indicator of the rise in share prices.
> The trouble is this is pure BS.
> ...




I think you're off the mark here.  If you invest in a low-cost Index fund, you WILL closely mirror the return of said index.

If we look at one of the biggest Index funds, the Vanguard Australian Share Index Fund, which holds net assets of $3.3billion. 

This fund has returned 9.71% per annum (after fees) over the past 7 years, versus the ASX300 Index which has returned 9.86% per annum over the same period.  

If you look at all the top performing super funds, you'll find they are pretty close to Index-like returns over the past 5 to 10 years.


----------



## shortentaxlosers.com.au (21 March 2019)

Skate said:


> *Never stand between a politician and a big pot of money: *
> 
> *How greed is destroying super*
> March 18, 2019 by Sean Corbett
> ...




Good summary of the situation. Yes, I understand that the 517,000 Pension Fund SMSF pension mode retirees (according to the ATO) can get the full 30 cents franking credit cash refund.

*However, any individual or Super Fund with under 30 cents marginal rate will lose.*

*With respect, according to the ATO there are 517,000 SMSF Accumulation members who 
could get a 15 cent cash refund. The pay tax at 15 cents and get 30 cents franking credit offset. These members are aged 18-59 years and have up to 40 years of losing 15 cents franking credit refunds. What about these non-retirees ? If Shorten want to look at 10 years for $55 billion, then what about the non-retirees who will miss out on up to 40 years at 15 cents ? This could be $300 billion NON-RETIREES will lose over 40 years.

This site is about shares right ? Why not look at all the ALP losers ? Why just retirees?

There are 7 million people under $37k and therefore under 30 cents marginal rate. What about these people ? They lose 30 cents or 9 cents. Carling says 1,000,000 people according to ATO will lose $1B each year from lost franking credit refunds.https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...o/news-story/b33eb43c0c32739659f2515c34ff0b41

That's a total of 8.1 million losers.

Please see shortentaxlosers.com.au for the overall picture.*


----------



## PZ99 (21 March 2019)

shortentaxlosers.com.au said:


> *That's a total of 8.1 million losers.*



That's an assumption that 8.1 million people are holding shares with fully franked divvies.

I don't believe it.


----------



## shortentaxlosers.com.au (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> That's an assumption that 8.1 million people are holding shares with fully franked divvies.
> 
> I don't believe it.





Yes, it's *8.1 million people that are eligible for a refund.* It's all crosschecked with ATO on my website. These are all the people or Super Funds under 30 cents marginal rate. It's just mathematics.

It's about how many people are eligible that will lose. Would you say we shouldn't care about 7 million poor people ? CEO's shouldn't camp out in the street once a year ? Don't give to Vinnies?

There are some people *not on a pension with say $100k in Telstra shares.* If they got $6.1k in dividends and They are not in an SMSF.* If they have income less than $18,200 they get $6.1k in dividends and $2.61k in cash credits. They will lose $2.61k with Shorten. * Not everyone can afford an SMSF.

*What about the 583,000 SMSF members who are greater in number than the 517,000 SMSF retirees.? *Do they ever get a mention ? 18-59 year olds that can get a *15 cent refund for the next 40 years *?  What will they lose by Shorten policy? T*hey pay 15 cents tax now but will pay 30 cents tax on all franked Australian Shares under Shorten. * Their 15 cent tax on Super effectively become 30 cents. They currently are taxed at the Super Fund's  marginal rate, 15 cents. *In the future Shorten wants to tax shares in Accumulation Funds at 30 cents.*

Has Bowen or Shorten ever given a breakup of who will lose what ? NO.

What say we have a policy of only old people get Medicare free treatment for heart attack because everyone only heart attack people are old ?. 

*You want to wipe out refunds for 7 million people because they aren't rich ????  I thought Shorten was for the battler.
*
Most people don't realise that *a*nyone over $37k pays 34 cents, 39 cents, or 47 cents for their dividend , in their tax return*. It's a franking debit. Some of the rich already pay up to 47 cents for a 30 cents dividend.*


----------



## PZ99 (21 March 2019)

shortentaxlosers.com.au said:


> Yes, it's *8.1 million people that are eligible for a refund.* It's all crosschecked with ATO on my website. These are all the people or Super Funds under 30 cents marginal rate. It's just mathematics.
> 
> It's about how many people are eligible that will lose. Would you say we shouldn't care about 7 million poor people ? CEO's shouldn't camp out in the street once a year ? Don't give to Vinnies?
> 
> ...



OK so here's a question for you. 

My neighbour works part time and earns just over $17.8k a year. He has around $30k in his super in a balanced portfolio in an industry super fund.

How much will he lose? Bear in mind... he has *no* shares or any other investment outside of the super.


----------



## sptrawler (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> OK so here's a question for you.
> 
> My neighbour works part time and earns just over $17.8k a year. He has around $30k in his super in a balanced portfolio in an industry super fund.
> 
> How much will he lose? Bear in mind... he has *no* shares or any other investment outside of the super.



You know way too much, of your neighbour's business. 

Or you are making it up.


----------



## PZ99 (21 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> You know way too much, of your neighbour's business.




More to the point, you know nothing of his business. I was the one who got him the job (via the employment agency) at the Flemington Fresh Produce Group working 2 days a week unloading containers. He would rather work for some $300 a week instead of sitting on the dole for $275 a week. It's not much. But it's better than nothing.



sptrawler said:


> Or you are making it up.



Nope. You're just being stupid


----------



## sptrawler (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> More to the point, you know nothing of his business. I was the one who got him the job (via the employment agency) at the Flemington Fresh Produce Group working 2 days a week unloading containers. He would rather work for some $300 a week instead of sitting on the dole for $275 a week. It's not much. But it's better than nothing.




It's a shame there aren't more like him, and no doubt he will buy shares as you will mentor him, therefore it will affect him.
Just not yet.


----------



## PZ99 (21 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> It's a shame there aren't more like him, and no doubt he will buy shares as you will mentor him, therefore it will affect him.
> Just not yet.



He's already being affected. He (and every other low income earner) are, or were,  loosing out in his super because of Tony Abbott's super tax on contributions from 2014 onwards.
Picture this... his income is so low he doesn't pay income tax - but he pays tax on the super.
Turnbull was supposed to have rolled it back but it doesn't look like it on his statement.

ROFL @ buying shares on $300 a week


----------



## shortentaxlosers.com.au (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> OK so here's a question for you.
> 
> My neighbour works part time and earns just over $17.8k a year. He has around $30k in his super in a balanced portfolio in an industry super fund.
> 
> How much will he lose? Bear in mind... he has *no* shares or any other investment outside of the super.




1) Because he earns under $18,200 and so his *marginal rate is less than 30 cents*. he would be *eligible to lose the moment he bought an Australian share, in his own name, under Shorten.
He would lose the franking credit refund.

2) But he will lose with an Industry Super Fund. *Just remember,* with Industry Super Funds, on average they take 20% of income in admin fees and expenses *as per the summary I did of the six Industry Super Funds on *https://shortentaxlosers.com.au/shortens-super-funds**. These are taken from extracts from the Annual Financial Reports, which are online for all to see. Just google.For instance:

                            AUSTRALIAN     MTAA
                              SUPER             SUPER
Income                  4660                253 
Expenses                 967                73.7
% Expenses            20.8%           29.1%
*
A lot of the expenses go to Shorten's union mates. Take the MTAA for example. Six people alone 
get $229K-$437k in wages to manage the fund. The names are all declared in the financial reports and are on my website.

*Shorten promotes the Industry Super Funds.* By the way, these Super Funds don.t have much Australian shares, so they don't have much or many franking credits. The franking credits are mostly soaked up by tax on other income. But the ones that do have excess franking credits don't seem to pass them on to their members. 

If he is of pension age and is eligible to withdraw from compulsory super, he is losing a lot by staying in, because he could have just put the $30k into Australian banks shares directly and got say 6% plus 2.6% franked cash refund plus any capital gain, average 9.1 %, via the All Ords.

These *six funds Industry funds* I reported on the website managed only *1.5 % return* apart from the All Ords gain over the year, to 30/6/18. How shocking is this ? The All Ords went up 9.1 % and they managed total return of only *1.5% more* *than this.
*
There are *11.6 million people losing money in the Industry Super Funds.* The retail funds are just as bad. The banking royal commission has mentioned this. There is an example of a man who put $100k into the Cash Fund at AMP. 3 years later his balance was $97k, just because of the AMP fund's fees.


----------



## PZ99 (21 March 2019)

shortentaxlosers.com.au said:


> 1) Because he earns under $18,200 and so his *marginal rate is less than 30 cents*. he would be *eligible to lose the moment he bought an Australian share, in his own name, under Shorten.
> He would lose the franking credit refund.*



But as preciously stated he doesn't have any shares. 

Therefore he doesn't lose the franking credit refund. He didn't get it in the first place. 

Most people in Australia don't have shares because most people don't have the funds.

So how on Earth can you say 8.1 million will lose a credit they never even got ?


----------



## shortentaxlosers.com.au (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> But as preciously stated he doesn't have any shares.
> 
> Therefore he doesn't lose the franking credit refund. He didn't get it in the first place.
> 
> ...




*1.1 million* people are SMSF members who have a *marginal rate of 15 cents or Nil.
10.5 million people have income less than $37k*, which means they have a *marginal rate less than 30 cents*.
Minus 3.5 million exempt pensioners. (Bowen says 2.5 million)

They are all eligible to lose. I may not use my Medicare card for 10 years, if I am young
Does that mean I should lose my Medicare card ?

There must be around 3 million mums and dads alone who own Commonwealth Bank shares alone.
Only 1% of COM Bank is owned by companies.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...o/news-story/b33eb43c0c32739659f2515c34ff0b41

Carling says that 1,000,000 people under $37k will lose $1.3B in lost cash refunds each year. Over 10 years that is $13 Billion. I can't stand politicians projecting for 10 years because the average person just hears Shorten's 55 B. Anyway, lets use Shorten's method.

Do you have any quoted figures to the contrary ? *Not everyone can afford a Super Fund startup costs and accounting fees* mate.  Of course there are *millions of Australians who own shares in their own right without a SMSF.  *

The point is that your friend has a marginal rate of $nil but *Shorten wants to tax his dividend at 30 cents*, and he gets no franking credit offset. 
*
Take a person past election on $25k, even under Shorten, whilst this person will not receive a cash refund, will get a franking credit offset to reduce their tax to zero.* *(no cash refund)., Why will the $25k person get franking credit offset to reduce tax but your friend gets nothing ? Once again, your friend will lose. May I ask you why will your friend lose under Shorten, compared to the $25K person ?

Individual taxpayers over $37k will still pay 34.5 cents, 39 cents, or 47 cents for their dividend*, in their tax return, pre and post Shorten.  Their situation will not change under Shorten. They receive 30 cents franking credit offset but have to pay a *Franking debit to the ATO.* This is simply full dividend imputation. Is this the same all over the world where individuals pay more than the company tax rate ??


----------



## IFocus (21 March 2019)

*How Dividend Imputation Is Applied Around the World*
Taxpayers in countries wherein dividend imputation is offered will typically claim the appropriate credit when filing their taxes.


Dividend imputation has had a mixed history among different nations, as the circumstances of each country’s tax system prompt varying applications. Nine countries that once offered such an arrangement have either changed or ended the practice. These countries include the following:



United Kingdom
Ireland
Germany
Singapore
Italy
Finland
France
Norway
Malaysia

The United Kingdom and Ireland, for example, previously offered partial imputation with tax credits that were, effectively, portions 12 cents to 25 cents on each dollar. The partial imputation in the United Kingdom provided a 20 percent refund against a 33 percent corporate tax rate. Starting in 1997, however, the government moved away from this, first by eliminating the refund to tax-exempt shareholders that includes pension funds. Then, in 1999, the refund rate was cut to 10 percent.


Germany, Finland, Norway, and France all previously offered full dividend imputation. France offered tax credits equal to 50 percent of the face value of the dividend. After the repeal, these countries taxed dividends at a rate of 50 percent or greater. Germany did away with its dividend imputation program with the intent of reducing the nation’s tax rate. Finland, likewise, lowered its corporate tax rate after dividend imputation as repealed. Norway, on the other hand, did not lower its corporate tax rate when dividend imputation ended.


----------



## HelloU (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> More to the point, you know nothing of his business. I was the one who got him the job (via the employment agency) at the Flemington Fresh Produce Group working 2 days a week unloading containers. He would rather work for some $300 a week instead of sitting on the dole for $275 a week. It's not much. But it's better than nothing.
> 
> 
> Nope. You're just being stupid



(just being the messenger)

if bloke worked less ($254 instead of $600pf) he would end up with $628 pf in the hand thru newstart and still have access to rent/transport/energy etc subsidies on top. Funny how some incentives are skewed ......

(ironically, a very similar dilemma some smsf peeps maybe soon face)


----------



## PZ99 (21 March 2019)

shortentaxlosers.com.au said:


> *1.1 million* people are SMSF members who have a *marginal rate of 15 cents or Nil.
> 10.5 million people have income less than $37k*, which means they have a *marginal rate less than 30 cents*.
> Minus 3.5 million exempt pensioners. (Bowen says 2.5 million)
> 
> ...




Look - I'm not disagreeing about the merits, or lack thereof, of the policy.
I'm disagreeing with the obvious spin you are applying in your interpretations.

I'll give you an analogy. The Abbott Govt wanted to increase the pension age to 70 (+3 years)

Using your logic, and the bolding that comes with it, I could say that *100% of Australian workers would have had $70,000 confiscated from them UP FRONT by Tony Abbott !!*

Or better still,* Tony Abbott will have cost workers over $70 billion dollars over 10 years.*

Of course we both know that not all workers will go on the full pension so naturally the statements are false. 

But it's no more false than you claiming 8.1 million people will lose their credits because I said before, most people don't trade stock on the sharemarket. They don't have the money. 

https://www.smh.com.au/money/invest...ns-dont-invest-in-shares-20171208-h01m2v.html

You could use the Medicare angle if you want, but of course we both know the Coalitions' policy on sick people


----------



## HelloU (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Look - I'm not disagreeing about the merits, or lack thereof, of the policy.
> I'm disagreeing with the obvious spin you are applying in your interpretations.
> 
> I'll give you an analogy. The Abbott Govt wanted to increase the pension age to 70 (+3 years)
> ...



easy to ignore the fact that peeps would still retire at 60 years of age and access tax-free super at that point.

Increasing the pension age to 70 meant that typical worker, if still working at 70, would have been making mandatory super payments into their super fund for 40 years or something (from memory).

Wow, pension at 70 but they would have at least 30 years of super behind them to access 10 years earlier (tax-free)............. not sure what the actual problem was with this  ..........


----------



## PZ99 (21 March 2019)

HelloU said:


> (just being the messenger)
> 
> if bloke worked less ($254 instead of $600pf) he would end up with $628 pf in the hand thru newstart and still have access to rent/transport/energy etc subsidies on top. Funny how some incentives are skewed ......
> 
> (ironically, a very similar dilemma some smsf peeps maybe soon face)



Yes but there's a minimum number of hours you have to work to be a permanent part timer.
He works two x 7.5 hour days a week and gets holidays, sick leave etc. He doesn't want to go on Newstart.

And on your second point (and I think we discussed this before) there's no way I would be blowing my savings or super on an assumption that the pension would give me a lifestyle similar to what I would enjoy had I kept the money.


----------



## sptrawler (21 March 2019)

IFocus said:


> *How Dividend Imputation Is Applied Around the World*
> Taxpayers in countries wherein dividend imputation is offered will typically claim the appropriate credit when filing their taxes.
> 
> 
> ...




That is very interesting Ifocus, but we are talking about how it applies, in a pension context.

Maybe you should include a section, on pension eligibility in the listed Countries, for example the U.K and Ireland everyone gets the pension. Their super is taxed.

In Germany everyone gets a pension, the amount is based on your average salary and time contributed. Then you can also have your personal super which I think can't be passed on to your estate.

So in reality franking credits are a part of the picture, but I doubt many of the first world countries, means test the age pension and also penalise those who self fund and claim no State pension.


----------



## PZ99 (21 March 2019)

HelloU said:


> easy to ignore the fact that peeps would still retire at 60 years of age and access tax-free super at that point.
> 
> Increasing the pension age to 70 meant that typical worker, if still working at 70, would have been making mandatory super payments into their super fund for 40 years or something (from memory).
> 
> Wow, pension at 70 but they would have at least 30 years of super behind them to access 10 years earlier (tax-free)............. not sure what the actual problem was with this  ..........



Well for starters the Superannuation industry wanted to increase your preservation age to the retirement age. Abbott / Hockey were talking about doing that prior to being sent to the far queue 

There are a lot of things being ignored by the OP of this thread.

The point is you can spin up just about any disastrous conspiracy theory you want from a policy you don't agree with. That's exactly what the OP is doing - misconstruing to suit an addendum.


----------



## HelloU (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Yes but there's a minimum number of hours you have to work to be a permanent part timer.
> He works two x 7.5 hour days a week and gets holidays, sick leave etc. He doesn't want to go on Newstart.
> 
> And on your second point (and I think we discussed this before) there's no way I would be blowing my savings or super on an assumption that the pension would give me a lifestyle similar to what I would enjoy had I kept the money.



i see .... always 6 sides to a cube.


----------



## sptrawler (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> And on your second point (and I think we discussed this before) there's no way I would be blowing my savings or super on an assumption that the pension would give me a lifestyle similar to what I would enjoy had I kept the money.




That could well be a folly on your part, if Labor go back to the original scheme, there were maximum and minimum withdrawls dependent on life expectancy, as you probably remember.

So the situation could quite easily arrive, where your balance and you age, in actual fact gives you a very similar outcome as the pension. 
I would never have thought, the situation would arrive, where $1m in super gives a similar outcome to the pension and minimal savings.
Time will tell, but it will be interesting, I'm pleased that i am close to pension age.


----------



## PZ99 (21 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> That could well be a folly on your part, if Labor go back to the original scheme, there were maximum and minimum withdrawls dependent on life expectancy, as you probably remember.
> 
> So the situation could quite easily arrive, where your balance and you age, in actual fact gives you a very similar outcome as the pension.
> I would never have thought, the situation would arrive, where $1m in super gives a similar outcome to the pension and minimal savings.
> Time will tell, but it will be interesting, I'm pleased that i am close to pension age.



If I had a million dollars in or out of super I can assure you the last thing I'll be worrying about is refunding franking credits. But I suspect my situation will be quite different.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 March 2019)

IFocus said:


> Dividend imputation has had a mixed history among different nations, as the circumstances of each country’s tax system prompt varying applications. Nine countries that once offered such an arrangement have either changed or ended the practice. These countries include the following:




Now did any of those countries keep the system for high income earners but abolish it for low income earners?

Getting rid of it is one thing and there are rational arguments for or against that.

Leaving it in place solely as a tax break for high income earners is somewhat harder to justify however and without that aspect I doubt this thread would exist.

If we're taxing company profits then tax company profits. Don't tax them only for lower income shareholders - a policy that's truly bizarre really.


----------



## sptrawler (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> If I had a million dollars in or out of super I can assure you the last thing I'll be worrying about is refunding franking credits. But I suspect my situation will be quite different.



Of course, if you have tons of money it doesn't matter, but $1m puts you right in the spot where it hurts the most.
At $1m franking credits help a lot, especially with minimum draw downs, as the draw down increases the supporting shares have to be sold.
The difference between 4-5% income and 7-8% income is substantial, at that level.


----------



## john5 (21 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Are you saying Capital Gains tax to be 75% on all shares ?
> 
> OR
> 
> ...



the bill we cant afford wants to cut the discount from 50 to 25% arguing it's needed to help bring down property prices, yet the innocent share investor will be dragged into it too, its just labor's blunt instrument approach, it should have all investors up in arms, it's even more unfair than losing the fc refund, because share investors havent caused the property price bubble


----------



## shortentaxlosers.com.au (21 March 2019)

john5 said:


> the bill we cant afford wants to cut the discount from 50 to 25% arguing it's needed to help bring down property prices, yet the innocent share investor will be dragged into it too, its just labor's blunt instrument approach, it should have all investors up in arms, it's even more unfair than losing the fc refund, because share investors havent caused the property price bubble




John5 . 

I believe you are correct. I am an accountant and so I have to advise on all taxation matters, so I have to know about franking credits as well.  I hate share investing because of the low returns. I mainly do subdivisions where I can make 25% profit on costs, sometimes in 4 hours. I have a subdivision club of 500 members. However I believe the *biggest Shorten slug is 75% capital gains tax which scientifically means 75% of any gain you make under Shorten must go in your tax return at your marginal rate. Currently it's 50%.*

Does everyone know that S*horten wants 75% of all your share and property gains put in your tax return when you sell*, just like salary and wages ????   Currently it is 50%. I hate the use of the wording "the discount will be halved. " The public haven't got a clue.

*Shorten - It's a 25% discount* if you hold for 12 months, or compared to a company which is full tax and doesn't get any discount no matter what.
*
It's actually a 75% tax (refer above definition ) compared to your own home, which is tax free.*

*For heavens sake can't the media use the phrase 75% of all profit will be taxed, instead of "halving the discount". Ordinary people wouldn't know this.*


----------



## sptrawler (21 March 2019)

Quite a few on here agree with the tax increases, so if people on an investment forum want to give more money to the Government, one must assume the majority of the general public will agree. Labor must have struck the right chord obviously, the rapid rise in Sydney/Melbourne house prices, is fresh in people's minds.
They forget those same people who caused the prices rises, are the same ones getting burnt now.

I don't think it will sink in, untill it effects people personally, by then it will be all over.
I think it is just a case of wait and see, but if Labor win a majority in both houses, it's going to be an interesting three years.


----------



## HelloU (21 March 2019)

NSW state elections this week-end. I have not heard one policy from anyone that talks about lowering fees/taxes. In fact, both majors talk (very quietly) of more state debt in the future ..........


----------



## shortentaxlosers.com.au (21 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Most on here agree with the tax increases, so if most on an investment forum want to give more money to the Government, one must assume the majority of the general public will agree.
> 
> I don't think it will sink in, untill it effects people personally, by then it will be all over.
> I think it is just a case of wait and see, but if Labor win a majority in both houses, it's going to be an interesting three years.




Sptrawler - Thanks for your honest post. And you have many apparently lol.  If you wouldn't mind me asking, why would anyone on this forum mainly commenting about shares, and owning shares, who wish to make money on dividends and profit eventually,  *want an increase from 50% to 75% profit to be put in your tax return ???* To give money to the government ?  

I have been to emergency department to a public hospital twice in the last 3 months and had magnificent care. Is there one area you want the government you want your money to go to ?.  Smith Family say there are 1.2 million poor people who need donations. Why donate to the government instead of private needy organisations ? 

I think you are right that it will take the public, after they see their accountant after they sell their shares will have a *big shock coming, of 75% profit to go into your tax return*. The horse has bolted now for the public. But at least the punters on this site should be aware of the mathematics of the proposed ALP policies. If there were proposed LNP policies I would cover them, but there aren't.

May I ask , what's the point in owning shares if Shorten wants 75% of your profit in your tax return? 

Why not increase the capitals gains tax to 100% or 150% or 200% ? Why pick 75% ?


----------



## shortentaxlosers.com.au (21 March 2019)

IFocus said:


> *How Dividend Imputation Is Applied Around the World*
> Taxpayers in countries wherein dividend imputation is offered will typically claim the appropriate credit when filing their taxes.
> 
> 
> ...




That seems like good information. How about New Zealand, our closest neighbour, where I understand there is still franking credit but I don't think there is cash refunds ? Please advise.


----------



## sptrawler (21 March 2019)

It is the franking credit and negative gearing changes, most seem comfortable with, but also there appears to be a genuine concern for the plight of those on welfare, hospitals and education.
Which from my point of view, none of the plights seem to improve, no matter how much money is thrown at it.
But on a more general note, I think a lot of the younger generation, don't appreciate how difficult it is for them to become financially comfortable.
The new rules being proposed by labor, will make it much more difficult in the future, as you say once they see the accountant a few times it will sink in. IMO
But as you pointed out I have posted an lot on the subject, so I had better let it go, everything has been said that could be said. IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> But as you pointed out I have posted an lot on the subject, so I had better let it go, everything has been said that could be said. IMO



Time will tell how it all plays out and my thought is it's a gamble.

Tax something and you get less of it. I don't think too many would argue with that notion as it seems a pretty well accepted concept with everything from health to environmental policy. If something's considered to be bad then tax it and end result is people use / do less of it.

It thus follows that taxing self-funded retirees means we'll end up with fewer self-funded retirees. Seems a reasonable conclusion - taxing something discourages it.

What they do with the money instead will determine the outcome in my view. Only time will tell where the money ends up.


----------



## Junior (22 March 2019)

shortentaxlosers.com.au said:


> May I ask , what's the point in owning shares if Shorten wants 75% of your profit in your tax return?




I'm just going to expand on this point, 75% of your profit in your tax return.  75% of your gain is *assessable income*.  So if you take a retiree for example, who sells a property to help fund their retirement, and makes a profit of $300,000 on the sale.  75% of $300,000 will be assessed: $225,000

Tax on 225,000 = 78,847  (assuming no other assessable income for the year)

So Shorten has taken 26% of your profit in this example.

Let's look at the same case, for a high income earner who also makes a profit of $300,000.  If he was on the top MTR he would pay tax on this gain of $110,250.  This is the 'worst case scenario', i.e. the most tax you could possibly pay on a capital gain.

In this example, *Shorten has taken 37% of the gain*.  (compared to 25% under the current CGT rules)

It's a big tax hike and I absolutely do not agree with the changes, but let's put it in perspective, but it's not the end of civilisation as we know it.  You would still have capital gains taxed at only 15% through super and 0% in a pension.


----------



## sptrawler (22 March 2019)

Junior said:


> I'm just going to expand on this point, 75% of your profit in your tax return.  75% of your gain is *assessable income*.  So if you take a retiree for example, who sells a property to help fund their retirement, and makes a profit of $300,000 on the sale.  75% of $300,000 will be assessed: $225,000
> 
> Tax on 225,000 = 78,847  (assuming no other assessable income for the year)
> 
> ...



I find that really interesting, a 12% increase in a tax, isn't the end of civilization as we know it.
Just shows how affluent we are.
So if we increased GST by 12% it really isn't a problem?
Or are we saying who gives a $hit, as long as the increase only affects a few, as long as it isn't me.lol


----------



## sptrawler (22 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> If I had a million dollars in or out of super I can assure you the last thing I'll be worrying about is refunding franking credits. But I suspect my situation will be quite different.



I know what you mean, I'm with you, make up for what you went without. Yeh


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> So if we increased GST by 12% it really isn't a problem?



Simply applying the GST as it was originally intended, that is to everything with no exceptions, would have plenty of people up in arms due to loss of their tax exemption the existence of which directly cuts funding for schools and the like given that GST revenue goes to the states.


----------



## sptrawler (23 March 2019)

Has anybody read the latest news on Industry Super funds, apparently there is a bit of an issue of an executive getting a $36m bonus, some IFM investment company. Greg Combet, you know the ex Labor minister and ACTU secratary, is making no comment. Sounds like there might be an AMP moment coming up.lol


----------



## Humid (23 March 2019)

How long has Combet been in that position?


----------



## sptrawler (24 March 2019)

Humid said:


> How long has Combet been in that position?



I will look it up when I get back on Monday, away on the Indian for the weekend.


----------



## Humid (24 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I will look it up when I get back on Monday, away on the Indian for the weekend.




My Mrs is Victorian.....


----------



## noirua (25 March 2019)

Junior said:


> I'm just going to expand on this point, 75% of your profit in your tax return.  75% of your gain is *assessable income*.  So if you take a retiree for example, who sells a property to help fund their retirement, and makes a profit of $300,000 on the sale.  75% of $300,000 will be assessed: $225,000
> 
> Tax on 225,000 = 78,847  (assuming no other assessable income for the year)
> 
> ...




*9 EXPAT-FRIENDLY COUNTRIES WITH NO CAPITAL GAINS TAXES*
https://nomadcapitalist.com/2014/04/06/top-5-expat-friendly-countries-with-no-capital-gains-taxes/

*3. NEW ZEALAND*
*New Zealand isn’t called heaven on Earth just because of its stunning nature and scenery. It has one of the very few truly free economies on the planet and you can forget about capital gains taxes here.


*


----------



## Value Collector (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> If I had a million dollars in or out of super I can assure you the last thing I'll be worrying about is refunding franking credits. But I suspect my situation will be quite different.




Yeah probably have not run the numbers, you will be stuck paying 30% tax while your peers in other asset classes and jobs will only pay 20% tax, doesn’t seem fair.

But if you got a refund, your total tax would drop back to the 20% that every one else is paying that earns the same as you.

If you had $1 Million in shares, you would be getting around $50,000 in dividends, and would be stuck paying paying 30% tax on the grossed up amount of $70,000 that hits your tax return.

All the while some one else earning $70,000 in bank interest or rental property, or share trading will only be paying 20% tax.


----------



## Junior (25 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I find that really interesting, a 12% increase in a tax, isn't the end of civilization as we know it.
> Just shows how affluent we are.
> So if we increased GST by 12% it really isn't a problem?
> Or are we saying who gives a $hit, as long as the increase only affects a few, as long as it isn't me.lol




It should be viewed in the context of their overall tax policy.  Clearly some taxes will be cut, whilst others will rise.  Honing on one tax, how it affects one type of taxpayer, and ignoring where the additional revenue will be spent isn't the way to go about it.

I would fully support a 12% increase in GST, if that tax increase came at the same time as equivalent cuts to income and company tax rates across all income brackets.


----------



## PZ99 (25 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Yeah probably have not run the numbers, you will be stuck paying 30% tax while your peers in other asset classes and jobs will only pay 20% tax, doesn’t seem fair.
> 
> But if you got a refund, your total tax would drop back to the 20% that every one else is paying that earns the same as you.
> 
> ...



$70,000 in bank interest from a million dollars ? LOL

Put it this way VC - if you stopped the taxpayer funded gravy train that hands out money frivolously then chances are I wouldn't be slugged with that 30% tax in the first place.

And neither would all those employers hence better profits and dividends yeah?

For the record - I get far better returns from trading than from dividends. 

50/50 ratio in the portfolio


----------



## PZ99 (25 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> I know what you mean, I'm with you, make up for what you went without. Yeh
> 
> View attachment 93192



Yeppers. Colorbond fencing and pavers make decent outdoor showers for camping...

Nice bike BTW


----------



## sptrawler (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Yeppers. Colorbond fencing and pavers make decent outdoor showers for camping...
> 
> Nice bike BTW



All the house does, is keep the weather off you and your toys. Lol


----------



## Value Collector (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> $70,000 in bank interest from a million dollars ? LOL
> 
> Put it this way VC - if you stopped the taxpayer funded gravy train that hands out money frivolously then chances are I wouldn't be slugged with that 30% tax in the first place.
> 
> ...




Just make a flat 30% tax on every dollar for every one then.

why pick out shareholders to be the only ones with a minimum of 30% tax


----------



## Value Collector (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> For the record - I get far better returns from trading than from dividends.




So why should you get your first $19,000 of trading profit tax free.

While a business owner has to pay a minimum of 30% tax on every dollar they earn.


----------



## PZ99 (25 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> *Just make a flat 30% tax on every dollar for every one then.*
> 
> why pick out shareholders to be the only ones with a minimum of 30% tax



Have you done the numbers on the tax revenue that would raise ?


----------



## PZ99 (25 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> So why should you get your first $19,000 of trading profit tax free.
> 
> While a business owner has to pay a minimum of 30% tax on every dollar they earn.



I don't care if my first or last $19,000 of trading profit is not tax free.

I also believe your "minimum of 30% tax" is not correct.


----------



## Value Collector (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I don't care if my first or last $19,000 of trading profit is not tax free.
> 
> I also believe your "minimum of 30% tax" is not correct.




Profits earned on investors capital inside a company, are subject to a 30% company tax.

When those profits are eventually distributed back to shareholders, they get tax according to the marginal rate.

By disallowing a franking credit refund to a person who’s marginal rate is less than 30%, you are making them pay a minimum of 30% tax (because that is what has already been paid on their earnings)

Where as if they earned the money in any other employment or investment they would would only have to pay tax at their marginal rate, which could be less than 30%.

you could earn over $100k as a trader and still pay less than 30% tax, while long term share holder earning only $10k is subject to a minimum of 30% if they can’t access a refund.


----------



## Value Collector (25 March 2019)

If my effective tax rate ends up brings 40% on my dividends, the government is very quick to ask me to pay the additional 10% tax to make up the difference between my 30% already paid franking credits and the 40% effective rate I owe.

So I see it as a bit dishonest for them not to provide a refund of 10%, to some one who’s effective rate turns out to be only 20%, while people earning the same amount as them from other sources only have to pay the 20%


----------



## PZ99 (25 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Profits earned on investors capital inside a company, are subject to a 30% company tax.
> 
> When those profits are eventually distributed back to shareholders, they get tax according to the marginal rate.
> 
> ...



That doesn't mean a "business owner" pays 30% tax. Sole traders don't pay 30% tax.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with all this... my statement you quoted was that if I was investing a million dollars then I wouldn't worry about franking credits. 
I wouldn't have to. Why would I? Would I? I wouldn't. That's because I expect my ROI to put me in a comfortable enough position to not worry about franking credits 

In any case I haven't said in this thread that I support low income earners loosing their credits.

I was just pulling up the OP for spinning conspiracy theories and false logic. It's one of the reasons why someone else reported this thread as factually incorrect and why Joe altered the thread title in response.

I do support Shortens' NG and other tax policies but not this policy if someone's only source of retirement income is divvies and credits and less than $19k.


----------



## rnr (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I do support Shortens' NG and other tax policies but not this policy if someone's only source of retirement income is divvies and credits and less than $19k.




Please correct me if I am wrong. My understanding from your statement is that you believe it is equitable to introduce a double taxation policy on the proviso it doesn't affect an individual with an income of $19,000 or less.


----------



## PZ99 (25 March 2019)

rnr said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong. My understanding from your statement is that you believe it is equitable to introduce a double taxation policy on the proviso it doesn't affect an individual with an income of $19,000 or less.



I don't have a problem with that. I didn't say it was equitable though - it's not.

What I do have a problem with is the tax rate being as high as 30% in the first place. Programs such as Neg Gearing and other welfare handouts are what's keeping us a high taxing country.

If the tax rate was lower like it is in most other countries threads like this wouldn't exist.


----------



## rnr (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I don't have a problem with that. I didn't say it was equitable though - it's not.
> 
> What I do have a problem with is the tax rate being as high as 30% in the first place. Programs such as Neg Gearing and other welfare handouts are what's keeping us a high taxing country.
> 
> If the tax rate was lower like it is in most other countries threads like this wouldn't exist.




So the choices are:-

a) increase the tax rates overall - equitable, as all taxpayers will share the burden (and not be      happy) even though, as you say, they are too high already,
b) resolve the problems relating to Negative Gearing and other welfare handouts that result in        Australia being a high taxing country - equitable, perhaps to some degree although you can      guarantee that certainly not all taxpayers or welfare recipients will be happy or
c) introduce a tax to solve the problem, which in your own words is inequitable and you don't        have a problem with that.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 March 2019)

An interesting opinion piece which, on the surface at least, seems a reasonable idea.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03...ry-is-the-legacy-the-coalition-needs/10935062


----------



## sptrawler (25 March 2019)

Humid said:


> How long has Combet been in that position?



Here is the article is was referring to:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/ban...million-bonus-allegation-20190315-p514mn.html

Here is another interesting article, where Greg gets a mention:

https://www.afr.com/news/economy/its-members-money-not-greg-combet-and-big-supers-20190304-h1bz6y


----------



## sptrawler (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I've been holding ANZ bank shares since 2001. They are nothing like that chart either - but they pay all my bills and more. And they sure as hell return a lot more than 4.2% p/a.
> 
> And the GFC was a much harder axe to bear than the CGT / NGT / Franking policies will be.
> If you look at the long term as that chart does it's not a reason to give up investing IMO.
> ...



If you bought ANZ in 2001, you will really have a CGT event, if you ever have to sell them.


----------



## qldfrog (25 March 2019)

You always have CGT if you hold a portfolio long term, if in a lic or eft the lic or eft will pay cgt when they rebalance, or if own directly you will buy sell to keep a match with the index 
Badcock diseappear, healthcote get privatised etc etc
Cgt without inflation means it is not reasonable to invest long term in this country..already with the current discount you should buy and sell after a year,.if the discount reduces becomes even more critical


----------



## Value Collector (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> That doesn't mean a "business owner" pays 30% tax. Sole traders don't pay 30% tax.
> 
> I'm not quite sure where you're going with all this... my statement you quoted was that if I was investing a million dollars then I wouldn't worry about franking credits.
> I wouldn't have to. Why would I? Would I? I wouldn't. That's because I expect my ROI to put me in a comfortable enough position to not worry about franking credits
> ...




We are talking about people owning businesses through companies, eg shareholders.

You said you wouldn’t worry about franking credits if you were investing a 1,000,000 but the franking credits make a big difference to a $50k dividend

If you are earning $50k a year and paying 30%, while others earn the same amount and pay 20% that is unfair.

Or worse if you are earning $15k and paying 30% while your peers are getting tax free income


----------



## sptrawler (25 March 2019)

qldfrog said:


> You always have CGT if you hold a portfolio long term, if in a lic or eft the lic or eft will pay cgt when they rebalance, or if own directly you will buy sell to keep a match with the index
> Badcock diseappear, healthcote get privatised etc etc
> Cgt without inflation means it is not reasonable to invest long term in this country..already with the current discount you should buy and sell after a year,.if the discount reduces becomes even more critical



What I was meaning frog, was that ANZ back in 2001 when PZ99 bought them were really cheap, if Labor increase the CGT to 75% and he has to sell them, he will be up for a LOT more tax.


----------



## Value Collector (25 March 2019)

I think the current model is pretty fair, I don’t mind paying 45% tax on my earnings over a certain amount, provided it’s not double taxation on top of the tax already paid at the company level, franking credits solve this problem perfectly.

I also don’t mind a low income earner paying less than 30% tax, and getting a refund of franking credits to make this happen, franking credits solve his problem perfectly.

If you have a problem with high net worth people getting tax free income because of super, then add a marginal rate to that above certain levels.

Banning franking credit refunds is silly, it just means certain asset classses will be tax more than others.


----------



## Value Collector (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> $70,000 in bank interest from a million dollars ? LOL




It’s not “bank” interest, but I am currently earning 9% on my rate setter account, and That would give you $90k on $1,000,000.

You would then be paying a lower tax rate on that interest, than a shareholder earning a 5% dividend, simply because the money is invested in a company.

In fact if you opened the exact same account in a company name you would pay my tax than if it’s in your own name, that’s just silly rules.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I think the current model is pretty fair, I don’t mind paying 45% tax on my earnings over a certain amount, provided it’s not double taxation on top of the tax already paid at the company level, franking credits solve this problem perfectly.
> 
> I also don’t mind a low income earner paying less than 30% tax, and getting a refund of franking credits to make this happen, franking credits solve his problem perfectly.
> 
> If you have a problem with high net worth people getting tax free income because of super, then add a marginal rate to that above certain levels.



Political biases aside I really can't see anything even slightly unfair about this approach given it's the exact same approach which applies to all other income.

As you say, if there's an issue with high income earners and super then that's the bit to change.


----------



## PZ99 (25 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> What I was meaning frog, was that ANZ back in 2001 when PZ99 bought them were really cheap, if Labor increase the CGT to 75% and he has to sell them, he will be up for a LOT more tax.



I've held them for so long now they're effectively a freehold because of the divvies. 

They pay all my bills and leave me some beer money so will never be sold


----------



## PZ99 (25 March 2019)

Value Collector said:


> We are talking about people owning businesses through companies, eg shareholders.
> 
> You said you wouldn’t worry about franking credits if you were investing a 1,000,000 but the franking credits make a big difference to a $50k dividend
> 
> ...



Sure, I agree with your last sentence.

But it would be nice to bring that 30% down to 20% - which would alleviate half the problems we're discussing here.


----------



## PZ99 (25 March 2019)

rnr said:


> So the choices are:-
> 
> a) increase the tax rates overall - equitable, as all taxpayers will share the burden (and not be      happy) even though, as you say, they are too high already,
> b) resolve the problems relating to Negative Gearing and other welfare handouts that result in        Australia being a high taxing country - equitable, perhaps to some degree although you can      guarantee that certainly not all taxpayers or welfare recipients will be happy or
> c) introduce a tax to solve the problem, which in your own words is inequitable and you don't        have a problem with that.



 Option B first. Then option C wouldn't be so evil. Option A sounds like a Greens policy.


----------



## sptrawler (25 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> I've held them for so long now they're effectively a freehold because of the divvies.
> 
> They pay all my bills and leave me some beer money so will never be sold



That is the way I like to work with the backbone stocks, in my portfolio, it is a shame Shorten has to mess with it.
If I had known the franking credits were going to be changed, I would have kept my PPR, rather than downsizing and sticking the money in super.
The problem is three elections ago, Labor were going to hit Million dollar home owners with the asset test, then next election they were going to tax super earnings above $100k, now it is franking credits.
There is no way, I would believe anything that slimy sod ever said, I wouldn't vote for him, if he had a gun to my head.
He couldn't lie straight in bed. IMO
My rant for the week.


----------



## rnr (25 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Political biases aside I really can't see anything even slightly unfair about this approach given it's the exact same approach which applies to all other income.
> 
> As you say, if there's an issue with high income earners and super then that's the bit to change.




Agree totally and to cap it off it is fair to all parties, which was the point I was making in my earlier post.


----------



## PZ99 (25 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> That is the way I like to work with the backbone stocks, in my portfolio, it is a shame Shorten has to mess with it.
> If I had known the franking credits were going to be changed, I would have kept my PPR, rather than downsizing and sticking the money in super.
> The problem is three elections ago, Labor were going to hit Million dollar home owners with the asset test, then next election they were going to tax super earnings above $100k, now it is franking credits.
> There is no way, I would believe anything that slimy sod ever said, I wouldn't vote for him, if he had a gun to my head.
> ...



Completely reasonable. I wouldn't vote for him either if I was in your position.

I can't wait for this monster budget. ScoMo might bring the tax down to 10% which would end all our problems. LOL


----------



## Value Collector (26 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> What I was meaning frog, was that ANZ back in 2001 when PZ99 bought them were really cheap, if Labor increase the CGT to 75% and he has to sell them, he will be up for a LOT more tax.




Which when you think about it would sting, considering that the reason the capital gains exist is that the companies have been retaining after tax income to build their balance sheet.

Eg, they have earnt money and paid tax on it, but retained it to grow the balance sheet, the balance sheet grew, which created a capital gain, then they want to tax the capital gain.

————-

It’s like buying a money box for $1 and putting $20 after tax dollars in it from your wallet, then selling the money box for $21, and being taxed on a “capital gain”

At least the 50% cgt discount offsets some of this potential for double taxation.

But people that don’t understand how capital gains are formed seem to want us to pay tax on the same $20 twice.


----------



## Humid (26 March 2019)

sptrawler said:


> That is the way I like to work with the backbone stocks, in my portfolio, it is a shame Shorten has to mess with it.
> If I had known the franking credits were going to be changed, I would have kept my PPR, rather than downsizing and sticking the money in super.
> The problem is three elections ago, Labor were going to hit Million dollar home owners with the asset test, then next election they were going to tax super earnings above $100k, now it is franking credits.
> There is no way, I would believe anything that slimy sod ever said, I wouldn't vote for him, if he had a gun to my head.
> ...




https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/fed...after-q-and-a-appearance-20190326-p517i3.html

So you’ll be voting this lot back in lol
Hip pocket voters


----------



## sptrawler (26 March 2019)

Humid said:


> https://amp.smh.com.au/politics/fed...after-q-and-a-appearance-20190326-p517i3.html
> 
> So you’ll be voting this lot back in lol
> Hip pocket voters



If you were coping a 30% hike in your tax, you would be voting the same way, but ATM your in the sweet spot.
You wont always be there.
It's always easy to be smug, when your not in the firing line, silly Billy relies on that and picks off the small target.
Always remember, what goes around, comes around.


----------



## Humid (26 March 2019)

30% of what?


----------



## Humid (26 March 2019)

A few days ago I suggested 6k and you reckon it was the principle 
Now it’s 30%
What’s next death penalty?


----------



## sptrawler (26 March 2019)

Humid said:


> 30% of what?



30% of what I was getting, it's ok to be smug and superior, but when you have your retirement shot to $hit, by changing the rules after 20 years in one hit.
What if your company said, by the way we are putting you, on the award rate?
That would get your attention, just because you follow a w@nker, doesn't mean you have to be one.


----------



## Humid (26 March 2019)

Buy an Indian at your age and im the w@nker
Ok for you and your mob to cut penalties
How does it feel when you get bent over
Tosser


----------



## sptrawler (26 March 2019)

Humid said:


> Buy an Indian at your age and im the w@nker
> Ok for you and your mob to cut penalties
> How does it feel when you get bent over
> Tosser



OW.


----------



## Humid (26 March 2019)

I would define smug as the look on your face when you announced to the world your early retirement 

How did that one work out for you lolz


----------



## qldfrog (26 March 2019)

Another d#ckh##d on my ignore list


----------



## Humid (26 March 2019)

why would you feel you had to announce that
Just do it 
Like anyone gives a rats


----------



## sptrawler (26 March 2019)

Humid said:


> I would define smug as the look on your face when you announced to the world your early retirement
> 
> How did that one work out for you lolz



I obviously 'nailed it', with the example of going back to the award rate.
It certainly hit the nerve, just shows how even someone like yourself, can get a hit.

By the way, I retired because the place closed down, not because I wanted to.lol


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 March 2019)

For the record I don't recall anyone announcing an early retirement and I don't recall anyone here supporting the abolition of penalty rates (though admittedly I haven't checked every word that anyone ever posted to confirm that).


----------



## sptrawler (26 March 2019)

Humid said:


> why would you feel you had to announce that
> Just do it
> Like anyone gives a rats



Silly Billy gives a rats, he wants to rob me of my savings, to give you a tax cut. lol

Why would I buy an Indian at my age, because I would rather spend it on myself, than have don't care Chris dream up another way to steal it, of course.


----------



## sptrawler (26 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> For the record I don't recall anyone announcing an early retirement and I don't recall anyone here supporting the abolition of penalty rates (though admittedly I haven't checked every word that anyone ever posted to confirm that).



My statement with the penalty rates were, they should annualise the pay, to incorporate the penalties then they all get a pay rise.  It lifts the base rate and is included in their super and holiday pay, but as usual people can't hear themselves, over their screaming. lol


----------



## Humid (26 March 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> For the record I don't recall anyone announcing an early retirement and I don't recall anyone here supporting the abolition of penalty rates (though admittedly I haven't checked every word that anyone ever posted to confirm that).




Try reading the post above


----------



## Value Hunter (27 March 2019)

The proposed changes to capital gains tax is very stupid. Apart from the fact that corporate profits are already taxed hence meaning that capital gains tax is already a form of double taxation (they do not have capital gains tax in New Zealand), the reason that the CGT (capital gains tax) discount was originally set at a level of 50% was that under the previous system capital gains where indexed to inflation. Over a period of many years the ATO/government realized that this resulted on average people paying tax on 50% of the capital gain.

As part of various reforms at the time to simplify the tax system at the time they changed the inflation indexing system for calculating capital gains tax to the current  flat 50% discount system. This resulted in a similar amount of revenue for the ATO (at the time) but with a much less complicated tax system. The current proposed change means that investors could end up paying unreasonably high taxes when you take the effect the impact of inflation on capital gains.

Value Collector although I agree with you that CGT is a stupid tax for the reason you mention, technically what you are saying does not apply in all cases. For example you could buy shares in a loss making micro-cap company for $1 and then one year later when the share price goes to $2 (and the company is still loss making) due to hype, etc. you sell the shares for a capital gain. That capital gain was clearly not generated by retained profits and the company paid no corporate profit tax to the government. But yes generally and in aggregate your point remains valid and I agree with it.

Also the way labour paints the "cost" of the capital gains tax discount here https://www.alp.org.au/negativegearing is absurd. It is flawed accounting and they are trying to present a that a lower than otherwise growth rate in capital gains tax receipts/revenue (note capital gains tax receipts still grow over time) as being equal to an increase in costs to the economy. 

What labour is saying would be like me saying I get paid $100,000 this year and my employer agreed to increase my salary to $103,000 next year. In previous years my employer always gave me a 5% pay increase. The 'cost' of only getting a 3% salary increase instead of the 5% I should have gotten is a $2000 (pre-tax) 'cost' to my bottom line. Thereby my employer 'cost' me $2000. Can everybody see how absurd that sounds?


----------



## Value Hunter (27 March 2019)

New Zealand has no capital gains tax. They do this to encourage investment. Estonia has a flat 21% corporate tax rate except that they have an offset for reinvested earnings, therefore in Estonia companies pay zero tax on earnings that are reinvested into the country. They do this to encourage investment. But in Australia because we are fast becoming a socialist banana republic we need to target all of those "wealthy" people with investments. Even the working class man with a $60,000 per year salary who has only a $40,000 share portfolio. If he can afford to buy shares he must be 'wealthy', therefore we must make him pay a lot of tax.

The man in the example above payed tax (PAYG) on his salary. After paying his taxes he then decided to save a portion of that salary every year to invest in shares. The company he bought shares in then payed corporate profit tax to the government. The shares pay him a fully franked dividend. He must then pay some tax on the dividend because his top marginal tax bracket is 32.5% (not even including the medicare levy) whereas the dividend is only franked to 30%. The company he owns shares in reinvests a portion of the profit each year. After 5 years he sells some shares to realize a capital gain (thanks to the reinvested profits of the company). He must then pay a capital gains tax when he sells the shares. With the proceeds of the share sale he spends a little bit of it on consumer goods (where he pays 10% GST) and the rest of the money goes towards the deposit on purchasing a property where he must pay stamp duty on the purchase, as well as annual land tax, council rates and a capital gains tax when he eventually sells the property. How many ******* times does this poor working class bugger have to pay taxes to the government? No wonder its so hard for anybody to get ahead in this socialist banana republic called Australia.


----------



## Value Hunter (27 March 2019)

Australia does not have a problem of insufficient tax revenue. We have more than enough tax revenue. We have a problem of excessive government spending which needs to be cut.


----------



## PZ99 (27 March 2019)

Value Hunter said:


> Australia does not have a problem of insufficient tax revenue. We have more than enough tax revenue. We have a problem of excessive government spending which needs to be cut.



That's pretty much what I've been saying in this thread Value Hunter. 
We are overtaxed because we keep giving too much money away. 

Any proposals on what services should be cut? Neg Gearing perhaps? Paid maternal leave? International aid? NDIS? Anything else?


----------



## Value Hunter (27 March 2019)

PZ99 as to what should be cut, where to begin. We would need a whole other thread to discuss that!


----------



## Junior (27 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Neg Gearing perhaps? Paid maternal leave? International aid? NDIS? Anything else?




Only neg gearing from that list.

Paid maternal leave is 18 weeks at minimum wage, hardly excessive!!  I wouldn't be opposed to limiting it beyond a certain number of children, however.


----------



## qldfrog (27 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> That's pretty much what I've been saying in this thread Value Hunter.
> We are overtaxed because we keep giving too much money away.
> 
> Any proposals on what services should be cut? Neg Gearing perhaps? Paid maternal leave? International aid? NDIS? Anything else?



Definitively NDIS on its current firm, remove one level of government, reduce tax complexity and slash ato ato number to match, atop spending billions on useless outdated military toys submarines,fighters, reduce army overall,reduce laws and regulations, bureaucracy saving money and the planet, 
In a process of rebuilding a house i think 30 to 40pc of costs are mandatory useless red or green tape 
I couldcgo withwexamples forfpages..a ussr type joke
WeWe wou be well over the 100 billions better just with the above
The real issue is australians are fully unaware on how highly taxed they are for the provided services
If they compare to bali, they see no service or europe they do not see the services...or the debt
Socialist banana republic indeed


----------



## HelloU (27 March 2019)

Humid said:


> Buy an Indian at your age and im the w@nker
> Ok for you and your mob to cut penalties
> How does it feel when you get bent over
> Tosser



Penalty rates were cut by the Fair Work Commission ...... the Fair Work Commission was created by the Fair Work Act 2009 as part of the Rudd Government's reforms to industrial relations in Australia.

Bill Shorten is a former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. He supported the work of the commission and its independent nature from government when he was minister.


----------



## PZ99 (27 March 2019)

HelloU said:


> Penalty rates were cut by the Fair Work Commission ...... the Fair Work Commission was created by the Fair Work Act 2009 as part of the Rudd Government's reforms to industrial relations in Australia.
> 
> Bill Shorten is a former Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. He supported the work of the commission and its independent nature from government when he was minister.



It's about as independent as a proxy Govt department. 
In 2012 they recommended no changes to penalty rates. In 2016 they cut the Sunday rate. 
In both cases they were lobbied by the Govt of the day (ALP, then LNP)

If Labor do win the election they'll need to undo their error and remove penalty rate decisions from FWC.


----------



## HelloU (27 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> It's about as independent as a proxy Govt department.
> In 2012 they recommended no changes to penalty rates. In 2016 they cut the Sunday rate.
> In both cases they were lobbied by the Govt of the day (ALP, then LNP)
> 
> If Labor do win the election they'll need to undo their error and remove penalty rate decisions from FWC.



I think the same about many of the High Court decisions. Perhaps the answer is to get rid of all these "independent" bodies and just let the government of the day "rule"  (no thankyou).

Governor General appointed the commission peeps  - perhaps peeps could write him a letter of complaint if unhappy (or send a letter to his boss)


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 March 2019)

PZ99 said:


> Any proposals on what services should be cut? Neg Gearing perhaps? Paid maternal leave? International aid? NDIS? Anything else?



Corporate and upper-middle class welfare would be the obvious place to start.

Corporate welfare alone is many $ billions both direct and semi-hidden.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 March 2019)

Value Hunter said:


> Estonia has a flat 21% corporate tax rate except that they have an offset for reinvested earnings, therefore in Estonia companies pay zero tax on earnings that are reinvested into the country. They do this to encourage investment



I know practically nothing about Estonia beyond their use of oil shale (that's a hard rock, solid material not a liquid and Estonia is the only country making major use of it as an energy source) but as a concept this sounds like a good one.

Pay tax but we'll give it back if you invest the money within the country.

Sounds like a good idea to me since it encourages investment.

Easy money from mining, asset sales and a credit bubble has given us lazy governments at all levels which see no need to innovate.


----------



## sptrawler (29 March 2019)

You have to read this, what a hoot, take about weird reporting.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...s-negative-gearing-wanes-20190329-p518xx.html

From the article:
The overall number of people negatively gearing a property has fallen over the past four years but the proportion with more than three properties now amounts to almost one in 10.


The article doesn't say how many have more than 3 properties, but allude to one in ten, is that of the population?
Of course not, but you can see why they are dumbing down the education system, easy to sell a bunny. lol


----------



## sptrawler (1 April 2019)

These franking credits, from retirees and low income people, are going to have to go a long way. Now Labor are going to give business a tax deduction for electric cars.lol

https://www.drive.com.au/news/labor...ign=tile-1&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=smh
From the article:
Labor is also calling for a government fleet target of 50 per cent by 2025, as well as allowing businesses to get an upfront tax deduction to purchase electric vehicles for business purposes.

Add to that the rich keep the franking credits, the rich can negative gear new build investment houses and get Government rent assistance.

I'm glad I'm helping out.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2019)

If Labor wants to cut something then private health insurance subsidies would be a good place to start.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04...d-away-from-private-hospital-for-age/10961950


----------



## CNHTractor (9 May 2019)

Yet another article on the inequity of Labor's proposal.

https://www.heffron.com.au/blog/article/banning-franking-credit-refunds-is-there-another-way

You can only think Labor is lying. Common ploy ala "MediScare" campaign last election


----------



## HelloU (9 May 2019)

i think labor has been very up front with this policy. (that is not an endorsement btw)

trustees of smsf's may not like this policy, but at least they get a choice on what to do if labor form government (and the role of a trustee is to make fund decisions as circumstances demand)

i wonder how many peeps have withdrawn money from accumulation accounts for a house deposit under the new liberal law?  this has only reinforced to me that everything is up for change (from both sides of politics) ...... so my plans need to be fungible.


----------

